< June 11	June 13 >

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

The result was speedy close as disruptive use of AFD in a content dispute. (For those editors tuning in a couple of years late, the content dispute is whether ALF and Alf should be primary-topic disambiguations or equal-weight disambiguations.) Clearly, an administrator hitting a delete button is not what is desired here by the nominator or by anyone else. Uncle G 09:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ALF[edit]

Innocuous at first appearance, this is a very sad, disappointing, dehumanizing and degrading page. The existence of this obscure disambiguation page has somehow caused human beings to treat other human beings in a very hateful way. Any one of the persons who have been harmed by this page's existence is certainly more valuable on the grand scale than the insignificant trivial matters over which this page has spawned such heated harm on its discussion page. Please remove this page of blight and hate. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't want to waste my time figuring out why editors are fighting tooth and nail over this page, but the conflict is not a legitimate reason to delete it. It serves a purpose and should be kept. Clarityfiend 05:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - no valid rationale for deletion. I understand what you're trying to say, but this isn't the way to make your point. Dekimasu よ! 07:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Grow up. Nick mallory 08:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Genuine disambiguation page. Edit warring and content disputes are not valid reasons to delete. - fchd 08:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Journalism of depth[edit]

Two prods have been added and removed. The reasons were that the article is an essay inappropriate for Wikipedia and that it is unverifiable. The article also lacks any sources. Malla nox 23:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This should help. Uncle G 00:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and merge). The article is a long essay about Wadah Khanfar and Al Jazeera. There's some salvagable material, but it needs to be in those two articles - in fact, to a great extent, it already is. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 09:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: The article's been edited down to something much smaller now, but it's still an essay about Wadah Khanfar and Al Jazeera, and the material belongs there. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 12:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete unless written in a more comprehensive way, and sourced properlyDGG 22:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 05:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Washing Machine Wormholes[edit]

Contested prod Seems like original research. 650l2520 23:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but read it once H.L. Mencken did one of these about the history of the bathtub. The scary thing is, if you leave it up, it will be quoted verbatim by several other internet encylopedias. Mandsford 23:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to BJAODN if that page is restored. DGG 23:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The creator of the article, Soames1 (talk · contribs), by xyr contributions is clearly a fan of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and should thus know that it is ball point pens, and not socks, that disappear through wormholes.
It's a joke article. Delete (or rename to BJAODN). Uncle G 00:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN seems to be the place for this assuming the copyvio problems are solved. Capitalistroadster 02:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. . . just for the fun of it -- John Vandenberg 09:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN will always welcome stuff that is moved there (using the move tab) because it maintains attribution. This is no exception. MER-C 09:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per WP:BJAODN.--Edtropolis 20:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to BJAODN. Complete garbage, but very funny! — jammycakes (t) 13:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to BJAODN. It's just too good to be outright deleted as a hoax. --EMS | Talk 01:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ---"...The concept is based on the well-documented sock vortex that exists in domestic washing machine. Most people have experienced one of their socks disappearing for months on end, reappearing when it is no longer needed. This had always presented a duel mystery to scientists, firstly where do the socks go and secondly why are not any other articles of clothing affected..." WTF? This is complete bollocks.--Mike18xx 03:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious parody. —SlamDiego_←T 12:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I just don't find it that funny. -MrFizyx 15:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted by Jmlk17 (talk · contribs). soum ^talk 07:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fieldbarer[edit]

Cites nothing, and yields no google results, sequel article was deleted. Non-notable IMO Alcemáe ^{T • C} 23:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if real it is utterly un-notable, but as it is I can find nothing substantial and presume this a WP:HOAX. --Dhartung | Talk 23:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, While possibly a work in progress, the claims of award winning, top rated, etc., and of films having been made, all demand close scrutiny. If not a hoax, the page can be properly recreated. Pever 00:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax, unless someone can find sources verifying claims of "award-winning". Clamster 01:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about Ronald Reagan[edit]

Let's just IINFO this. Odd. Very odd. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 23:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep::: Odd, yes, but not bad. It makes sense... our 40th President presided during the golden years of MTV. I'm surprised at how many well-known artists had a comment (usually a protest) about Reagan. I doubt any president, before or since-- not Nixon, not Dubya, definitely not Millard Fillmore-- has had so many rock tributes. Mandsford 23:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Actually encyclopedic. It's easy to quote IINFO, but harder to say why an encyclopedia should not contain information like this. DGG 23:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is excessive. At best, a few examples could be given in an article or section demonstrating the cultural impact of Ronald Reagan, but this list in itself is not particularly encyclopaedic or necessary. The fact that these songs are about Ronald Reagan demonstrates nothing for us about either the songs or Reagan, whereas a short, well-writen section about his cultural impact that mentioned or two of these as an example would be far more effective. GassyGuy 10:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Next we'll have a list of songs about George Bush. --Rabid Monkeys Eat Grass 19:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It makes sense to me to keep this. A concise list to reference is far superior to many songs cluttering up the "Cultural references" section of the actual "Ronald Reagan" site Frog47 21:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a bad precedent; unless we have in a Lernaean Hydra-like way managed to kill off the List of songs containing overt references to real musicians only to let sprout hundreds of lists that pass muster under the "but its about a certain notable individual" rubric: List of songs about Mick Jagger, List of songs about Bob Dylan, List of songs about Yoko Ono, to which I say OH! NO!. Carlossuarez46 01:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carlossuarez46. —^Jack_Lumber^/tɔk/ 21:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article as it is for obvious failing of WP:UNENC but if it could be cleaned or recreated to something like List of notable songs by notable artists about Ronald Regan then there may be a case to look at it again. A1octopus 18:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT#INFO--Tone 17:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for being, like, uh, <gum-snap>, so what?--Mike18xx 03:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I view the WP:NOT#IINFO argument to be extremely weak (not to mention undeveloped) in this case. I think the fact that the list may constitute original research is a more serious issue. The article claims that these songs are "about Ronald Reagan". Well ... according to whom? The subject of a song is not something that can be definitively deduced from its lyrics. A List of songs that mention Ronald Reagan would avoid the original research problem, but would also hold little or no encyclopedic value. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at worst Merge back into List of songs about politicians, which had overhelming support a couple years back (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about politicians). I would offer to help do some of the much needed clean-up and merger if needed. -MrFizyx 15:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have userfied a copy of the content with the intention of returning some of it to List of songs about politicians (else it leaves a large hole where readers are refered to this article). I'll await some direction from the closing admin before acting. I suggest a redirect to the larger list to preserve edit history. If the larger list is later deleted then this one could be deleted at that time. -MrFizyx 14:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all previous delete comments. Otto4711 14:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 07:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ice wall (information technology)[edit]

This appears to be a neologism, coined only in September of 2006 by a single company (per the article). I have had no success in digging up any independent sources about the topic and the author of the article has yet to present any sources whatsoever. This was a disputed prod. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 22:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This editor is a prankster. ~ Infrangible 02:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:HOAX. No Ghits for Vince Corp. Article creator's only other edit is vandalism of a disambiguation page. Clarityfiend 05:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - such a blatant hoax, especially obvious when you spot large chunks of its text is just taken from Wikipedia's firewall article with a few words changed. ~Matticus ^T_C 13:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete (A7). soum ^talk 07:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Jeffrey Grant[edit]

An entry on an author who fails WP:BIO. Both of the subject's books are published by vanity presses (AuthorHouse and Virtualbookworm.com). A google search for records of his freelance contributions to the South Florida Sun Times results in two distinct hits - an Amazon.fr bio and this self-same article. Victoriagirl 22:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, but redirect to Vacuums (film). soum ^talk 07:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vacuums[edit]

No assertion or evidence of Notability. Article is a single sentence. Fails WP:N. The Parsnip! 18:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vacuum ((R from plural)) -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 19:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what does the proposed redirect have to do with the subject of the article under discussion (not to mention that the word is not used in the plural except as an abbreviation for vacuum cleaners?)DGG 02:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was more of an agree to delete, but then redirect to vacuum- and vacuum can be plural when you're talking about multiple vacuums, right? (as in the absence of air, which is what I think vacuum is describing). Or was I way off? It happens sometimes. I guess I just assumed vacuums could be a plural, or at least a plausible typo? (considering I made it!) -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 03:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it seems vacua already redirects to vacuum, and both that and vacuums are plurals of vacuum (according to the dictionary). -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 03:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Am I missing something here, or is this a film produced by Quincy Jones and starring Chevy Chase? And if so, wouldn't that make it notable? Maxa megalon 2000 05:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources reinforce notability, its not inherited from people associated with it. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 05:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not voting here, but if the article does get kept, it should be moved to vacuums (film) and vacuums redirected to vacuum. Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 11:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 22:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand, notable film, move to Vacuums (film). Corvus cornix 22:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very few and trivial mentions of film in Google News Archive. Apparently it's a direct-to-video (intentionally or not) follow-up to Stomp Out Loud, the first movie about Stomp (dance troupe). Alternately, merge to one of those. --Dhartung | Talk 23:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Vacuums (film). I disagree with wizzard2k; Chevy Chase and Quincey Jones' involvement does elevate it to notability. Clarityfiend 05:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, expand and move to Vacuums (film) - as per Clarityfriend and Corvus cornix. (Discussion as to redirection seems to be a result of misunderstanding.) Pever 00:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Novogradac & Company LLP[edit]

Advertising. The IP address for the SPA creating the article is San Francisco, the home city of the company, so I smell COI. I have twice now added the ((ad)) tag, which the editor has now twice deleted. This is clearly advertising. It reads as if it was ripped from the company's website. All of the edits are by SPAs. Note that User:1wombat1 is repeatedly removing the AfD tag. Looking at the history, the article has been PRODded and had cleanup and ad tags added, and the editors keep deleting all of the tags with no comments. Corvus cornix 22:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing reads like an advertisement. Delete. ДҖ--Huanghe63^talk 23:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Previous prod removed by anon IP. Look at the edit history: many of the older edits read "change approved by Michael Novogradac:" in effect, WP is hosting a second homepage for this company. Plus the article has no independent sources. Can someone warn the anon IP about removing the AfD tag? UnitedStatesian 23:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have warned. They have finally responded on my Talk page. Corvus cornix 23:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The warnings have done no good, they keep deleting the tag even after four warnings including a final. I've listed them at WP:AIV. Corvus cornix 01:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 24 hours. The tag doesn't make much difference anyway. People will still see this AFD at the log page.--Chaser - T 01:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the original creator of the page. I am new to wiki editing. My original article was just a few paragraphs. It was then expanded heavily by another user. I saw "this page reads like an advertisement" tags every now and then, so I'd edit language that looked too glowing to be more neutral or cut things here and there. I would then remove the tag (thought if an administrator put it on it would be impossible for me to remove; it was possible to remove, so removed in conjunction with making edits.) Company is well-known in affordable housing and real estate sectors. Lack of controversy about company should not make page "non-neutral" should it? Page appears neutral to me. Some other editors actually made some productive edits to make it more concise, two others just slapped tags on and made threatening comments on my userpage "removing my tags is vandalism and very RUDE!" Luckily, other editors make good revisions to enhance quality instead of being on power trip. 1wombat1

It seems a bit disingenuous to claim "I didn't know that I wasn't supposed to remove AfD tags" when the notice itself says "Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed." And your vandalism of Corvus cornix's user page didn't help matters. If you thought the article should be retained, why didn't you come here to comment, as the notice told you to? Deor 19:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just found out that this page is a real location. Since the coding is so open, I thought Corvus Cornix was a rogue trying to cause grief by typing threatening stuff in the tag. Can't a person type ANYTHING in a tag, like "Don't remove this tag or your computer will be destroyed and you'll be arrested!"? Anyway, the page looks pretty concise now. I've done a few more edits today (without removing any tags even). 1wombat1 14 June 2007.

Delete. Bacon and spam, bacon eggs and spam, spam spam eggs bacon and spam, and rat tart. Groupthink 20:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless fixed -- It's just pure pink stuff in a rectangle can right now. Chainsaw it all off, find some notable references, fix, and report back. Shouldn't be hard, if there are any.--Mike18xx 03:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Stark[edit]

Not a notable person. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Samthephilosopher (talk • contribs).

Delete, no biographical sources found (not even Harper's website). Nominator is possibly the subject per this undo; clarification welcomed. --Dhartung | Talk 23:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yes, nominator is the subject and (alas) is not a notable person by Wikipedia standards. --Samthephilosopher 17:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Energy[edit]

Unencyclopedic, totally unsourced, reads like ad copy. This could be pulled from an advertising flyer in a grocery store. User:RandomHumanoid^(talk) 22:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Article may be poorly sourced, but is not unsourceable. A search of Google News reveals many third-party reliable sources reporting on Monster Energy, such as [1], [2], and [3] Monster Energy is a clearly a notable product, and the aritcle's problems warrant clean-up, but not deletion. -- Schaefer (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Delicious source of caffeine. ~ Infrangible 02:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I disagree with your decision, I certainly enjoy your commentary...--User:RandomHumanoid^(talk) 05:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per above. --Yarnalgo _{talk to me} 05:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd vote to keep this article, but I'm not awake enough at the moment. I'll let you know this afternoon after I've had an energy drink. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 07:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Radio Survey[edit]

Clearly a hoax, says it is a current radio station but not listed on the BBC radio site and produces no relevant search results. Speedy changed to prod by an admin, which was then contested. matt br 21:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is lies--Doc^g 22:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax - and remarkably similar in style and content to a few similar articles deleted previously during this AfD. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 00:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a hoax. So too are the other various articles created by Arkalsi5 (talk · contribs), including Saskatoon Heros Stadium, BBC 2000, and Saskatoon Heros. Delete. Uncle G 00:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. --Haemo 01:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax.--DanielRigal 09:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's true, even BBC does not mention the existence of this station, obviously a hoax.--Kylohk 14:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep all. There may be one or two odd 'exception', in which they should be nominated separately. - Mailer Diablo 08:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of people by cause of death[edit]

I am listing this list and all the sub-lists for deletion. What this articles list, are just 10-30 people who died by the same cause of death. If cause of death is important, the only place it should be mentioned is the article about the person (or eventually, in the article about anorexia nervosa there can be some people from the list mentioned. Not to mention that there are no sources, save biographies. ) Tone 21:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Tone 21:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if you're going to nominate pages for deletion, you do need to mark all of them. If you're not already doing so, I suggest you start. FrozenPurpleCube 22:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I did it. Here is the list:

I removed List of professional cyclists who died during a race because I find it somehow more self consistent. --Tone 22:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' List of racing drivers who died in racing crashes as it is reasonably consistent under the same terms as above for cyclists. No opinion on the rest. FrozenPurpleCube 22:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also keep Space disaster which list of space disasters redirects to. That's a reasonable narrow subject. FrozenPurpleCube 22:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this one actually does not fit in. I removed it, it was not nominated. But I think the rest of them is the same category. --Tone 22:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all and have a general community-wide policy discussion on lists. All of these sorts of lists have been systematically deleted, and I am not sure that WPedians in general realise this or whether they would approve. It's easy to find reasons to delete any particular list of people by.... . There may be much less consensus of the general rule of not having them. DGG 22:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep all; I agree entirely with DGG, especially about the community-wide policy discussion on lists. I think that only a small minority actually dislike seeing information organized in lists. Most of us find lists to be a quick reference. Listmaking didn't start with Irving Wallace. The World Almanac was doing it more than 100 years ago; many non-fiction books have an appendix. Nobody has to read a list if they don't want to. Mandsford 23:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, further endorse a community discussion on list keep/toss policy. There has been an ongoing deletion of lists for some time and I understand how often they can be unsourced and even unencyclopedic, but, disagree that they need to be tossed like last week's grocery list. --Dhartung | Talk 23:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but with two exceptions; Some of these lists needs toning down as there is a separate list where they belong as you can see in the category page. As for those I would like to nominate for deletion, I would like to suggest the unlisted List of sportspeople who have died during their playing career, as for the reason that it is indiscrimate and rather than just delete, split for the reason that most of these entries should be included on any of these listed above and there should be a list about sportspeople who died on-the-field. As for List of racing drivers who died in racing crashes, I would like to suggest trimming it down as there is a separate lists for fatalities in races (Indy 500 and Le Mans), circuits (Daytona) and even series (CART and F1). I would like to suggest deleting List of deaths by aircraft misadventure as there is another list called List of people who died in aviation-related incidents, in another word, that's two of the same lists and double the housework. Willirennen 00:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A pathologist would tell you these aren't really causes of death so much as the circumstances surrounding their deaths. A cause of death would be something like: their heart stopped. ~ Infrangible 02:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good to know that Caesar and Kennedy weren't assassinated; their hearts stopped. Carlossuarez46 04:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some people hate lists, I'm not one of their number. This is useful information. I don't agree with splitting the motor racing articles up either as it simply makes such information much harder to find and compare. Nick mallory 02:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. --Evb-wiki 03:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As we in fact have featured-quality lists, obviously there is no proscription against lists and lists are not universally (in)discriminate. Might you speak to the extent to which these lists are or are not discriminate? --Dhartung | Talk 08:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The featured-quality lists (as well as other lists worth keeping) provide textual context indicating the similarities, differences and connection the listed items have (i.e., they are not mere lists). Here we have items simply listed without texual explanation as to the connection (and usually without real info about the item itself). Of course, the only connection these items have to each other is identified in the articles' titles. --Evb-wiki 13:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all *Keep how one dies is about as defining as it gets in the bio business. Carlossuarez46 04:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, I disagree with the nominator's assertion that this information only belongs in the subject's articles, and the suggestion that the old "indiscriminate information" anti-list catch-all applies. Can do with some cleanup, but the ones I checked are pretty well referenced, and as long as the lists are restricted to notable individuals (i.e. subjects of a Wikipedia article), they are a notable and worthwhile inclusion. --Canley 13:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some (e.g. racing), delete others, so I guess Keep on the nom. as written. JJL 13:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some of the lists may be out there but a majority of them do not seem bad to me. Group noms in this situation are generally not a good idea. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all wiki is not paper - if there are no references the tag as such - I pretty much agree with the comments of user canley, sbandrews (t) 17:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some, but not the ones that are too broad, e.g. starvation, volcanic eruptions, childbirth, suicides. Clarityfiend 18:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see the nomination was too massive. When this closes, I will renominate some of them separately. --Tone 19:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as per DGG. Useful also to see where the gaps are - IE people listed who don't have an article. Lugnuts 20:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - T-75|talk|contribs 05:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, but every entry on each page should be verified with reliable sources Merbabu 10:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment where is List of people who died of AIDS?— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:(({1))}|(({1))}]] ([[User talk:(({1))}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/(({1))}|contribs]])

That list you are talking about is List of HIV-positive people. Willirennen 17:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 07:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of lawn tennis clubs[edit]

I'm not sure if any of the entries on this list merit articles, but I'm concerned that this list is unmaintainable at best. FrozenPurpleCube 21:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Tone 22:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Maybe we can get them to make "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate guide of lawn tennis clubs" to WP:NOT. Let's WP:IINFO this. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 23:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just a list. JJL 13:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barakat Ahmad[edit]

The article does not establish the notability of this person on whom virtually no biographical information (only the institution where he received his doctorate) is available from reliable sources. The bulk of the article is devoted to the exposition of Ahmad's thesis on Muhammad and the Jews of Medina, which is not an appropriate use of a biogrpahical entry in an encyclopedia. Beit Or 19:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep In fact it does. Regarding the notability of his thesis, it is notable: for example "The Oxford Handbook of Jewish history" (p.198) says: "In recent decades there has been considerable discussion, on both sides of the larger debate, around the issue of Muhammad's own policy toward the Jews of Medina (e.g. Gil 1974; Arafat 1976; Ahmad 1979; Rubin 1985; Kister 1986)"

Prof. Blankenship, an assistant professor in Islamic Studies at Temple University's Department of Religion in an interview with Jude Wanniski (the interview if available on the official website of Jude Wanniski [4]) says:

The Muslim scholar Walid Arafat wrote an article now available on the Internet that this never took place, and the Indian Muslim writer Barakat Ahmad wrote a whole book, "Muhammad and the Jews," to disprove it. My own Jewish professor Jere Bacharach said after reading that book, "I am convinced it never happened." On the other hand, M. J. Kister, the dean of Israeli historians at the Hebrew University, wrote an article reaffirming that it must have happened.

P.S. The M. J. Kister's article is the reference found in the quote from The Oxford Handbook of Jewish history.

--Aminz 20:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be the most recent example of an unwelcome trend in which articles on non-notable scholars are created in order to shore up the case for their disputed use on other articles. (Note that Aminz above created this article.)Proabivouac 20:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad is a real scholar, so is his work. F.E. Peters, a known historian of Islam, dedicated his book "Judaism, Christianity, and Islam" to Barakat Ahmad writing: "For Barakat Ahmad in whose true spirit this work was conceived, and to whose joyfully recollected memory it is now gratefully dedicated"

I am surprised by the high quality of his book, Muhammad and the Jews. In the preface it says: "Professor Bernard Lewis went over the manuscript word by word and gave practical and helpful suggestions which have influenced almost every chapter of the book. This book has been greatly benefitted from his penetrating comments and his advice on the value of Muslim and Jewish sources... Prof. Nicola Ziadeh helped me to formulate my ideas when the book was nothing more than a conversation peace..Finally, I have to thank Prof. Lois A. Giffen, who spent much time- which she could ill afford- in first pointing out discrepancies in the manuscript and then correcting the proofs of the book..."

Proabivouac,I would be thankful if you could write one paragraph on your arguments; and your attacks, rhetoric and insults on another paragraph. As you might have noticed before, I don't care much about your provocative comments but if I were to reply to that it would be faster for me if you could separate comments on the subject and the rest. --Aminz 05:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Attacks, rhetoric and insults?" Please be specific.Proabivouac 05:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Seems pretty clear-cut. Arrow740 22:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If we go by WP:PROF, he's in--both his books, including the one on Koranic script, have been published by major academic publishers, both have been cited, and one of them has given rise to a scholarly topic and substantial works specifically devoted to it. I'm adding some more references. Keeping it out seems like POV. The motive for insertion and the author of the WP article does not affect whether the work itself is notable. DGG 22:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found enough to show he is acknowledged by the mainstream Islamic Studies community in the European-American world. Looks suspiciously like the opposition is the assumption that the scholarship will be inferior.DGG 23:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the bibliographical citations in the article strongly suggest that he is notable, I'd agree with Beit Or that more biographical information would improve the article. DuncanHill 23:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Per Wikipedia:Notability (academics), Ahmad satisfies the criteria. Per above, I agree that more information baout the person will be helpful.Bless sins 03:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bless sins, the very guideline to which you link states:

"Note that if an academic is notable only for their connection to a single concept, paper, idea, event or student it may be more appropriate to include information about them on the related page, and to leave the entry under the academic as a redirect page."Proabivouac 05:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

turns out that while his thesis is the more notable, his linguistic work is also cited. DGG 22:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable academic and this is no place to regurgitate his thesis. Nick mallory 08:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is notable for being a pioneer among Muslim scholars in dealing with the Jews of Yathrib. Also, please see my comment under my vote above about his thesis. --Aminz 08:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - notability the article has started to be expanded, as Beit Or suggested, and now includes further biographical information about Mr Ahmad's service in the Indian Diplomatic service, which supports the claim for notability. DuncanHill 10:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 16:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per recent references added. ITAQALLAH 16:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and ITAQALLAH. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 17:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep While his scholarship seems limited to a single (unprovable) hypothesis, the additional details seem to make him minimally notable. (Please don't reply with the obligatory comment about theological historians and provability.) I certainly do wish the standards for notability would be raised here, but this isn't the place for that discussion.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 16:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Where is the multiple non-trivial reliable source coverage for this person? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Anyone with access to Google will easily find multiple references to him from academic journals, unfortunately I cannot afford the subscriptions to access those journals. It should also be noted that his work at the UN predated the internet, so it is likely that he will have fewer hits than someone of similar notability working nowadays - certainly online UN resources only date back a few years. I will add that I am not impressed by the quality of some of the 'delete' comments here, the original nom addressed the lack of biographical detail - this has started to be addressed, and the restatement of his thesis, which while it may be a thesis some find objectionable for reasons of their own, is a part of what makes him notable.DuncanHill 22:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I can't delete an author who is published on Routledge and other notable press when I still haven't made up my mind whether or not I would delete Jerald F. Dirks or the Mark A. Gabriel books up for deletion, both of whom are published on minor religious presses with minimal reliable outside references. I also am not sure I agree with "which is not an appropriate use of a biogrpahical entry in an encyclopedia" when I think WP:BLP is leading us away from personal facts about people who are publicly known for their work (i.e. scholars) and not themselves (i.e. tabloid celebrities). gren グレン 06:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks notable enough (per gren), hence keep. --- A. L. M. 08:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well referenced article.IP198 14:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above--Sefringle^Talk 01:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Any BLP issues can be addressed by editing the article. John Vandenberg 01:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regrettable Keep Inasmuch as I think "Islamic studies" is complete and utter tripe, and that having a "doctorate" in "Arab history" doesn't qualify one to be a dogcatcher or drive a cab let alone be expected to tell the honest truth about anything, I must regrettably observe that this man has managed to claw his way to the "notability" guidelines I must also adhere to when I am scrounging for the leanest of references to buttress an eminently worthier article whose subject the incessantly deplorable mainstream press won't touch. Aside from that, I completely agree with User:Proabivouac's assessment -- if Wikipedia is going to allow all of these guys in, then every two-bit, hustling Elmer Gantry with a "doctorate" from Bible College Diploma Mill University with a couple ghostwritten books and articles is qualified for entry too. Note: I will eagerly change my vote to Delete should it be discovered that his bona-fides have been massaged, or, for that matter, should it be demonstrated that he's a flat-out liar (which will render him non-credible, non-authoritative, etc).--Mike18xx 04:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Ocatecir ^T 20:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pitt Club[edit]

So it's an exclusive club. Does that make it notable enough to pass WP:ORG? I can't find anything I'm sure is specifically about this club, it seems to be a rather common name. FrozenPurpleCube 21:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How is this different than articles on Eating Clubs at Princeton or secret societies at Yale? Gabefarkas 00:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, feel free to nominate them, or point me to them, if you don't care to do it yourself. This AFD isn't about them though, this is about the Pitt Club. If you look at WP:WAX you'll see the explanation of why it's not that convincing to refer to these other articles. Which you didn't even specificy, so how do we know? I mean, I know of Skull and Bones but with [5] a CBS news report, I'll accept that they're notable (and that's not even getting into the numerous other available sources). If you can produce the equivalent for this club, I'd be willing to consider otherwise. But without that, there's no real relationship between the two. Therefore, I suggest you look at this article, and offer an argument as to why it in particular should be kept. Or refute the reason I gave in my nomination. FrozenPurpleCube 00:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep But there has to be references; I can't find an extended discussion, but there are numerous mentions in google books for individuals who were members--I added one for a particularly notable member, & from a less notable non-member. (and for comparison, the select clubs at Harvard and Yale are all discussed in non-University sources; the Princeton ones are a mixed lot, but for many their individual history is notable & has sources.)

Unfortunately they are trivial mentions. They don't make for a convincing case in their own right. FrozenPurpleCube 23:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With cleanup and expansion will meet notability criteria. I notice this editor has put up a raft of AfD which seem to relate exclusively to Oxford and Cambridge university societies. Some may be justified; other are certainly not - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Experimental Theatre Club. WP:WAX is an essay, not a policy btw. Johnbod 02:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How will it meet notability criteria? What sources exist? And if you're wondering why I've nominated a bunch of these societies it's because I came across the categories, wondered if the articles were actually notable or not, and decided that there was a problem with some of them. If you can make a fair case for any of them to be kept, go ahead and do so, but when an article has no significant third-party sources, it's a problem. Do you think my actions are unreasonable, and if so, why? Do you believe I have some grudge against Oxford or Cambridge? BTW, while ATA may be an essay, that doesn't make it wrong, if anything, claiming it's just an essay misses the point, because instead of addressing the concern, you're trying to attack something else. I'm afraid that's not convincing. You'd do better to offer sources on this club instead. FrozenPurpleCube 02:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per above. Interesting article of notable club. No reason to delete. Obviously needs expanded, but it would be a shame to lose it.--Counter-revolutionary 11:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, why and what is it notable for? This is a notable Cambridge society. This article lack multiple independent non trivial sources and therefore fails WP:V, it secondly does not outline why the club is notable and therefore fails WP:N and WP:ORG.--Vintagekits 13:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Folkspraak[edit]

Folkspraak language was nominated for deletion on 2005-12-29. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Folkspraak language.

Article fails to establish notability through references in reliable third-party publications. Search of academic journals on EBSCOhost yields no results, and Google Scholar returns four results: three are from 1934 and earlier (predating the language's creation) and the fourth is a trivial mention where Folkspraak is included in a long list of minor constructed languages. As far as I am able to determine, there exist no books, journal articles, or third-party sources of any kind reporting on Folkspraak. This language seems to exist only in a Yahoo Groups mailing list and the self-published websites of its members. Schaefer (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search reveals that nothing has substantially changed since the last AFD discussion. My rationale from that discussion therefore still stands. Ironically, these messages on a Yahoo! Groups discussion forum indicate that the proponents of the language don't know of any sources, either. The article remains, as it was before and as it has remained for one and a half years, unverifiable and original research. Delete. Uncle G 23:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom, and UncleG's comments in the prior debate. A search of major papers and German newssources also turns up no hits. - Aagtbdfoua 01:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to consider that auxiliary languages are rarely covered by major news media or other mainstream sources that might be consulted on other subjects. A search of the Time archive turns up no mention more recent than 1950 of any auxiliary language other than Interlingua and Esperanto. Cal 00:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Folkspraak is one of today's better-known constructed languages, and as a Germanic interlanguage not only unique in its kind, but also highly representative of the subgenre of interregional languages. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 14:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That Folkspraak is one of today's better-known constructed languages isn't saying much—conlangs are so numerous and obscure that one can be "better-known" with a speaker body of 20 people. There are over sixty million people who can correctly claim to be more famous than 99% of the population, but that doesn't mean they all get Wikipedia articles. The notability requirement for a subject having its own article is that the subject has non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Every source presented in the article is self-published, thus not useful for establishing notability. As for Folkspraak being representative of a notable subject, I can't see what point you're making. I could claim to be representative of chess players, and chess is clearly a notable subject, but that doesn't mean I should get an article. -- Schaefer (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That analogy is admittedly a bit flawed. If you really were representative of chess players, I reckon you would probably have an article, because chess players is a very large group. Conlangers is a far smaller group—in more general words, constructed languages is not a notable enough field for notability within the field to suggest general notability. In a field of greater notability (like chess, I'd say) this line of reasoning could very well be used, though. This whole thing is a bit OT, anyway, but there we go. EldKatt (Talk) 20:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The vast majority of auxiliary languages, constructed or not, probably shouldn't have a Wikipedia article. However, I wouldn't include among them the one most prominent Germanic auxiliary language that is spoken today. Most auxiliary languages aren't covered in mainstream academic journals; Folkspraak's absence there says little about the language. I've never heard of an auxiliary language with only 20 speakers being considered "better known." In practice, they're most often characterized as "defunct" or "unused". It concerns me that auxiliary languages are being nominated for deletion without sufficient knowledge of the genre. This could result in articles on important languages being deleted, while trivial projects remain. I'm also seeing a troubling bias against auxiliary languages per se. Dislike of a subject shouldn't be a reason for deletion, but I've seen it happen to more than one auxiliary language article. Again, I think that only a small number of auxiliary languages should have Wikipedia articles, but that the decision to delete should be an informed one. Cal 17:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Most auxiliary languages aren't covered in mainstream academic journals; Folkspraak's absence there says little about the language." It says a great deal about the notability of small auxiliary languages in general. Wikipedia should not cover subjects that academic journals, news media, and popular press have all consistently ignored. There are, undoubtedly, notable conlangs. Languages like Volapük, Esperanto, Ido, and Interlingua have been reported on in great detail in reliable print sources. Folkspraak has not. The fact that there exist many auxiliary languages less notable than Folkspraak does not make Folkspraak notable. -- Schaefer (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Observation: Trying to judge this matter fairly, the first thing I notice is that the page as it stands is poorly referenced. I have a very distinct feeling that it can't get any better on this point, and that only the very existence of the language is truly verifiable. This leads me to consider a delete vote. However, I have not personally looked at/for sources to the extent necessary for me to say right away that this is the case, and, as such, I am undecided. My inclination is to see if anything besides the title can be properly referenced, and if not, delete. Until either side convinces me that they are correct, I am undecided. EldKatt (Talk) 20:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ptcamn 01:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since notability and third-party sources seem to be sticking points, I've brought out an aspect of Folkspraak's notability - its being the major Germanic auxiliary language - and have added two third-party sources that verify some of the information in the article. While one of the sources is in a blog, it is written by a Dean at the University of Louisville so should be fairly reliable. These are not print sources; to my knowledge, this isn't a requirement. A third source is an article in a Swedish-language newspaper. I haven't added it, given that English-language sources are available. Cal 01:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A claim of notability isn't worth much unless it is verifiable. You added a line claiming, "Folkspraak is the major Germanic auxiliary language in current use." On whose authority is this true? More importantly, perhaps, why does this make the language notable? As far as I can tell, there isn't much competition. What is the major Celtic auxiliary language? Does being the major Celtic auxlang give it notability? What about the major Indic auxlang? The major Iranian auxlang? Presumably, the notability associated with these titles is just waiting to be seized by anybody with some friends willing to start writing a dictionary.

As for the sources you added, both are self-published by their authors, and neither author claims to have any credentials as a professional linguist. Thus, neither meets the verifiability requirements of Wikipedia's policy on self-published sources. The Swedish newspaper article could be a different story, and I would appreciate a link to it if there is a copy of the text available online. -- Schaefer (talk) 01:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link you provided says "a relevant field"; it doesn't specify the same field as the subject of the article. In general, Wikipedia's policies are not meant to be adhered to inflexibly; the first of the third-party sources is Omniglot and is normally considered fairly reliable for information on auxiliary languages. It isn't my responsibility to tell you the major Celtic auxiliary language, answer a series of questions, or really respond to a harangue at all. Notice how much your response differs from the discussion process described here. As stated here, civility is an important principle of Wikipedia, and I'm concerned that the selective haranguing of people who have voted to keep could compromise, or has compromised, the validity of this discussion. Cal 00:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you saw my comment as haranguing. My intent was not to make you feel obligated to dig through Langmaker to answer those questions, but rather to suggest they likely have no answers, and, if they do, the difficulty with which those languages come to mind shows how little notability is associated with being "the major auxiliary language" based on any particular language family. For the issue of the blog author's scholarly work being in relevant field, see my response to Aagtbdfoua below. -- Schaefer (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral pending the provision of a link to the Swedish-language source. If one is not forthcoming by the end of this discussion, then delete for lack of notability and verifiability. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - (I assume) the link to the aforementioned Swedish newspaper article is this. My Swedish is rusty, and I'm having difficulty assessing whether it gets more than a two-sentence mention in the article (I think not). However, Göteborgs-Posten is, at least in my opinion, a much more reliable source than Omniglot (although ironically their WP articles are the same size). - Aagtbdfoua 01:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My attempts at translating. First, the intro:

A language for all men (title). Have you spoken Volapuk recently? No? Esperanto then? Or why not folkspraak? Torgny Nordin examines the state of some of the world's artificial languages.

Then, the paragraph where folkspraak is first mentioned (and as far as I can tell, the only mention):

One of the most recent artificial languages is called folkspraak and is an attempt to create a lingua franca on clean german ground. However, the success has been long in coming: "Ðe hêl erð hadd ên sprâk on' ðe gelîk worde". [a translation of Genesis 11:1 "And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech" in Folkspraak]. On a roman basis, a corresponding attempt has been made with the helper-language Lingua Franca Nova. There the text reads: "E la tota tera ia ave un sola lingua e la mesma parolas." [same phrase translated into LFN]

If the sentences don't make sense above, the fault is no doubt in my translation. My intent is only to show the amount of coverage folkspraak received in the article. The amount seems trivial to me, although we now appear to be in the grey area of opinion whether: the coverage in the Swedish newspaper is non-trivial; or whether Omniglot.com should be regarded as a respectable source (after reading the author's bio and the WP article I see no evidence this should be treated any differently than a blog and have tagged Omniglot for notability.); or whether the dean's blog is good enough, and here, I think it is, unless there is some dispute that this was actually written by the purported author, so keep

The irony, of course, is when Wikipedia has an article with a lynchpin source from "blogspot.com", it only deepens the perception that it is a second-rate encyclopedia (quoting from the very same article)

Folkspraak and Interlingua are elegant, even beautiful efforts to synthesize languages that educated speakers of their source languages can recognize on sight. In the larger realm of language policy, they are to Encyclopædia Britannica as natural languages, pidgins, and creoles are to Wikipedia. Folkspraak and Interlingua are the products of dedicated, erudite professionals

(heaven help all of us non-dedicated, non-erudite professionals) - Aagtbdfoua 03:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really, really don't see how a blog can be given any additional weight as a source by the mere fact that the author happens to be a dean. It's still a blog, written by some guy. Please explain. EldKatt (Talk) 09:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published blogs in general are not encyclopedic sources per WP:SPS, though the policy provides the following exception:

Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field. [emphasis present in original] These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

The issue is not whether Chen is a dean, as being a dean at a law school does not make one a professional researcher in a field relevant to linguistics or constructed languages. Chen's faculty page says:

A member of the University of Minnesota Law School faculty since 1993, Professor Jim Chen teaches and writes in the areas of administrative law, agricultural law, constitutional law, economic regulation, environmental law, industrial policy, legislation, and natural resources law.

None of these fields are relevant to the present subject. Chen's blog doesn't warrant use as a source for an encyclopedia article on a constructed language, let alone use as the only source justifying the article's inclusion—so far, I see no sources with nontrivial coverage that aren't self-published. The Swedish article looks trivial to me, and Omniglot is still just a website put up by some guy, despite its professional-looking design and useful content. -- Schaefer (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge University Scientific Society[edit]

Tagged for importance since December 2006, I'm not seeing any improvement. This society doesn't seem to have significant third-party coverage, thus I'm not sure it meets WP:ORG FrozenPurpleCube 21:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion or sources to establish notability, bordering on advertising for the seminars. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 17:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Plenty of time has been given for the authors of this article to establish notability. 544 hits on google, and the forty or so that I looked into didn't give any information other than the fact it exists. Trusilver 01:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus → default keep. There is sufficient discussion among good faith editors who are attempting to reach consensus but fail to do so to indicate that a consensus cannot at the present time be reached. The argument about copyright violation is potentially valid, in which case, the articles should be addressed according to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. The discussion below suggests that the contents do not fall under the 'blatent copyright' class of speedy deletable articles, but rather require copyright adjudication for proper resolution and precedent setting actions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of deaths in Dream Team[edit]

I've recently come across Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths in The Sopranos series nomination. A brief search shows several smilar lists, that IMO have no encyclopedic content and could be described as fancruft. The guideline I am applying is WP:NOT#IINFO. There are more lists like the upper one, namely:

List of births, marriages and deaths in EastEnders
List of births, marriages and deaths in Emmerdale
List of births, marriages and deaths in Brookside

While those three are notable soap operas, the content could be included in an article like Timeline of ..., but not as a list.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. Tone 21:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lists of deaths and other sort of plot elements, with not third party sources providing real world content, are nothing but derivative works, and thus huge copyright violations for Wikipedia. This is the same reason we don't allow detail, scene-for-scene descriptions of plots for entertainment articles. All non-free content must have real world information, and have justification (i.e. meet fair use requirements) for existence. This includes images, plots, and death/birth/marriage lists. Wikipedia is not a substitution for watching a film/television show/etc. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - information about cultural impact etc. can be found in the individual articles for the characters born, married and deceased - these are, after all, only lists. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Being a list doesn't mean you can escape having encyclopedic content. See Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). To summarize:
  Wikipedia is an out-of-universe source, and all articles about fiction and elements of fiction should take an overall out-of-universe perspective
  BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to refer to the nomination - I'll move them to "Timeline of births, marriages and deaths in ____" if that is what you're after, because, without the title of "List" - they are, esentially a timeline. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if the "Wikipedia is an 'out of universe' source" is that hard. Changing the title doesn't change the information. There is nothing but in-universe information here. Derivative work should be clear. It means it's a violation of copyright, because all this is article is is major plot points from a copyrighted episode. Titles have nothing to do with it. Cover it on a season page, or an episode page where you can include real world content, which will help satisfy fair use criteria. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure if you're familiar with soap operas, but they don't have seasons, and (as EastEnders transmits four episodes a week and Emmerdale six), they don't have separate episode pages on Wikipedia, either, which is why this information is collected in these lists. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whole story of the soap opera can be summarized in an article. Eventually, splitted to decades or similar. --Tone 22:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The EastEnders list was originally on an article called Storylines of EastEnders, but this was split into decades, then the list of births, marriages and deaths at the bottom of the article was split into its own article. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should either be created or dropped entirely. The fact that their television format doesn't permit a "season" article to be created does not change the fact that this article is a derivative work of the show. With NO real world content, this article does not meet the fair use criteria required for non-free material. Thus, it's a violation of copyright and should be deleted. That isn't even mentioning the fact that it's trivial in nature, and lacks any kind of notability. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that an article split it's information doesn't mean it still isn't supposed to follow policies and guidelines. If they did something incorrectly, tough, that doesn't change the fact that they created derivative works that contain absolutely no real world content. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a substitution for watching some soap opera. We have SoapNet for that. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only in America. A list of characters is not a copyright violation - if it is, then how come cast lists exist here without being tagged for deletion? (I know, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but they're never classed as copyright violations, I don't see the difference - just seems like a bad excuse for deletion to be honest) -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the difference. A "List of EastEnders cast members" is fine, if that is what it is. They generally look like this list here. The major difference, which I have tried to get across is that this isn't a cast list, this is a list of plot events. THAT makes it a copyright violation. Listing a character's name isn't, but listing events that occured in a copyrighted program IS. To better explain, the fact that you don't write it up as prose doesn't change what it is. You can dress up a sheep in human clothes, but it's still a sheep. You have a "birth" section, where you just list characters that were "born". The same for death and marriage. The key is, they are not real people (real actors, but not the characters). Part of the "Writing about fiction" criteria is that you do not portray fictional characters as if they are real. That means you don't real character articles in the format of a biography, as you would a living person, and you don't create a list of "deaths". Part of the "Wikipedia is not" points is that Wikipedia is not a list of memorials, not for living people, and especially not for fictional ones. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the information is provided in the list is essentially indiscriminate. There is no real-world context behind having this kind of list, as opposed a list of the world's tallest buildings or a list of the most expensive films. It is essentially trivial in nature, failing to qualify as encyclopedic content. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per above discussions, and nom. Such lists have no encyclopedic value whatsoever. Lists are not immune to notability guidelines. Someguy1221 05:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a copyright violation AFAIK since it summarizes multiple plots, and doesn't attempt to steal from the originators (which is what copyright is there to protect). It is "real world" in the sense that these events occurred in a real world soap opera. Ridding all fictional lists, which according to the above arguments is unencyclopaedic because they portray fictional planets etc. as "real", means you'd have to get rid of List of lost ships of Starfleet, List of Star Wars races (A-E) etc. etc. in the Lists of fictional things Category Stephenb (Talk) 09:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read derivative work. Summarizing a plot is the definition of a derivative work, because you are using non-free content. And this list summarizes every plot, major and minor. Also, please don't play semantics. There is a difference between out of universe, and the in universe tone of this page. Real world content does mean "the fictional real world". These people are not real. When they die, their actors go on to other gigs, they aren't really dead. No one said they shouldn't. I have never seen the lists. There are 2 million articles on Wikipedia, I'm pretty sure I haven't seen anywhere near all of them. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 11:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this summarizes multiple plots in tabular format, and therefore cannot be derivative. Saying that "a married b" in a fictional story is NOT a violation of copyright (if it was, almost all of the articles summarizing plots of novels would violate copyright). I know these people aren't real - don't patronise, please - but the soap opera is, and the real-world fact that the soap opera storyline has included such birth, deaths and marriages is, well, a real-world fact. Stephenb (Talk) 14:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a plot event. It doesn't have to be a summary in prose. Look at derivative work again, it says "major, basic copyrighted aspects of the original". Last time I checked, two specific people, from a specific show, getting married, is a major, basic copyrighted aspect of that show. Saying "marriage in said show is..." is not, but when you start identifying copyrighted characters, and major plot events that occurred with said characters you fall into a derivative work. Networks have successfully sued over that type of stuff, matter of fact, a gentlemen was sued over his use of quotes from Seinfeld (see discussion that took place in the link to the left). The fact that you put it in a table doesn't change what it does, and that's reveal major copyrighted aspects of that show. The reason some articles are allowed is because they provide real world content about their subject, and the plot is used as context (i.e. production, reception, themes, etc). This article has no such thing. You really need to read WP:WAF. The fact that you viewed a fictional marriage on TV does not make IT a real-world fact. It's a fact the show held a fake wedding, but that isn't real world information. It's copyrighted information. Real world information would be "how did they create the wedding ceremony" (i.e. production information), "why did the director/writers choose this", "what were some themes exhibited during the episode". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a set of plot event summaries, and they are not reused in another plot. Summaries of copyrighted material are not violations of copyright so long as they are used to illustrate an article (in Wikipedia or otherwise) - for instance, reviews of films, summaries of books/tv shows/films in other other books/tv shows/films. I repeat the point that lots of articles in Wikipedia summarize plot events - if your reading of this is the case, almost of of these plot summaries would need to be removed as violations of copyright. The article doesn't "reveal" major copyrighted aspects of the show; those were 'revealed' on broadcast! "Real world" information does include information about a story - stories exist in the real world - they don't just occur in my head :-). Stephenb (Talk) 15:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but when you merely summarize a copyrighted work you are violating the copyright. Film reviews don't do that, they mention aspects of the film, but it is in context with the analyzing they do. They aren't discussing what happens in a film, they are discussing why something happens in a film, and why they think about it happening. Show me a film review that does nothing but play back the film for you. The fact that "lots of articles" have problems doesn't negate the problem with this one. Please point them out, I'll let you know if they should be deleted as well. There is a reason we have a limit to the words used to describe a plot of a film, novel etc. Having a plot summary is not the problem, UNLESS that is all they have. Read any featured article, and you'll have a better understanding of what an entertainment article should consist of. You will not find a single featured article on entertainment topics that is JUST a plot summary. Won't happen. The fact that others exists is only because there are 2 million articles on this site and we can't keep track of every single one. Also, it being reveal during broadcast does not' negate the copyright they put on the show. I didn't see the show, so it wasn't revealed to me. You should read derivative work more closely, and also the articles about fair use, and what constitutes qualification for fair use. Simply having a plot summary (which is a non-free commodity) does not. To qualify for fair use you need to have some form of encyclopedic information around it, describing it, providing critical commentary on it, for it to qualify. This is why we don't have non-free images on "List of ____ episodes" any longer, because they do not qualify. As you would say, "it's just an image, it was revealed on broadcast"...doesn't matter, it's still subject to copyright laws. For something that isn't, see Night of the Living Dead. Here is a film that lapsed into public domain. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so you're now claiming it is because the article is JUST a plot summary? Well, it isn't, it is an amalgamation, and leaves out all of the other soapy plots and events throughout the lifetime of the show. Quoting your much loved Derivative work (which I've read much more closely than you, it seems) article: A typical example of a derivative work received for registration in the Copyright Office is one that is primarily a new work but incorporates some previously published material. This previously published material makes the work a derivative work under the copyright law. To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work" - in this case, this article is different enough to the original (I can't see anyone claiming that the article robs EastEnders from any viewership!). It is, effectively, new work. EastEnders, at no point, has consisted of simply a list of births, marriages and deaths. Derivative work here simply doesn't apply. As for "it wasn't revealed to you" - the fact that all of the events were publically broadcast means that you needn't have seen it. Stephenb (Talk)

I said the article is just plot events. It doesn't have to be a summary to be a derivative work. A list of every major (and minor) plot event regarding marriage/birth/death is a derivative work of that series. Now, it isn't "different enough" because there is nothing NEW, that is what you are missing. The fact that you bring it all together isn't different enough. If you were to have third party reliable sources, discussing said events, that would be NEW. You aren't even paying attention to the part that clearly says "NEW WORK". Your work isn't new, it isn't even different from what was already in the show. It simply just puts it together. With your line of thinking, I could write a book that mentions every death/marriage/birth in EastEnders, and they couldn't do a darn thing about it. WRONG. They could sue me for every penny I make on that book. What is Wiki doing? It's providing a "FREE" version of everything that network "PAID" to produce. Since you stopped in your quote of the page, allow me to expand: "The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself". Please, tell me what part of "new material" and "must be original and copyrightable in itself" is that hard? I don't see a single thing on this page that is new material. The actors? Nope, that isn't new, they were already listed on the show's credits, and you cannot copyright an actor's name...that's just silly. Could it be the death and births? Nope, because we've already established that it was the shows. It couldn't be the characters themselves. So, again, there is no "new material" on this page, certainly not enough to constitute fair use, thus it is a violation of the original copyright. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have read such books (and they weren't produced by the BBC!). The list is new - no-one has produced this list before, linking parson, date, parents etc. (parents in particular, if you're looking for "new information" is not listed in the credits as such); it is simply a by-product of information regarding a television show. It's probably not copyrightable, I agree, but then that's because the information is in the public domain and no-one would want to, not because it would violate the BBC's copyright. You could claim original research, I guess. But the same goes for the List of lost ships of Starfleet etc. - none of that is new material, it's all Star Trek derived, as are most of the other fictional list articles. Yes, I know that such precedent isn't an argument, but you do seem to be carrying on a campaign, here! Anyway, time to leave the office :-) Stephenb (Talk) 16:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have to produce the books, they have to authorize their use. Smallville's season companions are not produced by Warner Brothers, but they are authorized publications. That's the difference. The "list" is not new. That doesn't constitute "new" material. You cannot copyright a list of copyrighted material. That would mean that you could charge the BBC if they ever produced a list that looked like yours. That could never happen. The list contains copyrighted material, and ZERO new, original material. How you organize it is irrelevant to what it contains. If you made a list of deaths, and I made a prose of deaths, and you secured the rights with the BBC... then what I did was violated two copyrights. First being the BBC's and the second being yours, because you would have copyrighted the organization of the copyrighted material. But the key part of that is the securing of copyrights from the original source. That isn't being done here, it's simply a list of copyrighted work. Information in the public domain doesn't mean no one wants it. As I pointed out Night of the Living Dead is in the PD, and I'm sure someone would want that, namely George Romero. Yes, the list of star trek ships doesn't meet fair use guidelines either. It's a little less severe than a list of plot points, but then again I noticed they mention things that happen in the show, and that there is no "new" content on the page. When you have nothing but copyrighted material on a page, no matter how you organize it, you are not meeting the fair use criteria for non-free content. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the books were unauthorized AFAIK - I don't know if the BBC sued :-) In this case, I believe the list is derived from publically available information about the portrayal of events within a television soap opera, not derived from the work itself (for instance, it doesn't reuse characters or plots in another fiction). No part of the original work is reused, just summarized, and the summary is 'new'. I don't believe the list contains copyright material - just, as I say, publically-available information, just as (say, at random) Catch-22 (Lost) talks about Desmond joining a monastery. Perhaps I just want the rules on copyright to work sensibly, and so we'll just have to agree to differ on interpretation. Stephenb (Talk) 07:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Publicly available does not equate to Public domain. Just because I have all the Smallville DVDs doesn't mean I can write a book on nothing but the fictional elements of the series. Those were copyrighted by the studio. Did you list a character's birth, or death, or marriage? Yes. Thus, you are using the original work. You are trying to play semantics in that because it doesn't look the same then it isn't the same. That is a derivative work. There is not "differing" of interpretation. It's copyrighted material, clear cut. You just want the laws to change in your favor. Sorry, but you're talking on the wrong stage for that. Bignole 12:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Stephenb and Trampikey. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 11:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Stephenb and Trampikey Gungadin 12:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To the above editors who voted to keep, I must remind you that AfD is not a voting process, but rather a process to seek a consensus over the article in question. By reiterating someone else's recommendation, you contribute nothing to the process. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not strictly true, it would be a waste of time typing out the same as what someone else has written, it just shows that the reason for your vote has already been mentioned. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Indeed - just by agreeing with something, you add to a consensus. You don't need to add something new for a consensus, almost by definition! Stephenb (Talk) 12:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't voting, I was agreeing with Stephenb and Trampikey's reasons. As Trampikey said, it's not worth typing it out again as it's already been said. I can copy and paste it if you want though. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 16:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "I wasn't voting", you make it sound like you don't want your keep vote counted... -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD isn't a vote. As Stephenb said, I was adding to the consensus. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 16:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it isn't a vote Trampikey, is because an AfD can be closed with a verdict of "Deletion" and the number of "keep" could have been more than the number of "delete". It's based on the arguments presented. Granted, that usually isn't how it turns out, but if you look at the criteria, that is the way it is supposed to be. Bignole 16:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bignole. —^Jack_Lumber^/tɔk/ 21:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, topical concordances for individual fictional television shows are not encyclopedic. Groupthink 21:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all -- see my Bolo Yeung argument in the Sopranos deaths AfD.--Mike18xx 04:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep: Yes, it is a telvision show, but why is that such a problem? This is an ensyclopediea and they have to be informative. TV shows are at best, art forms and deserve recordniton and the death of a TV character is genuiningly (sp?) concidered important enough to be mentioned as though it was real (But state it isn't) as the character is dead and not seen again (Apart from the odd show where they are). So this and all other death lists should stay, as this is very informative and also people may wish to know how characters died rather than a pasific characer. MJN SEIFER 16:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having articles about TV shows are not the problem. Treating TV shows, in articles, like they actually occurred is. Having an indiscriminate list of information, with not actual encyclopedic content is a problem. I think watching the actual show is more informative then reading a list that tells you what happens. Bignole 21:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confraternitas Historica[edit]

I can't find any third-party sources, I'm concerned this student club doesn't meet WP:ORG FrozenPurpleCube 21:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prune and merge to article on the College. It is not notable enough for a separate article. --Bduke 10:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as Bduke suggests. The practice is not to have pages for clubs of the individual colleges, except for some sporting clubs, but to have some pages for the very most important university-wide societies at very important universities. DGG 04:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I find an articulation of this practice? Which I'll be honest, I've not seen anywhere before, but maybe I just missed it. FrozenPurpleCube 14:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some examples of the precedent: AfD: University of York Filmmaking Society, AfD: Warwick Student Arts Festival, AfD: Native Americans at Dartmouth College, AfD: Queer Student Cultural Center, AfD: Swansea University Computer Society and many others. Heather 19:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand, I was asking about the practice of having some pages for the very most important university-wide societies at very important universities. FrozenPurpleCube 22:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete per said precedent. Heather 19:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IT Architecture Conferences[edit]

Not encyclopaedic, not notable, just an excuse for a external link dumping ground. Conferences can, and are, held for many disciplines - there's nothing special about IT. Wikipedia isn't a directory, it's an encyclopaedia. Thanks/wangi 21:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:SPAM refers. Pedro | Chat 21:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If spammers are flies, this article is flypaper hanging from the ceiling. YechielMan 21:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theodoros Plakadopoulos[edit]

These articles appear to be either hoaxes or about non-notable people. A Google search for "Theodoros Plakadopoulos" yields only strange comments in blogs, while "Nikos Plakadopoulos" yields no hits. Searching the database LexisNexis yields absolutely nothing. The Nikos article does have a single reference (despite appearing to be two), but it is unclear whether that is a reliable source. -SpuriousQ (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails Google, looks like WP:COI and can't find anything on WP:NOTE that justifies. Pedro | Chat 21:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What's even more suspicious, the source "Salonika Network News" is the only reference in either of the articles. But it appears http://www.snn.gr, which hosts the two stories, is not a news service, but a free web hosting service. I would not trust this as a reliable source. This looks more and more to be an elaborate hoax. -SpuriousQ (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the roster at Olympia Larissa BC should be reviewed The team appears to exist, but the roster may be completely fabricated. -SpuriousQ (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --Tone 22:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These are two real people but the articles about them aren't even close! And the weirdest thing is it slanders one (Nikos calling him gay which is still kind of bad in Greece) and lauds the other (Theodoros hasn't played at Larissa in two years!) User:Jancotoure
Comment Not hoax but definitely NOT notable
Comment How can you say he's not gay? User:Boris_Hota
Comment He has a son! therefore not gay. User:Jancotoure
Comment Nikos is important, but his son is just a spoiled brat(NOT NOTABLE!) User:Vestuviata
- Let's keep this on topic. This is an discussion about whether the article(s) should be deleted, not whether these people are "gay" or "spoiled brats". -SpuriousQ (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
International business registry shows Cephalonia Shipping is owned by Nikos Plakas, same guy? I don't know... but the company only has two ships. Not every little company owner needs an entry. I say not notable, DELETE! -User:Dabling_king
Speedy Delete This looks like some kind of self-promoting ego page. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 18:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NN. --Evb-wiki 18:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why didn't you guys check google or a professional article search engine. Nikos Jr's page should be redirected to Nikos Plakas III an article with 3rd party links, Nikos Sr can be deleted all he's done is be gay User:Haelstrom
- Add Nikos Plakas III to the above list (if it survives speedy d) for the same reason. --Evb-wiki 19:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Haelstrom, I trawled Google and LexisNexis for "Nikos Plakadopoulos" and "Theodoros Plakadopoulos". Read the nomination statement. Nothing indicated that Theodoros Plakadopoulos = Nikos Plakas III, an article created after this AfD, and nothing on Google indicates Nikos Plakas III is notable (I don't have LexisNexis access right now). Adding Nikos Plakas III to this AfD. -SpuriousQ (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So all these people who's only reference is there own website, they get to stay. But I find a 3rd party, popular tourist site talking about a club... How dare I! We should go straight to God to ask about notability of club owners!User:Haelstrom
- See WP:N. That site just lists "Nikos Plakas" as an owner of a club; it's not enough information to have a biography about him in this encyclopedia. -SpuriousQ (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Those people should also provide reliable sources. Someone's own website is not enough. --Evb-wiki 19:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You really don't know the transmutations of greek names? you've never known a Costa or a Tony whose names are really Costas and Tonis? What they consider parts of their names, english speakers would consider titles, grammar or puncuation Plakadopoulos = from the Plaka for every papadopoulos or papaloukas there are 20 pappas's User:Haelstrom

"International business registry shows Cephalonia Shipping is owned by Nikos Plakas, same guy? I don't know... but the company only has two ships. Not every little company owner needs an entry. I say not notable, DELETE!"
Two ships isn't enough? Should we delete that gay basketball player's entry because he was only an average player? Or delete Rosa Parks because she didn't ride buses "good enough" Maybe instead of sitting in the front of the bus, she should've driven the bus!
it doesn't matter how many ships he owns being the first gay ceo in greece is a big deal.
delete the son's though, he's rubbish. Ashleigh86 23:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to Wikipedia:Notability, and, if possible, provide reliable sources to establish notability as described in those guidelines. -SpuriousQ (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care either way about any of the articles... but you guys do realize that what western europeans/english speakers consider their names isn't shared around the world. Diplomat U Thant for example the U meant sir, but he considered that part of his name. When you found out Yao Ming's family name was Yao and his given name was Ming did your heads explode? And what is this shock about someone's professional name being different than their given name? Anyway I'm way off topic and some admin's are waiting to get their daily power trip by blocking me so ima go. Haelstrom 00:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sr 13 07:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Grigor Suny[edit]

Appears to fail WP:PROF upon looking at the requirements. Also, no reliable sources, verifiability, and appears to be original research. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 20:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely a non-notable and unnecessary article. There is a small amount of information about the man; and the information isn't stuff worth knowing even! I support the deletion wholly. Meldshal42 20:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I'd also have to say that hes not a notable person. Not every professor, author, etc... deserves an article.Hajji Piruz 20:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC) Keep - as per everyone else.Hajji Piruz 03:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: what about this[6] and this [7]Ateshi - Baghavan 20:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not every professor is a full professor of political science at the University of Chicago, after previously having held a named full professorship of history and political science at University of Michigan, and a visiting Professor at Stanford-- all three for well over a century among the highest quality research universities in the world. Nor have they published 6 books, almost all by scholarly presses of the highest distinction. Chicago and Michigan appoint to their faculties, gives tenure, and promotes on the basis of peer evaluations of much great rigour and knowledgeability than WP can do--the profession establishes the notability, and we need only record the fact.

Not everyone is selected to write the 7 articles on his primary subject in the Brittanica as mentioned by Baghaven. Not everyone has the truly exceptional honour of being the editor of one of the volumes of the Cambridge History of Russia--this indicates that both academic and more popular publishes recognize him as a foremost authority on his subject, or edits 8 other collected works, again from the most important publishers. . DGG 00:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep based on his professorship and list of publications alone. All of that should be citeable pretty easily, and I'll get onto doing just that in the near future. Additionally, I believe he's one of the very few scholars writing in English about the South Caucasus, which would suggest that he's even more of a leading authority for those of us with no Russian, Armenian, Georgian or Azeri. Personal experience counts for roughly zero, but I know he's just about always written something useful on those countries. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Still searching for the real kickers, but at least three of his books are listed in this particular syllabus for a course on Central Asia and the Caucasus. Someone more knowledgeable on the US education system might want to check this to make sure of exactly what it all means. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. A senior and very notable Professor. --Bduke 10:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - outstanding scholar, deserves a page here. Schwarzenkopf 23:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is one of contributors to encyclopedia Britannica, I think he is notable enough for an article. Grandmaster 05:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Highly notable person. It just doesn't happen to be well reflected in this article, so I understand the initial nomination. Clearly, the article needs a lot of work.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 21:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is one of the top Sovietologists in the World. --Ulvi I. 06:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft redirect to the Commons page. Sr 13 07:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of religious symbols[edit]

The page is a gallery of images which is not the point of encyclopedic articles. This type of page should exist in Commons, which it already does. Jeff3000 20:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - commons is commons. (Alternatively make into an article on religious symbolism)--Doc^g 21:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect-- if it already exists in this form in Commons, then redirect. It seems that if someone types in "religious symbols", they should be able to quickly reach the images. I disagree that a gallery of images is "not the point of encyclopedic articles"; the Encyclopedia Britannica often used its color plates for illustrations that led . Everyone of these has a bluelink to an article; not everyone recognizes that the six pointed figure is the "Star of David". I've seen a "triquetra", but never knew what it was called. Does everyone know how to reach the Commons? I didn't. Mandsford 23:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to commons:Religious symbol --24fan24 (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at the moment, typing "Religious Symbols" links to Religious symbolism, which has a link to the Commons page at the bottom. That seems to be enough for now, surely. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to commons:Religious symbol makes the most sense here since we have such a gallery at commons. JoshuaZ 15:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Adventure (series)[edit]

There are just two games with the word adventure in their titles, two games that neither Sega or Sonic Team have said form a series or sub-series in the Sonic the Hedgehog series of games. Also, due to the fact that neither Sega or Sonic Team have said that a Sonic Adventure series exists, the article is thus unsourcable. Michael Mad 20:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree with you on this Afd. The article may be messy; but there's no need for it to be deleted. The fact that only two games were made is completely notable. There's nothing wrong with the fact that there are only two games of the series. I mean; look at "Runescape"; there's only one version of that; are you going to say that it's not highly detailed and creative? Look at some other games that only have one version. I don't believe they lack anything that multi-version games contain. Meldshal42 20:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 20:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 100% redundant with Sonic Adventure and Sonic Adventure 2. Why double the maintenance? Needing overview pages such as this is really only necessary when dealing with a larger number of subjects. Wickethewok 21:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sonic Rush Adventure could be considered part of it, maybe. I feel neutral about this. Lrrr IV 22:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's completely pointless. RememberMe? 17:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep Saginaw, Alabama and delete List of mayors of Saginaw, Alabama. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closer's note: The article Saginaw, Alabama was completely rewritten by User:Dhaluza on June 16 (see diff). All recommendations for deleting the article were made prior to the rewrite and addressed the "hoaxy" nature of the pre-rewrite versions. In addition, most editors recommending deletion expressed support for retaining an article based in reality. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saginaw, Alabama[edit]

This is honestly a little baffling. I came across this entry while following my bot doing updates in Alabama palce articles. On the surface it looks perfectly normal and legit - but a little investigation seems to indicate this is an elaborate hoax. There does appear to be a place called Saginaw in Shelby County, but it is either an unincorporated community or a neighborhood in Alabaster. It is not a city, it has never had a mayor, does not have any population or area according to the Census bureau. As far as the Census bureau is concerned this place doesn't exist. I find it perplexing that someone would go to the trouble of fabricating an exhaustive list of city officials, demographic information and city government information, but whatever the motivation, it is just that - fabricated in its entirety. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Included in this nomination is a related (and similiarly fictitious) list of mayors.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 20:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is very baffling. I don't either understand why someone would go to the work and sweat of this article just as a prank? It is a quite strange case scenario here; one of a complete different kind of a mystery; yet it still holds the scent of a mysterious event. Meldshal42 20:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral For now. Yahoo maps says this: [8]. This company appears to live there: [9]. The company is clearly not a hoax: [10]. My best guess take on this is that the town is really the company campus and the rest of the information is hoaxy (Population = Current Employees?). Don't hold me to that. Tres Weird. - Richfife 20:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there is a decent chance that "Saginaw" is the name of an unincorporated town outside of Alabaster, in which case I would suggest having an article on said town. But since this article is clearly made up I'd prefer to nuke this hoaxy version and have a proper article on the real place rebuilt from scratch. Arkyan  ^(talk) 21:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We are wikipedia editors, we don't "nuke" articles with bogus content, we edit them.Dhaluza 15:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge list of mayors into main article if it's worth keeping at all...such a small place doesn't need such undue weight in Wikipedia. The list of mayors was created hours after it was declined to be created on grounds of suspicious and uncited info and we still have no cites for it, so it could be deleted as uncited material. DMacks 20:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:HOAX. 99.09% white, 0.01% black and 0% everybody else? Highly improbable (and there's 0.9% unaccounted for). What is this, a Ku Klux Klan enclave with ~~6 slaves~~ 1 token African American? Clarityfiend 21:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The actual ethic breakdown for this area is very close to these numbers (and very easy to research). Dhaluza 15:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Marginal Keep The current content seems to be unsourced, so it can be removed, however, a zip code search through the USPS gets me 35137 for this place's zipcode. FrozenPurpleCube 21:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax, if there were such an incorporated place, it would have been created by Rambot from the 2000 census data. Since it was not, this is all totally false information. Once deleted, create an article about the unincorporated place with sourced information. It isn't listed at the census page at [11], making me have a hard tiem believing that a city of over 6000 just got left off the census. This court filing calls SAginaw an unincorporated place. Therefore, no mayors. And this map doesn't look like a place of 6000 people. Corvus cornix 22:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ and removed unsourced hoaxy stuff. "However, SCTC found a building site in Saginaw, an unincorporated community 2.5 miles north of Calera in Shelby County."[12] "Saginaw residents galvanized in opposition to a methadone clinc." [13] We have plenty of unincorporated communities and this seems to meet WP:V in that regard. --Dhartung | Talk 00:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the entire thing is hoaxy/unsourced - there's not an ounce of truth to this article. That's why I mentioned above, that this article should be deleted (as well as the list of mayors) so that an article on the real place can be created without this in the history. But I guess it's all the same in the end. Arkyan  ^(talk) 01:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't address the research I did above. There is no way this 6000+ ppulation town could be so completely below the radar. There is no way an unincorporated town would have mayors. Corvus cornix 01:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said "remove unsourced hoaxy stuff", I thought that addressed it. Anyway, I'm changing my vote as there seems to be nothing un-hoaxy in the entire history and per Carlossuarez it's best to start over. The only reason I would stub is that it's linked to from a handful of appropriate articles, but then a redlink will encourage its creation, ideally by someone more steeped in reality. --Dhartung | Talk 04:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All elected offices for this ficticious place are supposed to be 2 year terms. While there are no term limits, having a mayor who served 61 years; vice mayors who served 20, 24, and 17 years; a city clerk who served 55 seems rather unlikely. Edward321 01:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as edited I went back and found the place where the imaginary elected official were added by a series of ip addresses, & reverted to that--I replaced the afd tag, and I hope I didnt mess up the links. We don't delete articles because somebody was fanciful about the facts, and every inhabited place is considered N. DGG 01:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC) obviously I did not perceive it correctly,& I'm glad several people have pointed it out. DGG 22:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

**You don't get it. The whole article is a hoax. There is no such place with 6000+ people, with the demographics indicated. There are no references that the people listed actually lived there. If you want to recreate the article to write about what we know, that it's an unincorporated tiny place outside of Alabaster, then cut it down to that, but what is there is lies. Corvus cornix 01:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Indeed. The demographics are made up, the census information is invented, the geographical coordinates are for a city two counties away, and there appears to be no such person as the Rev. Carl Pyle. This article has, since its inception, been a fantasy. Arkyan  ^(talk) 02:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as elaborate hoax. If someone wants to recreate a factual article about the real Saginaw, they should go ahead. Capitalistroadster 02:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Already done. Dhaluza 15:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Recreate with factual information if such a place truely does exist. Resolute 03:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there seems to be a real Saginaw, Alabama, but this article isn't about it. Best to start from scratch. Carlossuarez46 04:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google Maps does find Saginaw, Alabama [14], but it is not a city as the article claims, and the US Census Bureau, [15] does not recognize it. If all the claims in the entire article is false, it must be deleted, even if something valid could be written here later. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean-up. Come on folks, the cooridinates are given, the place is shown on the Alabaster USGS 1:24K topo map: [16], 1:100K topo: [17], and even the 1:250K topo:[18] plus it's listed by the BGN: [19] (note to closing admin: please ignore hoax arguments, since they are obviously unfounded speculation). Some of the material added to the article may not be encyclopedic, but the place exists, and we keep articles about populated places, regardless of size per WP:OUTCOMES. Dhaluza 13:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dhaluza appears to be right about the existance of Saginaw[20], and has done much to clean up the article. OTOH, the creator of the Saginaw article is the same as the creator of the dubious (at best) list of mayors article. Change my 'vote' to Keep for Saginaw, Alabama but it remains Delete for List of mayors of Saginaw, Alabama. Edward321 04:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this combined AfD is unfortunate because it confuses the situation. Saginaw is an unincorporated place, so it has no formal government. I could not find anything to support the list of mayors, so that should go. This just points out why we must be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water. Deleting the Saginaw, Alabama article would set a bad precedent, and would make it more difficult to create a new legitimate article, since any random admin could speedy G4 it for recreation. Dhaluza 15:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Dhaluza has fixed it.--Mike18xx 04:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sr 13 07:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keg Tossing[edit]

Fails WP:RS. Punkmorten 10:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've tagged it as unsourced. Apparently people do toss kegs. Whether its organized and has developed techniques as stated in the article is not verified. The one link is dead. The whole thing could well be a hoax. My gut feeling is that it is not. Herostratus 15:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It still appears to fail the criterion about coverage in non-trivial publications. People might toss kegs, but then again people might do lots of non-notable things. Punkmorten 07:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are both correct. However, I can't tell if this is non-notable enough to be deleted or not. Maybe keg tossing could go under the Scotland article as a heading? Meldshal42 20:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 19:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Punkmorten's comment about a lack of coverage is probably the key issue here. I find about 1,300 Google results for "keg tossing," and it's obvious that it's something people do (mostly college students, judging from the dozens of blogs and college newspapers that mention it), but nothing actually focuses in on it as a sport. It is a part of the World's Strongest Man competition on occasion, it should be noted. But, as a sport, it's not really established or covered. Weak delete unless someone comes up with some results indicating notability. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd say it's just as relevant as the article on beer pong, but maybe a bit less organized Gabefarkas 00:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an event in the World's Strongest Man competition, plus it involves throwing stuff and beer ~ Infrangible 03:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Much like the comment above, I've seen this on ESPN's World's Strongest Man competition. Chengwes 04:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a popular activity at beer festivals, part of the strong-man competitions, and is also a recreational activity. It's at least as notable as Squirrel fishing, Dwarf tossing, or Cow tipping.ColtsScore 13:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is certainly a popular event, being an event on the World's Strongest Man tournament should be sufficient to establish notability.--Kylohk 15:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indfrica[edit]

This article appears to contain nothing but speculation by the page creator or any other contributors, none of whom provides either substantial reasons on the discussion page why it should be retained or any reliable references; the only reference provided is to an Orkut profile page for which the reader must log in or register to view. It was proposed for deletion once before; that tag was removed with no explanation on the discussion page. Doonhamer 19:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Looks like a hoax. Delete as soon as possible. - R 18:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this were true, the web (and the entire world) would be buzzing about it. There are no relevant Google matchs for Indfrica at all. - Richfife 19:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research and quite probably complete bollocks (always wanted to use that one). This would be rather widely discussed if it was the case. And I suspect some sovereign countries out that way might have an issue or two with the plan... Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 20:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It should be renamed Bollockistan. Utter fantasy. Clarityfiend 22:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax/nonsense. utcursch | talk 16:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. A borderline case with decent arguments in either direction.--Wafulz 03:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fly_Gibraltar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The Project has been cancelled so the page is no longer of interest on wikipedia -Gibnews 19:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reason given -Gibnews 19:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Completely fails WP:CORP, as it is clearly WP:NN. --Evb-wiki 19:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A putative airline with plans which were put on the back burner; these plans have now been officially cancelled. Fails WP:NN. Chris Buttigieg^talk 20:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 20:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, failed to achieve notability. (Plus, isn't it a little heavy?) --Dhartung | Talk 00:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; I can find no way that this fails WP:CORP: it is the subject of secondary sources (Google News Search, in particular The Times, a national newspaper, which has a long article about it: Gibraltar for the weekend?), is of NPOV, is not advertising, and "attracted notice" prior to its cancellation. Likewise cancellation of a project should not necessarily make it any less notable. Laïka 15:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for the moment. I have not researched this, but is it certain that the project will come to absolutely nothing? Peterkingiron 22:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you read the front page story in the Gibraltar Chronicle, www.chronicle.gi they say the company name has been cancelled - the Government of Gibraltar are very protective about the use of the word 'Gibraltar' in company names. Although there could be another 'fly Gibraltar ltd' it seems it will not be this one and in the very unlikely event these guys start an airline it would have a different name. So unless there is a category for imaginary airlines, the article has no merit. Incidentally, the Gibraltar Chronicle is the second oldest daily newspaper in the world. --Gibnews 23:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment... if you're reading a front page story, doesn't that demonstrate notability? --DeLarge 10:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment no, it shows how smoke and mirrors can fool some of the people for some of the time. --Gibnews 20:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This "airline" does NOT exist. In the hypothetical case that the proposed plans outlined in this article are taken further sometime in the future, the article could be then be created again. Gibmetal 77 ^talk 23:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; This is history, history of the Rock and the difficulties that are faced with starting up airlines despite given such talk by the Government that we have greater opportunities to now work with the "Cordoba Agreement". Although Fly Gibraltar will not be launching it cannot be forgotten and the hard work that has been put into it. Many civil servants have added to the airline knowing how things could've gone wrong all to have to bow down because there are filthy rich people out there that'd rather buy a condo in Miami than help an airline that will struggle to find its way in the skies for a while!--Cm tony 21:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it was notable it remains notable even if it fails.DGG 04:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cm tony; it was noted in reliable sources. John Vandenberg 04:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets notability criteria even though it failed. Not a great article -- it reads a bit like a bunch of press release headlines strung together at the moment, and is very poorly structured -- but if some backstory can be added it'd certainly deserve to stay. --DeLarge 10:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If Wikipedia had an article to do with every idea, hypothetical corporation or celebrity then Wikipedia would be filled with useless articles. This article is no different. Biofoundationsoflanguage 11:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Airlines are notable, but if they never got off the ground they are of little interest. Even with the coverage mentioned, the whole failed enterprise remains a news story which had little to no impact on the industry, and will soon be forgotten. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The airline made several headlines in the international media and is broadcast on the Gibraltar Government Tourism website Visit Gibraltar.

DeLarge...I'd like to add I did add subsequential information to this page in particular and one wiki member decided it was to be deleted as it wasn't verifiable. My uncle is local media here at GibFocus.gi and I can get any story and information as I wish...I've added...it looked good it was taken apart by a holligan i imagine! Sjakkalle...There are many failures on wikipedia of corporations and the like...this one is no different. Biofoundationsoflanguage...sorry to admit but its already there, there are useless articles cos some are one line of the date of borth the name and the place of birth. Not even stating the persons significance and they roam freely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cm tony (talk • contribs) 10:07, 17 June 2007

Comment - The bottom line is that there never was an airline There were never any aircraft, there were no flights, its utter fabrication, press releases with unsubstantiated claims some of which are false, like the reference to being unable to obtain an operating licence - the CAA have no trace of any application. It stinks. --Gibnews 11:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What's the point of having a "history" article of something that never happened?--Mike18xx 04:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, the news and magazines it was mentioned in really did happen. What is the point of deleting an article that already exists ? John Vandenberg 05:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should every non-materializing commercial venture get a Wikipedia article if it received some press before going vaporware? If it were some big scam where people got bilked, that'd qualify -- but where's the meat on these bones?--Mike18xx 06:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, each should be evaluated on its merits, and the quality of the sources that it was noted in. This is a third airline to a remote destination, so it is quite a significant venture (in a local sense; see Gibraltar#Transport). John Vandenberg 06:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is it did not happen. it was an idea that was floated by a construction company which wanted to get work rebuilding and developing the airport terminal, the press releases looked good, too good to be true. The article creates the impression that its real and brings discredit to Gibraltar as a home of virtual airlines with no substance. --Gibnews 08:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The airline was cancelled without even a single plane taking off the ground, being a failed concept, it shouldn't be very notable in the world.--Kylohk 15:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- fails WP:CORP- incorporate anything of use into Gibraltar Airport. Astrotrain 20:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. It may be appropriate to continue discussion about the merits of a possible merge on the article's talk page. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bhoys from Seville[edit]

I've considered nominating this before, as it seems pointless to have an article about a team who came second in Europe's second most prestigious football tournament. With the recent creation of 2003 UEFA Cup Final, this article now seems redundant as any encyclopedic information contained within it is now at the new article. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 19:20, 12 June 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 An article for a team's cup run when they didn't even win it? I think not. EliminatorJR ^Talk 19:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 19:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an article about a team's run to being runner up isn't that notable. See also Edmonton Oilers in the 2006 Stanley Cup Playoffs, another article about another playoff campaign that ended in a runner-up finish. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, wiki has a precident in allowing these pages. The most applicable comparable is the article on The Lisbon Lions and 1967 European Cup Final article.--Vintagekits 19:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the relevant section of History of Celtic F.C. Deletion & merging is not an option according to GFDL. Qwghlm 20:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed - having read it again, I don't think anything needs to be moved anyway. EliminatorJR ^Talk 20:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ultra Strong Keep, very notable team and cup run. It was Celtic's first European cup final and they brought 80,000 supporters to Seville and got two awards (FIFA and UEFA) because of it. It was front page news in Ireland and Scotland for weeks and there has been videos and books produced about it. It was a phenomenon (sp?) Also this is possibly a bad faith nomination (no offense Arch) because the nominator is a Rangers fan and this is about a Celtic topic. P.S. Lets not forget the "multiple non-trivial indepenent sources" that document it and therefore passes WP:N and WP:V--Vintagekits 22:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offence taken, but it is very much in good faith - as I said in the nomination I didn't nominate until after 2003 UEFA Cup Final was created, and I believe the article's worth should be debated now that the information it holds is within an altogether more encyclopedic article. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 22:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take back the bad faith nomination accusation! Your a good editor (even for a bluenose!). Anyway "the Bhoys from Seville" is bigger than the game Estadio Olímpico de la Cartuja (£450 quid well spent) - it became the generic name for the game that created the phenomenon, the whole run and the fans and awards thereafter - as I am sure you will remember (or were ya wtchin the Bill). Anyway I will improve the article and add more sources. --Vintagekits 22:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'd suggest merging the article into the new one, to be able to include the various details surrounding the match and coverage of it - I just don't see the point in having both articles, and I don't see anything like it anywhere else on Wikipedia. Perhaps something like a more detailed article like this would be better. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 22:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the FIFA ref you added just links to the FIFA homepage. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 22:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My issue would be that it is about the whole run rather than just that one game.--Vintagekits 22:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another article additional info about the run could be added to is this one. Looking at the article, I only see around two paragraphs worth of information which is not already at 2003 UEFA Cup Final, Celtic F.C. or History of Celtic F.C.. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 23:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More of a case of expand then delete then I reckon.--Vintagekits 23:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is more info under the more encyclopedic title. --John 23:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, do you know what you are even talking about? Where is there more information on this? ANd what do you mean about the title - do you mean like the Lisbon Lions - I despair!--Vintagekits 23:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Lisbon Lions were famous because they won a trophy. Losing in a final does not entitle you to an article. The more encyclopedic title currently has the better article, largely because it is not full of unreferenced cruft like the ridiculous and embarrassing "V for Victory" section. The title of the article should be 2003 UEFA Cup Final, any marginally noteworthy or encyclopedic content from this article can be merged in, and then it can be the redirect it always should have been. Problem solved.--John 00:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not even going to continue this with you because you obvious havent a clue about the significance of the Bhoys from Seville.--Vintagekits 00:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rework im not sure it should be merged into the 2003 UEFA Cup Final as that just deals with the final the article could be expanded to include the entire campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barryob (talk • contribs)
Keep. It appears to be the title of a widely available DVD [21]. IIRC, there was certainly significant media coverage of Celtic's road to Seville beyond the back pages, such was the scale of the fans' response. It may require some work to bring it into shape and perhaps the DVD should be the focus, but I'm not sure what policy says being a runner up makes you inherently non-notable, as seems to be suggested by the first few respondants. Rockpocket 02:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, thats the whole point of my argument - the whole thing became bigger than just the game - infact the fact almost became secondary at one stage.--Vintagekits 02:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article is clearly not about the DVD, and the current content is absolutely excessive for a standalone article. --Angelo 03:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, its not supposed to be about hte DVD - its about the team, The DVD was named after the nickname given to the team.--Vintagekits 03:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment well, in this case it is better to merge the content into History of Celtic F.C.. We are actually talking about a single UEFA Cup campaign. --Angelo 03:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, its going to be far to big to go in there and there is already a short paragraph on this in that articel. Would you also say the The Lisbon Lions should also be merged into that article?--Vintagekits 04:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And not even a winning one at that. --John 04:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which policy states we should delete articles because an editor considers the content "excessive"? Its about notability, not whether you think there is too much information or not. Rockpocket 04:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To me a single (and unsuccessful) UEFA Cup campaign of a football club is absolutely not notable. It has some meaning only in case it becomes part of a larger content, such as "the club's history" for instance. --Angelo 15:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully the multiple independent non trivial sources state otherwise - who many other times has a football team before 80,000 fans to an away game?

This is not a matter of sources, but of mere notability. Read the Note 5 on WP:N. The event is notable only within the whole football season. If you don't want to merge it into History of Celtic F.C., consider creating Celtic F.C. season 2002-03 and include it there. --Angelo 16:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That article would be mainly about the SPL league campaign - this isnt.--Vintagekits 16:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's absolutely untrue - that article would be about what the title claims, i.e. Celtic FC season 2002-03 (Scottish Cup, UEFA Cup, SPL and any other tournament played by the club in that season). --Angelo 16:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) There's nothing to say that would be the case - it would be about the season in full and events as notable as the UEFA Cup campaign, in context, would merit a fairly major proportion of the article. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 16:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. In any case, see U.S. Città di Palermo season 2005-06 and Middlesbrough F.C. Season 2005-06 for a couple of examples. --Angelo 16:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point.--Vintagekits 16:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So show me the light. I am unsupportive of the article as it is now, and I am trying to find some kind of agreement, however you don't seem to be interested in it as well. What does the article want to talk about? The UEFA Cup campaign? The sole final match? You see, it's not me who is missing the point. --Angelo 16:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- sourced and expansionable potential. Although it should be renamed to a less "tabloid" title. Astrotrain 08:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would have to say a strong keep and while some may call me bias, thats fine but the person that what the article deleted is a Rangers Supporter. So his objectivity on this issue has to be questioned, while I don't think that personal attacks are right it must be said that he has a clear bias. I believe it should be kept because Celtic recieved awards from fifa and uefa for the supporters behaviour. Some estimates put the number of supporters at more than 80,000 which is unprecedented in European football. Several books and films have been made about the Celtic supporters in Seviile. The people of Seville still welcome and praise Celtic supporters each year. Many friendships between Celtic supporters and the locals have continued to endure 4 years later. The head of Uefa traveled to Celtic Park to present a award to the supporters which is very unique indeed. The event stands something memorable to the people of Seville as much as it does to Celtic.Maplecelt 16:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"it must be said that he has a clear bias" - could you explain that? And had the above statement been put in an article, it would require rather a lot of ^{[citation needed]} tags. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 16:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you name is we are the people and is in red and blue indicating that you are a rangers supporter. which indicates that you have a bias on the issue. as do I it must be said. So if anything we should both remove ourselves from teh discussion and it should be left to those that aren't involved in the Rangers/Celtic Rivilary to decide this article.Maplecelt 13:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In that case, that information belongs in 2003 UEFA Cup Final. EliminatorJR ^Talk 18:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, but the article isnt about the final.--Vintagekits 18:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Everything that Maplecelt mentioned above was about the final, though. EliminatorJR ^Talk 18:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep* This event was notable on so many levels other than football and merits inclusion. The behaviour of the Celtic FC supporters and the resulting award is a standard set for other supporters to aspire to.Coeur-sang 16:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - see Special:Contributions/Coeur-sang. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 17:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable event but name should be changed urgently as bhoys is not a word in the English language (if survives afd I will move the article), SqueakBox 18:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the name should stay the same as this was the most common name for the team and the season article would not be specific to the UEFA which was the biggest event in Scottish football for 20 years. Also I believe that 'Bhoys' is in the oxford dictionaryMaplecelt 13:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it is, as attested by Kipling and O. Henry. The argument that we should avoid spelling humor as unencyclopedic would be stronger; but the Scotsman article shows that this is what they were actually called. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per NeoChaosX. No idea how this article got past its initial incarnation. - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this European run was the greatest achievement by a Scottish football team in nineteen years. There have been several video releases regarding this run of games, such as STV's "The Bhoys From Seville". I would submit that a team from one of the world's weakest leagues reaching the final of the world's second most prestigious club soccer competition is worthy of comment. The article is both notable and unbiased, and the suggestion that it should be deleted is, in my opinion, simply sour grapes <personal attack removed per WP:NPA>Rockpocket 00:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC).— Preceding unsigned comment added by TamB (talk • contribs) [reply]
- Comment a) The Scottish Premier League isn't THAT weak, and b) The UEFA Cup isn't the world's second most prestigious club competition, only Europe's second. I'm neutral about this one at the moment. - fchd 11:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per NeoChaosX. If the article on Edmonton Oilers in the 2006 Stanley Cup Playoffs was deleted as non-notable then this should also be deleted. However, perhaps the information should be included as Angelo's suggestion in an article created for Celtic F.C. season 2002-03. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 00:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but move the article to Celtic F.C. season 2002-03 as suggested above. The Bhoys from Seville article has too many small sections and a bit too much trivial information. All of this could be condensed into 3 or so comprehensive paragraphs and Celtic's domestic season could be covered in the rest of the article. I guess every article should aspire to become featured or a GA at least, and that would be impossible if this one is limited to a single cup campaign. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 08:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, one of the most notable events in Scottish football in the last decade. Tiocfaidh Ár Lá! 11:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - yes it was notable in that context, but the issue is that there is a far more encyclopedic - in my opinion - article on the subject. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 16:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A final point google the bhoys from Seville, then decide if it should be kept.Maplecelt 13:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Or we could just decide for ourselves if the article is notable enough for Wikipedia. - Dudesleeper · Talk 13:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thats exactly my point. take a look around review information with regards to it. then you can make an informed decision if it should or shouldn't go. you can't decide if something is notable or not if you don't have the facts. If you want to take part in the discussion all i'm saying is be aware of the subject matterMaplecelt 14:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We can't control what external sites do. If I started twelve sites about my pet frog, could I start a Wikipedia article about it because they show up in a Google search? - Dudesleeper · Talk 14:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what in Gods name has that to with anything? my point is do research and be informed on an issueMaplecelt 19:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I research a subject that in my opinion isn't notable? - Dudesleeper · Talk 21:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How can you decide if something is notable if you don't know anything about it? if that is your attitude then your views are of no help to wikipediaMaplecelt 21:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to you to show us how this event is notable, not us. And Google searches are not reliable sources. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - after consideration, I am of the opinion that a merge to 2003 UEFA Cup Final would be the most appropriate. - fchd 20:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, a merge would be inappropriate as there is no clear fit. The Lisbon Lions and the 1967 European Cup Final have different articles and rightly so, and this is the exact same situation. The Bhoys from Seville is about more than just the Final game, infact the Bhoys from Seville also has a legacy and was supposed to be the springboard that future teams were supposed to be built on and this is referenced in the Pearson source in the article. This showes that the Bhoys from Seville dont and cant be fitted into any current existing article and the precedent is there to have the the article as it stands and the proposed name changes or merge havent been thought through properly.--Vintagekits 12:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is good. Guy (Help!) 08:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is not a sectarian battleground.For a merge or redirect solution, History of Celtic F.C. is another candidate where this information could be used. Catchpole 09:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Celtic Football Club article. It should have a paragraph there, no it's own article here. --Counter-revolutionary 13:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any relevant information into 2003 UEFA Cup Final, History of Celtic F.C.. I don't dispute that the cup run itself was significant, as was the enthusiasm among the supporters, but I think its only relevant in the context of the primary subjects (the UEFA Cup and Celtic F.C.) rather than being notable in its own right - to me, this seems like an example of recentism, and would lead to all kinds of other articles being made about recent cup runs. Robotforaday 14:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Per Rockpocket, have the dvd. Regards --Domer48 16:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Excellent reasoning there. - Dudesleeper · Talk 16:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -Why thanks....and the horse you rode in on!--Domer48 20:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Support exists for inclusion of sporting campaigns even when consisting of a few notable cricket test matches – refer to AfD re Bangladeshi_cricket_team_in_Australia_in_2003. The CelticFC 2003 campaign was made notable by the tournament, size of the travelling support, fan awards issued by the organizing bodies, and the broadly accepted title given to this campaign as adopted in the article title - and as used in newspaper reports per a Google search (and as cited in the article). This article records the campaign rather than the results of the 2003 UEFA Cup Final, and it cannot be merged to 2003 UEFA Cup Final without then expanding that article to include the potentially less notable campaigns of each participant. The article is now well cited. Pever 16:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, great comment - this team was the most notable team in Scottish football for thirty years - if we can have an article on every single player that in the Scottish league for the past thirty years then it is ludicrous to try and attempt to delete this article or cram it into an inappropriate article.--Vintagekits 16:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most notable in European football of course. Apart from Aberdeen, and alongside Dundee United. And Pever's argument to me would support the creation of Celtic F.C. season 2002-03. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 16:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again the issue of a merge is complicated, your suggestion of a merge to Celtic F.C. season 2002-03 is flawed on a number of levels. 1. An article on the season as a whole would also include the campaigns in the SFA cup, the league cup, champions league and not forgetting the whole SPL league campaign as well as the UEFA run. 2. This was a specific and notable campaign and team is therefore is worthy of its own article - there are other reasons which I was type out later but I am bored of arguing at the momment.--Vintagekits 16:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Valid article, well referenced from verifiable sources to establish notability. Legitimate content fork. A useful record for those interested in the subject. Tyrenius 17:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Tyrenius above.--padraig3uk 17:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability comes not from success but from secondary sources; and there are plenty of them. Encyclopaedic subject and properly souced article. Bridgeplayer 19:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete or merge with Celtic F.C. - something of a vanity piece, and, in any event, not sufficiently important for its own article, unless we are going to create articles for every interesting match ever played. Kirkbynative 17:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC) User has been indefblocked for being a sockpuppet of banned user User:Rms125a@hotmail.com SirFozzie 23:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- this is not an article on a match - please reread it - it is on a UEFA Cup campaign. And yes, if there are other interesting well-sourced campaigns then create an aritcle for them; we are not limited on server space. Merging with Celtic is simply not sensible; it would grossly overbalance that article.Bridgeplayer 19:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the credentials of Kirkbynative here.--Vintagekits 23:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A merge would be too messy, and nobody has really provided evidence of notability. If someone wants to create a "List of Oxford clubs" article or some such, they can message me for the article text.--Wafulz 03:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford University Cave Club[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Renomination after the previous AFD was closed as keep. However, I don't see that it meets the standards of WP:ORG. There was nothing in the AFD that indicated individual notability of this club, and there are still no references. FrozenPurpleCube 19:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the University of Oxford's review for 2001-2 says that "The Oxford University Cave Club is one of the leading speleology clubs in the country". I couldn't confirm that elsewhere, but didn't look very hard. I did find this - a history of a century of British caving. What might be more interesting is to have an article about the British Speleological Association. I wonder if I can start a trend of getting AfD vote deleters to give examples of what would warrant an article, instead of just voting delete? Carcharoth 21:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what the University of Oxford says about its own clubs is hardly a third-party source, so I don't think that gets past the notability concern. And I suppose there could be a national organization that merits its own article, but this isn't the place to decide that. BTW, AFD=!votes. FrozenPurpleCube 22:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but I prefer to discuss until I've made up my mind. Sometimes I never do make up my mind. Carcharoth 22:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to University of Oxford#Clubs and societies, in abridged form. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxford University Asia-Pacific Society. --B. Wolterding 07:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced and failing WP:V unless the new page University of Oxford Clubs is created by the end of the AfD. A merge to the main article looks messy and a merge to a non-existent page would be tricky :-) The material can be added to a user sandbox and merged later if required. Bridgeplayer 18:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, I'm not sure this club is notable enough to merit a mention in University of Oxford#Clubs and societies (compared to the clubs already on that list). Riana ⁂ 09:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford University Überlightweight Boat Club[edit]

Tagged for references since December, complaints as early as April of 2006 about not being notable. I don't see how this club is notable in its own right, or meets WP:ORG. FrozenPurpleCube 19:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Been sourceless forever, Googling gives me nothing. Wickethewok 21:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to University of Oxford#Clubs and societies, maybe only as one sentence. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxford University Asia-Pacific Society. --B. Wolterding 08:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced and failing WP:V unless the new page University of Oxford Clubs is created by the end of the AfD. A merge to the main article looks messy and a merge to a non-existent page would be tricky :-) The material can be added to a user sandbox and merged later if required. Bridgeplayer 18:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete; fails WP:ORG. If there is interest in either merging the material from here into University of Oxford#Clubs and societies or into a not-yet-created page on Oxford clubs, contact me or another administrator and we can retrieve the deleted text so that it can be merged. MastCell ^Talk 18:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford University Asia-Pacific Society[edit]

This is a club at Oxford University. I am not able to find significant coverage of it, and I'm not convinced it meets the notability standards of WP:ORG. FrozenPurpleCube 18:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Repeating my proposal from a similar AfD: Reduce the article to the essentials, merge it to University of Oxford#Clubs and societies (possibly expanding that entire section to an article), and redirect the article. May apply as well to other Oxford clubs currently under debate. --B. Wolterding 07:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a new University of Oxford Clubs page -- there has been some discussion on the University of Oxford talk page about the need to avoid having too much clutter in the clubs and societies list there. Some effort has been made to pare that section down to the bare minimum of the most notable societies, and adding even just the names of every university club would make the page very cluttered. Adding any details of them would be frankly silly as the page would quickly become unworkable. If Oxford University Asia-Pacific Society doesn't stand alone as an article it must either be deleted or merged to a new OU clubs page. Casper Gutman 11:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's precisely in line with what I proposed - the section "Clubs and societies" could be expanded into a separate article (one article for all clubs, not one article for each club). See also WP:SUMMARY. --B. Wolterding 12:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that's such a good solution, since I'm afraid that it would amount to only a directory (which the section is now anyway). It would be very important that any such page explicitly avoid that, and at least have some criteria for inclusion beyond being a club at Oxford. FrozenPurpleCube 13:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the idea would be a different one. The new article should not be a directory, but include short descriptions for each clubs that would be worth adding (see below). Only for those which are notable independent of the university, a separate article on the club might be created and linked. (Strict criteria should be applied for that.) That is common practice by WP:SUMMARY. Now regarding inclusion criteria, there's the rule that notability guidelines do not directly limit article content. That is, since Oxford University is notable, a club could be briefly described in the "Clubs at Oxford" article without independently discussing notability. How long that description for a certain club should be, if any, is at the discretion of the editors. But it saves work: Anybody can add and merge wothout the need of AfD debates etc. Whether that meets consensus is a different issue, admittedly. --B. Wolterding 13:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While the notability guidelines don't directly limit article content, other things do, and simply listing the clubs at Oxford, even with a brief summary? I'm still not sure that would be anything but a directory of sorts. Oxford is practically a small city, and I'm sure they have lots of clubs and organizations. Many of them I doubt you'll ever find mention of outside of Oxford's own pages. I am thus not convinced of the merit of this page, and even if I was, it'd still need some criteria to keep every group of students that forms together and gets official recognition from the school from being covered. Heck, I don't even know what the process is for being a club/student society at Oxford. Is there even official recognition? I would at least hope somebody could answer that question before starting a new article. FrozenPurpleCube 18:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced and failing WP:V unless the new page University of Oxford Clubs is created by the end of the AfD. A merge to the main article looks messy and a merge to a non-existent page would be tricky :-) The material can be added to a user sandbox and merged later if required. Bridgeplayer 18:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus to delete, defaulting to keep. I recommend more work on strengthening the article, however. Tyrenius 00:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Experimental Theatre Club[edit]

This is a acting club at Oxford? I can't find any third party sources to indicate notability besides possibly having Rowan Atkinson perform for it. I'm not convinced every student association at Oxford warrants an article. FrozenPurpleCube 18:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to University of Oxford#Clubs and societies, in abridged form. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxford University Asia-Pacific Society. --B. Wolterding 08:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The current stub only scratches the surface; the ETC has had many performers subsequently as/more notable than those listed. See also OUDS and Footlights. The Asia-Pacific lot are wholly different. Johnbod 22:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so where are the sources that show the rest of the story? At least there's books used as references in the other two articles. FrozenPurpleCube 22:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced and failing WP:V unless the new page University of Oxford Clubs is created by the end of the AfD. A merge to the main article looks messy and a merge to a non-existent page would be tricky :-) The material can be added to a user sandbox and merged later if required. Bridgeplayer 18:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer The above comments related to a very different version of the article - see history. Johnbod 23:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article expansion and referencing now begun Johnbod 01:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but I suggest you address the notability issue first. So far many of your sources are not about the club, but rather brief resume/obit mentions in coverage of notable people. And heck, one of your sources is on everything2.com. I am not sure that's a reliable source. It's possible the JSTOR articles are better, but I would suggest more diligence in improving this article, as it seems to me you're just throwing things together. That's not really significant improvement. FrozenPurpleCube 02:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You must be kidding about notability. The club is even more distinguished than I had imagined. I suppose you must have zero interest in British theatre and film. There are clearly many articles in large reference works on the club which I have not been able to access quickly. Just out of interest, what exact prgramme of research on your part led to you concluding, in your nomination above "I can't find any third party sources to indicate notability besides possibly having Rowan Atkinson perform for it"? : Johnbod 02:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not kidding. Establishing notability is the burden of the editors of the article. So far, you haven't managed much that's convincing. Providing coverage of their notability isn't simply a matter of saying "You don't know what you're talking about" but rather you proving you know what you're talking about. So tell us about who has covered their plays, awards they've won. Not just a few mentions in obits and resumes. Heck, maybe they've had a show on the BBC or other major television channel? That'd probably establish notability. FrozenPurpleCube 02:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They have in fact had both, but these are minor claims to notability compared to what is already in the article. You have a wierd sense of priorities, if you don't mind me saying so! Johnbod 20:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think you're the one who has a weird sense of priorities, since you seem to think that things like being in Dudley Moore's obit means something significant. You'd be better off sourcing the BBC appearance or noting some significant award coverage. Sorry, but the sources in the article now? Not that much of an improvement. OTOH, if they're notable enough that their productions are broadcast on a national television channel? That's be convincing. Feel free to find sources that show that was the case and add them to the article. FrozenPurpleCube 20:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As are you, if you think them so important. Having referenced their world premiere of a play by one of the most important playrights of the 20th century, I've done enough for today.Johnbod 21:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's not important about having sources? It's pretty obvious that's a good thing. Or do you mean national television broadcasts? Well, it helps that they tend to receive a lot more coverage, which means there are well, sources. Almost certainly reliable ones. If the appearance couldn't be sourced, then it would hardly be a good demonstration of importance. Hence my suggestion that you find sources actually on the theater, ones better than you've provided. I'm sorry if you resent it, but obituaries and resumes aren't very convincing. Nor this tenuous connection to a play. Unless you can provide better sources to connect the play to the theater itself. An obit in a college program? Not a good demonstration of notability. Seriously, look for sources on the club, not passing mention in obits and resumes. That information might be reliable enough to include in the subject of the obit's own article, but they'd still need to demonstrate notability through other means. FrozenPurpleCube 21:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have a serious confusion between sources WP:RS and notability WP:N. The subjects of articles must be notable, the sources must be reliable. You seem fixated on the relative notability of sources, which is not in itself relevant. Johnbod 22:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I believe you're mistaken in your comprehension as to what I'm saying, as I don't see how I'm fixated on the sources in the way you're talking about. Certainly there are better sources than others, but I'm not especially concerned about anything relating to the actual sources as such. (Though I do think a college obit and everything2.com are not reliable sources on their own to demonstrate notability of a person). My primary concern is the relevance of your sources to this club. That's a different problem. Your sources are primarily about other people, not about the club itself. I don't know why I'm having such a problem explaining this to you. FrozenPurpleCube 22:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because it's not true. I have referenced an OUP concise encyclopedia & two JSTOR articles that are general references. Other references relate to specific productions and individuals. That is what drama companies of any sort do - they put on productions. Books about them (I have read a few) are greatly expanded versions of the material now in the article. Johnbod 23:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's see. Source 1 is restricted access, but it may be acceptable as it isn't self-published. I'd like to know what content you used from it though. Source 2 is the Pembroke College Record, which only mentions the theatre club in the obituary of Donald Taylor. Hardly significant coverage of the club in a third party source. Source 3 is apparently a program from a play. That's not a good source at all, it's a primary one, not even a secondary. Source 4 is similar to 2 in that it's about Michael Flanders, not the club. Source 5 is Dudley Moore's obit. Thus also not about the club. Source 6 is about John Schlesinger on Everything2.com, but it apparently copied from an obituary in the LA Times. Means its not about the club. Source 7 is an index of a collection of materials at a library. Not a good source as it says nothing about the actual club. Source 8 is a bio of Michael Palin, again, not about the club. Source 9 is David Wood's resume, which means it's not about the actual club. It's also a SPS. Source 10? Samuel West's Curriculum Vitae. So another thing not about the club. Source 11? Don't want to buy the article, but it seems to be a list of Shakespeare performances in theaters. I do not think mention in it demonstrates notability. Or am I wrong, and there is significant coverage of the club there? Perhaps you'd care to copy and paste the material you used? For that matter? What content did you from Source 12 about this club? A statement when it was founded? Kind of trivial coverage there. That leaves the last source, which may be the best, so, exactly what does it say about the club, and how did you use it in the article? FrozenPurpleCube 00:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're not going to listen to me, but as I see it, most of your sources are people's bios, which is not good coverage of this club at all. Try to find sources about this club, articles that do more than a passing mention. That'll work better than protesting that your sources are good. Right now, maybe 2 or 3 of your sources are acceptable, but they're not really convincing to me. FrozenPurpleCube 00:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. In light of the nominator's detailed criticism of the added sources, I am tagging the article with ((refimprove)) so that issues of reliability and independence may be addressed. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closer's note: Two issues came up in this discussion that I feel I should say something about. First, it is generally unproductive to question whether a nomination was made in good faith, except in the most obvious cases of bad-faith disruption. The intentions of the nominator have no influence on the quality of the article, which is what matters most. In this case, I believe the nomination was made in good faith and that the nominator presented a strong and detailed challenge of the article.

Second, the presence of third-party publications about a source is, in a strict sense, neither sufficient nor necessary for the source to be deemed reliable. There may be much written about a notoriously unreliable publisher (e.g., a notable propaganda website) and little written about a reliable one (e.g., a highly specialised peer-reviewed academic journal). That a source is itself the subject of reliable third-party publications attests to its notability, but not necessarily its reliability. Also, at any fixed point in time, the presence of publications about a source is a static characteristic, whereas the reliability of a source is dynamic and depends on context. A static characteristic cannot account for a dynamic property. A source that "is reliable in one topic may not be in another." (quoted from Wikipedia:Reliable sources) -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford University Chess Club[edit]

I've looked for third-party sources providing non-trivial coverage about this chess club, but I can't find any. Lacking those third-party sources giving it significant coverage, I don't think it passes the standards of WP:ORG. Oxford University has a long history, and a lot of clubs. I don't feel they all merit articles. FrozenPurpleCube 18:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The reason that the current article does not have enough notable citation is that we have been rather lax in editing the page. If given the opportunity, we shall do so. As for notable press coverage of the club, the Chessbase article was written by Olena Boytsun, a current player, but also a journalist for Chessbase (one of the world's leading sources of chess information) for many years. The annual Varsity match is covered by all of the most salient newspapers in Britain, such as the Times (Raymone Keene wrote an article), the Guardian (Leonard Barden wrote an article immediately following the event), and the Telegraph, as well as all of the chess journalism publications, such as BCM, BCF, London Chess Centre's The Week in Chess, etc. Raymond Keene, the chess author, is currently writing a book on the history of the clubs, and the rivalry in the Varsity match (announced at the Varsity dinner in 2005). Given the age, history, and current activity in the club, as well as being of special interest to chess players in the UK, it is difficult to understand the proposal to delete this page. I would be happy to personally augment the information on the page, and show its current relevance, if that is required to maintain the posting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.208.138 (talk • contribs)

Well, laxness in writing an article is a common event. But the fact is, you've had months to do anything since you last edited it. Adding better sources is a good thing, and if you can indeed produce ones from the Times and the Guardian, that would at least establish notability for the match, which would probably help out the club enough for me to concur with keeping it. They would certainly be a lot better than the existing ones. For example, you say Chessbase is one of the world's leading sources of chess information. But that's your opinion as an anonymous IP. It would be better to find someone in a reliable source saying that. And of course, it would be nice to find more specifically on the club. Oh, and btw, you may wish to sign your posts using ~~~~ and add your comments to the end of the discussion, not the beginning. I'd move it, but since I didn't notice it till now, I'm not sure of the proper place. FrozenPurpleCube 02:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep If Oxford University Caving Club is notable enough to pass AfD, then the oldest university chess club in the UK should be. Plus this is only one year shy of The Varsity Match. EliminatorJR ^Talk 18:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the keeping of that article doesn't make this one worth keeping. See WP:WAX. If anything, I'd say that the closure of keep there was mistaken. I'll renominate. FrozenPurpleCube 19:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAX is personal essay and carries no weight. Imagine a court not allowing previous legal precedings to be mentioned. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, one can also object to a previous proceeding, especially if it's not relevant, or invalid. In this case, I'd say so, so I renominated it. FrozenPurpleCube 01:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to that club was slightly flippant, as it was my nomination (I still think it's NN). However, I think the Chess Club has somewhat more notability, as mentioned below. However, it's definitely borderline, hence the 'weak' in my 'keep'. EliminatorJR ^Talk 19:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if this club does indeed have some notability, the way to demonstrate that is sources, not frivolous comparisons to subjects of unrelated (and frankly dubious) notability. Sorry, but that argument has long been known to be flawed. Best not to make it. FrozenPurpleCube 19:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it is allowed to refer to other AfDs. However, you should provide some more detail as to why the same reasoning applies as for the other article. Cite the arguments, not the mere AfD result. (Hopefully legal courts would do so, too. But I'm not a lawyer.) --B. Wolterding 19:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did point out one source above. Here's a couple more [22] [23]. THe second one is especially useful, and I've added it into the article. Are they enough? That's for other editors to decide. EliminatorJR ^Talk 19:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, these sources may all be of doubtable value; cf. WP:SPS. I was more looking for references in published books, giving detailed coverage of the history of the club, or press coverage in reputable sources, or the like. It's not so much the question whether the club exists (that might be proven by the sources you provide, but that's not an issue), We rather need sources to support its notability. See WP:ORG for inclusion criteria. --B. Wolterding 19:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I saw that myself, and for the reasons B. Wolterding mentioned, I'm doubtful about using it. All it really means is that she wanted to write about her club, and chessbase.com is hosting the content. What journalistic standards do they meet? Have they won any awards for their coverage? Can't see anything about that on Chessbase which needs third-party references of its own. FrozenPurpleCube 19:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting ridiculous; ChessBase is /the/ leading source for news in chess and renowned for its reliability (and if you don't believe me ask any GM). BlueValour 19:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but personal inquiries are not reliable sources. I could have Gary Kasparov setting right next to me, I wouldn't use that to claim I have a better source. Perhaps that's where your confusion lies, instead of asserting things you personally know to be true, you should be looking for other, established sources that say it. See, the thing is, the rest of us don't know you from Adam, so how can we rely on what you're saying? the Essjay controversy exposed the weaknesses in that. FrozenPurpleCube 20:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm - Chessbase is one of the UK's premier chess websites, so I doubt if they'd source anything dubious (that'd be like disavowing an article about George Bush in the New York Times that happened to written by a politician!), and Olimpbase equally so for team chess, so no chance of WP:SPS there. Having said that, there must be non-web sources too, though - I'll have a look. EliminatorJR ^Talk 19:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are? Says who? Mark Weeks on about.com? That's not quite a Webby award. FrozenPurpleCube 20:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - this club has had an important role in the development of chess in the UK, as can be seen from the long list of notable former members, and is notable as the oldest university chess club in the UK. Chess clubs consist of their members so notable members are a fair criteria for notability. BlueValour 18:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If said role is indeed true, provide some sources for it. Your assertion of such isn't convincing. FrozenPurpleCube 19:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is self-evidently the case from the list of former members and the games they have played while there. BlueValour 20:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OR and WP:V. FrozenPurpleCube 20:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless secondary sources are provided. But, referring to the general question above, expanding Oxford university#Clubs and societies to an own article, and listing the chess club in a section there, might be a good solution. (Maybe the presentation could be shortened a bit.) --B. Wolterding 19:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete agree with b. wolterding's reasoning and suggestions.Barsportsunlimited 19:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The article has been considerably revised, with a lot of new references. While not perfect, I cannot see any reason to delete it. Notability: Oldest university chess club, varsity match (including an interesting referenced update of user Quale). Voorlandt 20:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC) updated Voorlandt 19:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep or move to Oxford university#Clubs and societies and redirect. At least twelve notable people were members. Bubba73 (talk), 20:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there consensus for notable people simply being members of a club or organization establishing the notability of the club itself? I don't think so, and I think it's a bad idea. Whether a club or organization should have an article would depend on the club's own existence, not the loose association here. (Which doesn't even consider whether or not the persons are notable in a way related to the membership). In any case, I don't see references for most of the claimed memberships. Some of the articles don't mention this club at all, or even Oxford. Others have no references whatsoever. I would at least expect that to be fixed. FrozenPurpleCube 21:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I once saw a book on Cambridge University Chess Club. Would that count? :-) Seriously, the two clubs are notable for contesting The Varsity Match (first played in 1871), and there were periods in their histories when they had many notable players. Probably enough for two short articles, and there will be histories out there that cover them. Here is a list of chess club history booklets (of varying authority and notability: "Some of them are very small; others are substantial (100 pages plus)."): see here. The ones relevant to this debate are: Eales, R[ichard] G., Cambridge Chess (Sutton Coldfield, 1978) and Walker, J[ames] M[anders], The history of the Oxford University Chess Club, compiled from the Club Minute Books, by J. M. Walker, formerly President of the Club (Oxford, 1885). Hope that helps people get an idea of what is out there. Carcharoth 21:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the mere claim that you once saw a book doesn't tell us anything about the book, and the Chess history book you reference is a compilation of minutes by the chess club's president. That's not exactly a good argument for notability, absent some show of wider references for the book itself, seeing how it's not a third-party source. And given that it's from 1885 according to that page, hmm, not too useful as a reference for the rest of the club's history. If this Varsity Match is so significant, perhaps more coverage of it can be found. FrozenPurpleCube 21:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the smiley I added after that comment? :-) Like that. Anyway, I didn't make it clear, but the Eales book I referred to later was the Cambridge University Chess Club one (I've now bolded it above for your convenience), and I lied, I've actually read the book (it is fairly comprehensive and goes into some detail) and it has been recently republished. I think I will order it and then do a short article on the Cambridge club. Given the legendary rivalry between the two universities, that should make the Oxford club very happy. Carcharoth 22:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suggest you try to find other indicators of notability and references besides a single book. FrozenPurpleCube 22:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it, it is plainly equally notable and will fill a gap in UK chess history. BlueValour 01:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google Books gives a number of references [24] indicating amongst other things that it was founded by Randolph Churchill. Capitalistroadster 02:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you mean Lord Randolph Churchill however, while that man is notable, does that mean everything he does is? FrozenPurpleCube 02:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Capitalistroadster. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable chess club and well-referenced article. -- No Guru 14:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or at least merge to either Oxford University or create an article on the chess Varsity Match. The chess Varsity Match generates a reasonable amount of press coverage within the chess community and in the UK, and people may end up looking for a Wikipedia article for more background information. Unfortunately, not much is available, so maybe a paragraph in the Oxford University article is best. Carcharoth 17:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Some useful thoughts, thank you. However, a merge into Oxford University is not viable since it would look out of place in that article and the amount of material would unbalance it. I cannot imagine that the editors of that article would tolerate this. There are several fairly short articles on University sports and societies and there is a case to be made for combining them into one large article. However, that is a discussion for the main article talk page, not here. BlueValour 17:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article isn't notable and Wikipedia isn't infinite storage space. --GreenJoe 20:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Per_nominator. --ZeroOne (talk | @) 23:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:DICK. GreenJoe 15:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Adapted from WP:ORG: (A) An organization is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. (B) If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. ------ Have a look at the reference list and you will see (A) has been fulfilled, if you think the depth of the coverage is not substantial enough, you will notice that multiple independent sources has been referenced as required by (B). Instead of saying it is not notable enough, perhaps you should mention why. Voorlandt 17:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Well, speaking for myself, I'm still not convinced of its notability because there's still really not that much said about the club in any of the sources I could find. Not to mention several of the sources currently used aren't independent, and others may not be reliable. I'll review them:

  1. ^ a b "The Oxford-Cambridge Varsity history", OlimpBase - Encyclopaedia of Team Chess

Says "/ Prepared by Bob Wade, taken from Oxford University Chess Club site /" which makes for dubious independence, as it wasn't even written from start, but adapted from their own material. This may not be a press-release, but it's borderline close.

  2. ^ "Chess Trivia", Logical Chess

Random collation of Chess trivia sourced from a personal website, originally at geocities, but replaced with this copy here as if obfuscating the source somehow made it better. It really doesn't. It just convinces me that the person who did it didn't realize their mistake on using an unreliable source in the first place. The information itself isn't that objectionable, but I am not impressed by the attempted fix.

  3. ^ a b Official site

Obviously not independent, but I suppose reliable enough.

  4. ^ 1869-1885 in The History of the Oxford University Chess Club, James Manders Walker, 1885

Book produced by the then president of the Chess club. May be reliable, but isn't all that independent. And let's face it, the book isn't that useful for covering most of the club's history.

  5. ^ "Oxford vs Cambridge vol. 125 – the never ending game", ChessBase, 16 May 2007

Well, the site may be good (though its own article doesn't even have third-party sources for it), but the article was written by a club member. And I'd still like some demonstration that Chessbase is a reliable source by providing coverage in third-party sources.

  6. ^ ""Cambridge Chess", Richard Geoffrey Eales, ISBN 9780903500241

Well, this seems good, till you realize Hardinge Simpole Limited is a 5 year old small-press and the book is only 105 pages long. Stephen Ambrose this is not. Plus it's on Cambridge's club.

  7. ^ "Oxford v Cambridge", Mind sports Worldwide, 4 March 2000

Well, the Mind Sports Organisation has a wikipedia article, but um...no sources on it! I'm not sure it should have an article at all, but I'm reluctant to tag it for deletion since I'm afraid I'll be accused of misconduct.

  8. ^ Bird, Henry, Chess History and Reminiscences

A discourse on the history of Chess. This would be the best source, but it's coverage of the club itself? A few mentions, but nothing I'd call substantial.

  9. ^ Potter, W. N., ed. (1875), The City of London Chess Magazine, London: W. W. Morgan, at 71–73

A magazine that last 2 years, and if published today, would probably be a fanzine? Pardon me for not being too highly impressed. Doesn't the London Times have an archive?

 10. ^ CHESS, February 1945, page 73

CHESS magazine is a decent source, probably the best one here. Pity the coverage is only used for one thing. If somebody could find an article on the history of this club in the magazine, it'd probably be more convincing than this singular use. I wonder if they have a collection of their magazines on CD-ROM or anything.

 11. ^ Big Database 2005, ChessBase

See above concerns about Chess base.

 12. ^ "2004-05 ODCL", Oxfordshire Chess Association
 13. ^ "2006-07 ODCL", Oxfordshire Chess Association

The website of the association for which they are a member, no evidence that the championship itself is covered by third-party sources. Pages themselves aren't doing much more than listing the results.

 14. ^ Opening Encyclopaedia 2004, ChessBase

See above.

 15. ^ Killer Grob, Michael Basman, Pergamon Chess Series, 1991, ISBN 9780080371306

Not a book on the club, so that's going to move the coverage to trivial. As to how you rate the book, or the series? I dunno, I can't find a site for the publisher, they may not exist anymore, they may not have a website. But let's face it, his concern wasn't the club, it was the opening.

Now I hope I don't seem like I'm attacking anybody, but frankly, the level of sources is not that great an improvement, and the article itself isn't doing a great deal better than it was before I nominated it. Just yesterday, I added an ((expand)) tag to request the history section be expanded. Result? History section obfuscated with a renaming. That's not what I call an improvement. Maybe I'm wrong, and this article can make it to featured status, but it needs work, and it needs better sources. It's probably not a deletion issue now, but it's still in serious need of cleanup, and that includes better sources. FrozenPurpleCube 01:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notability established. Unlike the other clubs up for deletion this article has been sourced and expanded to demonstrate notability. Nearly 140 years of history, oldest university chess club in the country, participant in the oldest chess fixture in the world, helped to develop a string of notable players. BTW ChessBase is not only reliable it is a primary source - a reference on ChessBase helps with notability of other organisations. It has daily editions in English, German and Spanish and all the leading GMs have contributed at one time or another. To give an example of its status Kramnik chose ChessBase for a most important interview, here. Bridgeplayer 19:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I don't think your definition of a primary source is quite accurate, but in any case, I'm not convinced that you've demonstrated that Chessbase is reliable, or a good source. It's certainly not best for that to be based only on their own statements or for that matter, yours. Instead, third-party coverage of them would be the way to demonstrate the notability and reliability of the organization. Not by saying they interviewed the World Champion at a Chess match. Not unless that interview itself received major coverage. FrozenPurpleCube 01:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I accept the sources as sufficient and to show notability. The nom. has said at another AfD in response to a query about apparently indiscriminate nomination, that he is only nominating some of the Oxford & Cambridge clubs for deletion. But this is an clearly notable one--so I continue to wonder at the specialized deletion. DGG 04:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you wondering? What questions do you have of my motivations? Seriously, if you're going to be suspicious of me, why not give me a chance to explain myself? Are you saying these nominations are in bad faith? Would you prefer it if I mass tagged every single unreferenced article on a club and association that I found? What would you have me do instead? Or do you think it's not a problem that these articles exist in an unreferenced and ill-considered state? FrozenPurpleCube 06:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm distressed that I explained myself so poorly that you could think this was what I meant. What I meant was, you have perhaps gotten slightly too over-involved and instead of the truly dubious bottom quartile, and the debatable next one up, you're getting some of the next quartile, the ones that are over the middle and probably notable. This is why I think you should step back and re-examine if you've seen the boundary line in the wrong place. I don't consider saying that over-personal--I have been known to go over the mark, in both directions, and though I'm not exactly happy when people tell me, I back off. What I'd have us do with these articles is delete the hopeless and improve the others, accepting that not everything that needs deleting will get deleted, and not everything will get fixed as well as it could. DGG 08:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this page when I first nominated it. Not one single source on it except their own website. I searched myself and found zero substantial sources on it. Thus I'm not worried at all that my AFD was improper. I did my homework, and checked the relevant criteria. The results here have not significantly changed that. (See my examination of the sources above.) Perhaps there are better resources out there, but I hope this article doesn't remain in its current state. It might be enough to make it through AFD, but it's nowhere near done. FrozenPurpleCube 14:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG & several others Johnbod 00:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In my view the article was sufficient to merit a keep before it was nominated due to the factors other AFD participants mentioned earlier: age of the club, well-known figures in the club history as founders, president, and players, and the long-term rivalry with Cambridge. I find the nominator's contention that the article hasn't been significantly improved to be incredible, as I think substantial improvement is plainly apparent to anyone and the page now easily merits a keep decision. Although I agree with the nominator's concerns about the 2nd source (originally from a geocities page), overall I don't find much merit in the complaints about the quality of the sources or the article. The weakest is the critique of the 6th source, Cambridge University Chess. Here we learn that a WikiPedia article source is discounted if the book was published by a small, young publishing house. Of course this seems good until you realise that Hardinge Simpole Limited is a reprint publisher, and this is a 2003 reprint of a 1978 book published by Sutton Coldfield, Eng. : Chess Ltd. I think the original publisher was small too, but I'll let someone else worry about that. The other complaints are that the entire book isn't devoted to the Oxford University Chess Club, and anyhow it's only 105 pages. I probably shouldn't mention this, but it looks like the original was only 90 pages. (I don't know if the reprint was brought up to date, if extra material was added (preface, addendum, etc.), or if the difference in page counts is spurious.) To sum up, according to the nominator, no subject should have a WikiPedia page unless it has been the main subject of a book by a major, well-established publishing house, and that book is over 105 pages long. Oh, and we need multiple sources, so make that at least two books. I find it impossible to take criticism of this nature seriously. Quale 01:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes, the quality of the publisher is something that can determine the reliability of a source. Why? Because a major publisher can employ fact-checkers and an editor, as well as demonstrate the relative demand for a book. But please don't put words in my mouth, I'm not saying only major well-established publishing houses are necessary, I'm expressing the quite valid concern that not all books are created equal. Do you think there's something wrong with that? Has this book been the subject of reviews by other reliable sources? Been on any best-seller lists? Or the author? Believe it or not, almost anybody can get a book published somewhere, so a book itself isn't a demonstrator of quality. If you don't believe me, feel free to ask on the Village Pump, or at WP:V or WP:RS. See what others think. FrozenPurpleCube 02:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if you truly believe the article has significantly improved, then I can only ask if that is perhaps because the original state of the article was very poor, so perhaps any improvement looks good. But the article itself. Not in that good a state. Most of the history of this club? Not covered. There's brief bits here and there, but it's really not complete. But if you think I'm wrong, feel free to try a peer review or put it up as a good article candidate. Heck, just get neutral opinions on it. I'm sure you won't believe me, but maybe you'll listen when other folks say "It needs work" . Sorry, but I find it impossible to take your endorsement of this article seriously myself. FrozenPurpleCube 02:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note I'm placing my comment here because I'm replying both to Quale and to Johnbod who expressed agreement with said user. Hope that doesn't confuse anybody, but sometimes threading can get mixed up,and I'd rather just be clear here. FrozenPurpleCube 03:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely; he's playing the same game in the one above Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Experimental Theatre Club Johnbod 01:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hmm, attacking the nominator? It's not convincing at all. Many people find such criticism unhelpful, and I suggest you carefully consider whether the goal of defending an article may or may not be better served by at sticking to the content, and not attacking the contributor. FrozenPurpleCube 02:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An odd comment, as I have added considerably to the other article, whereas your considerable energies appear from your contribution history to be entirely directed to subtraction. Johnbod 02:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can think what you like about me, but I'm afraid I'm not going to give it much credence. Sorry, but your criticism is quite unconvincing. I've been quite civil, and I've expressed what I see as reasonable concerns. If you believe they're unreasonable, then please tell me how. Otherwise, stick to the content, and worry less about what you think about me. If you truly do believe there's a problem, try WP:RFC/USER. Also, it's probably not a good idea to take your experiences on another AFD and apply them to a different one. That makes it seem like you're taking things personally, which is rarely constructive. FrozenPurpleCube 02:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I never claimed that the quality of sources isn't important, you can find the rebuttal to your reply to me at straw man. I think that Eales' work qualifies as a WP:RS reliable source. If you disagree, you can take it up in a different forum. Alternatively you can just write another tedious entry telling me and others what to do. I will probably decline to accept your kindly advice, but go ahead, knock yourself out. Quale 11:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, when did I claim you didn't? I merely pointed out my disagreements in your rebuttal to my concerns. Am I not allowed to reply to you? Are you not going to address what I said, in preference to criticizing me? That's not a good thing. You might want to consider looking at what I said and replying to it without the personal commentary. FrozenPurpleCube 15:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for not disappointing me, as I was sure that you would try order me about in your reply. Since you have an obsessive need to get the last word, go ahead. I don't have any interest in any more interaction with you than the bare minimum required to prevent you from harming WikiPedia. I think the five day clock has run out, and since your arguments have been rejected in this discussion by a margin of about 3 to 1 (a common occurrence in my experience), I need say nothing more. Quale 04:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And once again, you're criticizing me, instead of refuting what I'm saying. When have I harmed Wikipedia? Are you accusing me of vandalism? Disruptive conduct? You can disagree with a person without attacking them you know. Your persistant attacks on me aren't good arguments to keep the article, nor do they intimidate me in anyway. Again, I suggest you learn to stick to the content and not the contributor. If you are so swayed by your feelings toward me that you can't interact with me...I think that might be your problem. But hey, feel free to try WP:RFC/USER or WP:AN if you do believe I'm harming Wikipedia. Or heck, get some opinions from other editors. Maybe you need to look and see how your conduct might be inappropriate. FrozenPurpleCube 06:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, AFD, not a vote. Numbers aren't what's going to convince the closing admin to act. I do anticipate a no-consensus close, but that doesn't mean much. Especially since given the non-convincing sources, I'm concerned this article will remain in its poor state, and thus warrant reconsideration for deletion in the future. Seriously, instead of focusing on attacking me, you should have spent some time actually looking for good sources on the article. I've have been glad to see them. But instead, you waste time attacking me. FrozenPurpleCube 06:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.--Wizardman 15:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radyr Comprehensive School[edit]

Secondary school, no reason given why this is notable. Lurker 18:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 20:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sports championship and several notables, backed up with multiple independent reliable and verifiable sources combine demonstrate notability. Reasons are given in current article as to why this school is notable. Alansohn 22:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Butseriouslyfolks 02:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notable alumni don't make a school notable, unless there are so many that the school becomes known for turning out notable people. The sports championship is something, but the article explains what sort of championship it is, it is not sufficient for notability. Was that a small local league championship or something of a notable scale? --Butseriouslyfolks 02:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a large (by UK standards} Comprehensive School (High School in the US) that has overcome major structural problems to achieve creditable academic results see here with notable sporting achievements. I will incorporate this report into the article when I get a chance. TerriersFan 03:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. TerriersFan 03:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has now been radically improved with multiple references, and notability has been demonstrated. Dahliarose 14:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the community, the school is considered to have a first-class reputation does not confer notability. Lurker 14:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the multiple references, taken together, do - see WP:ORG. TerriersFan 16:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a typical school-stub, has some notability per WP:SCHOOL criteria, reasonably well referenced. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 18:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per a "keep" vote above from a bully-admin who deletes good faith edits to articles. Zero tolerance for bully admins! Puppy Mill 00:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wtf? Care to explain your reasoning for deletion based on policy or guidelines rather than a veiled reference to something that appears unrelated to the article? John Vandenberg 01:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. How about this reasoning: High schools are, by definition, not encyclopedic and will never be encyclopedic. Unless someone can point to a high school which has ever appeared in a real print encyclopedia like World Book, Collier's, Encyclopedia Britannica, Funk & Wagnalls, etc., high schools will never IMO be encyclopedic. My delete !vote remains unchanged. Puppy Mill 02:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you look at Category:Schools and m:Wiki is not paper; and since you asked, check out [25]. John Vandenberg 03:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got a scan of that same article from a print edition of Britannica? No? Puppy Mill 04:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source is provided and your claim has been conclusively disproven. Alansohn 05:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, plenty of google news archive results to expand the article; see this BBC article for a "controversy" that has lots of useful information about the school. John Vandenberg 01:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marley Brant[edit]

Notability not established, unsourced statements. Would require extensive rewrite & reformatting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SkyIsFalling (talk • contribs).

Delete doesn't appear NN, no sources, a lot of the article lifted from this. EliminatorJR ^Talk 19:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notable achievements. Besides being this or that. `'юзырь:mikka 05:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - the article also appears to be a conflict of interest. The article creator is a single purpose account with the name User:Marbrant. That would likely explain the heavily promotional nature of the text. The individual is a published author with multiple books (see [26]). However, the article is severely lacking in sources, and needs a complete rewrite for POV. -- Whpq 14:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but I would change to keep if there was a good third party source. I'd expect a notable PR director to be able to find press clippings about herself.DGG 05:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anthony.bradbury

RosAsm[edit]

Non notable software- Google is throwing up mostly free software databases. This article also reads like an advert, and the images appear to be incorrectly tagged. Delete unless sources are found. J Milburn 18:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom that this article is spam intended to promote product. Complete lack of third party references also suggest article should be deleted on grounds of non-notability. --Gavin Collins 14:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam. Eluchil404 17:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've done some work to remove some of the more blatantly POV bits but I nonetheless think this article is pretty much unsalvagable. I'm also not convinced that it's notable enough to warrant an article: as far as I can tell there are no major projects that use RosAsm, and I haven't seen any references to it in articles. fraggle 10:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete but open to verifiable rewrite/redirect where nessecary. - Mailer Diablo 09:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battlecarrier[edit]

This is a non-notable neologism for a fictional type of ship: a combination of an aircraft carrier and a battleship. The article mentions the Ise class battleships, which had their rear turrets removed and replaced with a flight deck. However, no historians refer to them as "battlecarriers", and they were a desperate attempt to get more flight decks in the most expedient way possible after the IJN had most of their carriers destroyed, not an attempt to build a hybrid warship which could act as both a battleship and a carrier. The term "battlecarrier" may have been recently popularized by the Playstation 2 game Naval Ops: Warship Gunner, which includes fictional battlecarriers. Most Google hits on the word are fictional. The most critical point is that no reliable source uses the word "battlecarrier" to describe the Ises or any other hypothetical warship. If the article has no reliable sources to assert the existence and notability of the term, the article should be deleted. TomTheHand 18:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with the nominator that there's just not enough in terms of reliable sources outside of a few games and fictional references for this to be notable at this time. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, we already have an article on the real ones and the fictional ones have no external notability per WP:FICT. --Dhartung | Talk 04:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Raze to the waterline and rebuild (that means keep, but rewrite from scratch). Battle carriers existed, but were nothing like the ~~nonsense~~fiction described in the existing article. See this article from the Naval Historical Center. I will rewrite this article at Battle Carrier regardless of the result of this AfD. ➥the Epopt 00:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the Midway class aircraft carriers, which were called CVB between their completion in 1945 and their redesignation in 1952, were the only ships to carry that designation. However, I don't think they need an additional article on top of the class article itself. Nevertheless, I agree with you that the USN's CVBs were completely different from the fictional "battlecarrier" described in the article. TomTheHand 03:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or redirect to Midway class aircraft carrier, per TomTheHand. The Land 15:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The eurpoean penetration[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Short and pointless article. Everything contained within this already contained in other articles on the history of Africa and the slave trade. I would have redirected except that "european penetration" is so incredibly ambiguous, it could apply to anything in history having been invaded in some manner by something European. Someguy1221 18:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. as per nom.--Edtropolis 18:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - semi coherent, POV, inadequately referenced. Nonsense by any other name. andy 18:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as minimally referenced and appearing to be OR. If it's real, it needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Alvestrand 20:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (are OR essays really CSD G1? To me they're not, they're just "poor writing"). Optionally redirect to missionary position. Or not. --Dhartung | Talk 04:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 15:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sr 13 06:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Central Place Theory[edit]

A completely unreferenced "theory" put forth by a Nazi government employee to explain "systems of cities" (from Walter Christaller, the proponent of the theory). I'm not an expert in geography, and so I can't address the validity or importance of the theory. However, this article is completely unreferenced, horribly POV-ridden, and seems to contain a lot of original research. I suggest we move it to /dev/null (unless someone knows it's valid and is willing to source (and sanitize) this article). /Blaxthos 17:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and add references. A simple google search pulled references from about.com and various educational institutions. Christaller's K=4 theory is also heavily used in "hub and spoke" transit planning, as near as I can tell. The article is unreferenced, but that's no reason to delete it, it's a reason to clean it up. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree-- add the references. There are already articles about Christaller (which reference his 1933 book and a 1989 one by Marc Rossler. Maybe it can draw from the de:Wikipedia article, "System der Zentralen Orte". Mandsford 23:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and one of the distinctive things about the Nazis was the extent to which many of the most respectable academics eagerly participated--this particular one afterwards gladly joined the Communist administration as well. But I know this theory as anthropology, and it's a permanent contribution. I can not figure out why people nominate articles in fields they admit they do not understand, (though I can see why people might do it and pretend they understand. I might be tempted to pretend I knew about, say, wrestling, but hardly to say,"I know nothing about wrestling, but this one doesn't seem important." DGG 02:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, it was nominated because, when nominated, the article was completely without attribution and, as such, fell into an unreferenced stew of original research. It also has a pretty POV feel to it, which proper referencing might also fix. Thanks for the good faith. :-P One must not be a subject matter expert to identify articles that are in violation of our most basic policies. /Blaxthos 04:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I tacked on some links to academic resources on the theory, and a cursory overview of both sources and article doesn't raise any major red flags for me -- that is, I don't see any original research, and very little that is even arguably POV (aside from the theory itself, which is a point of view, but appears to be legitimately described). I suggest tagging specific parts of the article you suspect are a problem at this point. --Dhartung | Talk 05:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete since no reliable sources have been provided.--Wafulz 03:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oasis Entertainment[edit]

Record label of questionable notabilty; blatant conflict of interest. Also nominating the record label's owner:

Keep. Looked at their site. Appears to be religious.--Edtropolis 18:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 20:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it lists artists that it records, who are notable. It needs a lot of cleaning up, though. Bearian 00:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not prove the notability of the label and notability by association is insufficient grounds for retaining the article in the absence of reliable third-party sources to verify the content. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - This company hasn't put out records – they took an album, American Hotel, that had already been produced and marketed it. Not only that, they didn't market it very well because it's difficult to find anything about that album except from MySpace and this company's webpage. Cavener is even less notable than Oasis Entertainment; trust me, if Cavener had worked with Barenaked Ladies on anything other than the Juno Awards, I would have the recording. That's original research, but it's really, really thorough original research. ;-) - KrakatoaKatie 05:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Truth (television show)[edit]

A Televison show starring high school pupils and airing on a public access channel. Therefore, not notable enough for a Wikipedia article Lurker 17:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, if we can find a reason. Shows that are exclusively on public-access television are not notable - and I think the only exception I've ever seen is Wally George's show, but even then, it got syndicated. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Nickson[edit]

It is clear by WP:BLP1E and WP:MEMORIAL that the topic is not notable for a biographical article. At best, it may be the event that is notable. In the present case, however, I doubt that. The article claims coverage in local newspapers and in Crimewatch UK. But that would apply to hundreds, if not thousands of unsolved murders in the UK; they cannot possibly all be covered on Wikipedia? -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 16:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A man, not otherwise notable, was hit in the head and killed by an unknown person in 1985. That does not make an encyclopedia article. Per WP:NOT "The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article." Edison 20:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - crimewatch doesn't make it notable. It includes dozens of local crimes in which the police are asking for help that week.--Doc^g 21:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, suggesting a merge with Shakespeare's influence on the English language or similar. --Tone 17:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of English words invented by Shakespeare[edit]

AfD was opened by User:Avowl, see description below. --B. Wolterding 18:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The information in the article cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources. The origin's of the myth of the words invented by Shakespeare comes from the Oxford English Dictionary. People assume that since the first cited source in the OED is from Shakespeare that Shakespeare invented that word. This is false. The editors of the OED used the concordance to Shakespeare (a list of all the words in his works) to find citations for the Elizabethan period. They also had an editorial bias towards literary sources, especially important literary figures. These three books give this information in detail, with the Schäfer book dealing specifically with antedating words with the first citation from Shakespeare:

Lexicography and the OED edited by Lynda Mugglestone

Documentation in the OED by Jürgen Schäfer

Empire of Words by John Willinsky

The book Coined by Shakespeare for example using first citation as evidence that Shakespeare invented the word, which as stated above means little. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avowl (talk • contribs)

Keep encyclopedic and semi-sourced. Needs some more, but that wouldn't be difficult. If some of the words can be antedated to Shakespeare, then fix it. EliminatorJR ^Talk 19:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although the article should be converted to use inline sources for some key assertions. Wasn't this a split out of one of the other Shakespeare articles on its way to FA? The major problem I have with it is that the body seems to argue against the article title, so it should be List of words arguably coined by Shakespeare, or something more NPOV. As it is, it purports to be a list, it tells you the list is likely false or dubious, then gives you the list. --Dhartung | Talk 19:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but a less pov title is needed to go with the disclaimer in the article which clearly express doubt. English words with coinage attributed to Shakespeare perhaps. It is preposterous that he coined these words, then put on plays where the actors recited lines full of words unknown to the audience. Many of the "coined" words were simply French or Latin words which were familiar to most listeners, or combinations of words. Did Shakespeare say, "From now on the Latin word pious will be also be the English word pious? The article also says OED was prone to overattributing to him because his works were more familiar to modern readers and easy to search. At least there is a reference or references for the claims, so it is not OR. Any editor is free to find reliable sources with earlier printed uses of the word as an English word. But wait: how do we know the earlier writer wasn't using frugal as a French word? Distinction without a difference. Edison 20:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous reviewers. Probably rename it, definitely add citations. I think that the comments made by the deletion nominator are better placed simply on the talk page rather than in a call for deletion, though the his points are valid and this action, even if it doesn't get the article deleted, will definitely motivate editors to make it better. Wrad 21:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 20:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 20:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to English words invented by Shakespeare since this is more than a list. -Doc^g 22:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the (if not the) English language's most important author's effects on the language is worthy of an article. Carlossuarez46 04:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't understand why this article shouldn't be deleted as it contains almost no verifiable information relating to Shakespeare. Almost all the words on the list were almost certainly not invented by Shakespeare. The burden of evidence is on showing they were rather than antedating them. Why should Wikipedia perpetuate this 'urban legend?' Avowl
Comment: I can't claim to have an informed opinion on the viability of the article (but perhaps it is better for the Wiki dictionary?), but if it is kept, it could be moved to English words first attested in the works of Shakespeare? That avoids the issue of whether WS actually coined the words. (The books cited in the article lack the usual bibliographical information: edition used, publisher, place, year etc. That needs to be fixed.) Pharamond 04:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not object to the name change if sourcing cannot prove the word's origin other than to say it first appeared in... Carlossuarez46 20:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs more sourcing, but it is useful, verifiable, and highly encyclopedic. This is the kind of article that makes Wikipedia trump Britannica. VanTucky 19:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it needs sourcing, source it, but please keep the list—it's a verifiable record of the man's accomplishments, and is surely notable. —Ryan McDaniel 20:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem with this article is not that it lacks sources but that sources cannot be found because the information, i.e. that Shakespeare invented the words on the list, is false. Avowl 22:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article but change its title to something along the lines of 'Words whose coinage has been attributed to Shakepeare". The article embodies a widespread belief that Sh did in fact coin a number of words- which affirmation by its nature is neither provable nor unprovable except on a case-by-case basis. As such, the affirmation is an established part of Shakespeare lore, in the same way as the unprovable 'fact' that he died on his birthday. The article should be commented as such, but left. It has served my students well as an introduction to the wider debate on verificability of historical documents.'

Previous comment by user RichardBrownon June 14 2007 at 8:49 CET

- Comment Wouldn't an article with a list of words and the title 'Words whose coinage has been attributed to Shakepeare' just be misleading? Perhaps an article without any words, purportedly coined or otherwise, but a comment on the origins of this piece of 'common knowledge' and why it is false. Avowl 16:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Yes, I agree, to say 'coinage' or anything like it is misleading, as it means the same basic thing as 'invented by', although qualifying it with 'that have been attributed to' makes it better. We do need something different. I wouldn't be opposed to the changes you suggest here, rather than a either deletion or keeping the article the way it is. Article titles so far have been a bit bulky. Perhaps simply Lexicography and Shakespeare? This is simple and doesn't imply anything inappropriate, although people may expect an article that will illuminate the meaning of the words Shakespeare uses. Let me know what you all think.

Also, is there a term used in the books you mention that may lead to an appropriate title? Or perhaps a term for the study of the origin of words? That would be useful. [[Wrad 02:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eureka! Etymology is the study of word origins. Perhaps Etymology and Shakespeare? This seems to fit very well. The article could cover the history of Etymological subjects related to Shakespeare, and the controversies. If merited through sources, we could eliminate the word list, and stick to the prose. This seems very satisfactory to me. Wrad 02:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —^Jack_Lumber^/tɔk/ 21:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Contains words like fishify (fish with and "ify" after it, to turn into a fish) and noiseless (noise with "less" after it) that would not take a thousand years and a literary genius to come up with, as they are simply common words with a common suffix attached to them. Watch me be a little Shakespearean here and add my own words to the English language: "sockify", to turn into a sock, and "flossless", a state of being where one has no floss. These words or words like them were probably thought of and used in slang or conversation before Shakespeare was born.67.170.187.52 02:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)subtle_one[reply]

Comment That's all very clever, but it neglects other, more notable words mentioned in the article, such as scuffle, bump, and grovel. The answer to your objection would be to remove less-important words, not to delete the article. Wrad 02:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I originated this article and created the title (then using another user name). The original article was just a short paragraph, with the long list of words (which have remained since the beginning). The article has since been expanded by other contributors who added some good background on the evolution of the English language during Shakespeare's time.

Regarding the list of words, there were many more words I could have added, but I chose not to as the list was already getting pretty long. The author of my original source for these words (Michael Macrone, who cited the OED as his source) did not include the possibility that Shakespeare may have not invented all these words, but he did state Shakespeare was the first person to use a particular word. So essentially, Shakespeare may have first used the word, but that didn't mean he neccessarily invented the word—two different things. Well, as often happens here, contributors came along who have different and more wide ranging sources that showed the OED's research on Shakespeare's word inventions may have been flawed. Perhaps the article's title should have been different from the start, so I take responsibility for this. After new information was added, the article's title should have been changed.

Since it would be nearly impossible to know which words Shakespeare actually created (unless someone has definitive sources on this) the title of the article should reflect this, even though article cites references that state Shakespeare's specific lexicographical contributions are uncertain. No one doubts Shakespeare's contribution to the English language, but the specific title of this article is misleading. Presuming this article is kept, I would support a change to any title, whatever is agreed upon. BearGuard 22:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would strongly urge any rewrite of this article not to include the list because it only reflects the way in which the OED was written not Shakespeare's relation to English. The fact that the earliest citation in the OED is from Shakespeare definitely does not mean he was the first person to use the word in written or oral communication. When the editors were compiling the OED they relied heavily on the concordance to Shakespeare for words from the Elizabethan period. Since the list of words was compiled using this inaccurate reasoning, there is no reason to keep it and only get rid of words that can be individually antedated by a Wikipedia editor with a large library of publications from the 16th century. Avowl 23:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I agree, the list is currently the least attractive part of the article. Whatever notable words there may be can be mention in the prose. Wrad 23:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the various resons listed above. Although it's not actually part of my vote, I'd suggest a merge with another problematic article, Shakespeare's influence on the English language, and the stuff being discussed here, into a new page called Shakespeare's influence. AndyJones 08:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I like this idea. This way it would match with other articles about Shakespeare. Wrad 13:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possable Future gaming handheld consoles[edit]

Crystal-ballism (or possably hoax material) about future games consoles Lurker 16:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the offical creator of the article and I agree with the WP:CRYSTAL. -Andrew124

I know but i forgot to put a oringalresearch template on the top-Andrew124

This is no t a hoax this is just a possable 3 prospects of future handhelds Besides this may not alwasys be a lie you know and heres my opininon (Dont make quick judgements just find the evedience)-Andyban —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andyban (talk • contribs).

That's why I said possable hoax Lurker 16:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 16:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete violates WP:NOT, WP:NOR, and an excellent example of WP:CRYSTAL. Almost fulfills CSD category G11 as borderline advertising for Sony and Microsoft. I also wouldn't be surprised if this is a hoax, although I haven't researched any of the claims made here. Rackabello 17:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for complete lack of sourcing, and spam-like tone to much of the article. Someguy1221 18:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystalballery in need of a spellchecker. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per Rackabello. Also, all images are marked for speedy deletion due to lack of copyright info. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 01:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyright violation. Some quick web searches will verify that nearly all of the text is lifted straight from various websites. Dancter 03:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was mixed (see the talk page). -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following pages are default kept as "no consensus", without prejudice to being relisted for deletion at any time, per the closing rationale on the talk page:

~~List of songs about weather (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – per User:MrFizyx~~ – userfied with User:MrFizyx's consent
List of songs about the environment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – per User:Hjal
List of songs about nuclear war (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – per User:Mandsford
List of songs about Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – per User:DoxTxob
List of songs about tequila (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – per User:Hjal
List of songs involving video games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – AfD 1, AfD 2, AfD 3
List of songs about firearms and weapons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – AfD 1
List of songs about friendship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – AfD 1
List of songs about fictitious bands or musicians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – per User:TenPoundHammer
List of songs about school (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – per User:Mandsford
List of car crash songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – per User:Mandsford

List of songs about weather[edit]

WP:NOT violations galore with list of songs a topic.. articles. About 10 have been nominated and deleted recently so I'm just going to pile together all the ones that fit the same bill.

Included in this nomination are:

List of songs about the environment - barely any of these songs actually sing exclusively about the environment; they just have ambiguous references to something environmental
List of songs about nuclear war
List of songs about motorcycles - as if every country song doesn't mention a motorcycle
List of songs about automobiles
List of songs about astrology
List of songs about prostitution
List of songs about Pakistan
List of songs that depict radios - the best
List of songs about dogs - 90% of given lists are not about dogs at all
List of songs about tequila
List of songs inspired by dance moves
List of songs involving video games
List of songs about death
List of songs about firearms and weapons
List of songs about friendship - most songs are
List of songs about the future - having a year that is not this year or any previous year as the title does not automatically mean it is a song about the future anyway
List of songs about fictitious bands or musicians
List of songs about criminals
List of songs about school
List of car crash songs
List of songs about disease
List of songs about children
List of songs about the end of the world
List of songs about childhood
List of songs about divorce

Bulldog123 16:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as nom Bulldog123 16:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete All Rackabello 16:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I can't stop laughing. Who knew? YechielMan 17:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the arguments given in all the previous discussions, in particular WP:LC. If somebody wants to transwiki, maybe to the Music Wikia? (Just a thought.) --B. Wolterding 18:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete all thank goodness someone finally went and just compiled these. i was sick of them showing up on here every day. Barsportsunlimited 19:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete x 26. Indiscriminate, loosely associated, blah, blah. Deor 19:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke the lot of 'em! (Well, maybe not the one about tequila. Hell, nuke it too.) WP:NOT. WP:NOT. WP:NOT. --Evb-wiki 19:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness. Goes to show you can make a list of almost anything, can't you? Hmm... List of items my cat clawed the hell out of... nah, it'd be huge. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. With fire, preferably. Universally unsourced, indiscriminate, and generally useless. Zetawoof_(ζ) 20:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 20:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 20:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT. --Tone 21:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Let's do it all in a row and video tape it. A whole lot of not. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 23:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. It would be a better use of editors' time to establish a consensus guideline that clearly addressed the issue of "List of songs about topics." There is some residue from previous discussions that suggests that work should be started up again. Regarding these specific nominees, I'm here because of List of songs about the environment. I came across that list a few weeks ago and found it interesting but clearly incomplete (and incapable of being "complete"). I added Little Boxes, which clearly fits any criteria that could be devised for a list with this name. I spent some time looking for other ommissions and for songs that didn't belong there, and I planned to do more. While I now know that this effort was to some, both sickening and laughable, I do not know what Policy clearly demands the erasure of this work. What the list of environmental songs needs is a link to an appropriate article or section on Songs about the environment or Environmental protest songs, or even Protest songs, where such a list would be needed and would be a useful research tool. I do not agree that most of these lists are WP:NOT. Their problem is WP:V, for the songs that do not already have articles (especially those that never will), and ongoing article maintenance. Most of these lists need cleanup and editing help, which should have been begun, or at least proposed, prior to initiating AfD. I realize that this multiple-list nomination is an efficient way for regular AfD participants to handle a bunch of stuff they don't like, but since this one nomination could eliminate thousands of edits by hundreds of editors, based on the particpation of a few dozen (mostly) flippant members and one administrator, it seems to me to be wholly inappropriate.--Hjal 23:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: There is a Protest song article, but no longer a List of protest songs. Look at the current state of the article, which must, in part, result from the deletion of the related list, then look at the January 2006 version: [27]. It is much easier to deal with problematic entries in simple lists than to have to maintain oversight of paragraphs such as those in the current version. It is certainly easier to write a balanced article when a list is available to place legitimate, but marginal, information.--Hjal 00:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all and try to develop a general policy about these lists, just as with the lists about people. It's easy to find fault with a particular list, but there is no present WP policy against this type of article, and I doubt they would be general agreement among WPedians. This is a topic for a centralized discussion. DGG 02:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Granted, some of these lists are of limited interest or too broad (like "songs about weather"-- If 'Itsy Bitsy Spider' isn't on there, it's incomplete....) Some of these lists may sound like clues on The $25,000 Pyramid, but some might have relevance. I suggest a line-item veto. Bulldog has scanned these, and some aren't that great. The ones that might have a good concept, IMHO:

List of songs about nuclear war-- trendy in early 1980s
List of songs about school-- ranging from Beach Boys to Pink Floyd, a wide range of views about education
List of car crash songs-- popular in 1950s and 1960s ballads

As for the rest, I'm sure there are plenty of songs about motorcycles and cars, zodiac signs, streetwalkers, Pakistan, radios, dogs, tequila, dance moves, video games, death, children and childhood, non-nuclear end of the world (as we know it). Lots and lots of country songs about divorce, cheatin', etc. But are these a reflection of popular culture, or have they ever been? Mandsford 02:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Yes, several of these lists are much too broad. Yes, attribution is sorely lacking in several of these articles. However, this nomination is much too broad. I'd rather see these go up for deletion one at a time than in a mass AfD. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 02:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Look, there's always going to be someone unsatisfied. Either there will be OTHERCRAPEXIST complaints or "Don't mass AFD" complaints. My advice would just be to point out the ones you feel are absolutely necessary to keep. Otherwise, I don't see why we can't break a few eggs to make an omelet. There isn't a single list on there that couldn't be re-made if the contents were ABSOLUTELY DESPERATELY NEEDED. So why are we keeping dozens of horrible lists just because a few might have potential for recreation with sources and an all-together better article? Why not just userfy the ones that have potential and then recreate them? So much easier and more progressive. Bulldog123 03:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the precedents have been uniform or at least lately they have been; let's finish the job so that we move on. There are no real keepers in here; I made an argument about keeping the suicide songs because their effects on society (litigation usually) and that can be a stand alone article as could fears of nuclear war during the 1980's and how that was reflected in music (assuming some WP:RSes have already hit upon the connection) ditto car crash songs; school; and all the rest of them. Carlossuarez46 04:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Yes, they are interesting. Yes, a lot of people have worked on them. No, they don't belong in an encyclopaedia. If the topic itself is somehow encyclopaedic, it would be best to use well-chosen songs as textual examples to elucidate upon whatever specific topic and not to simply list songs which, as has been pointed out, often times are only tangentially related. GassyGuy 10:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Equal to AfD debate on 9 September 2006, The result was No Consensus.

Besides, this is a group nomination, and this is not the intent of the deletion policy. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about drugs for a previous mass deletion. --Patrick1982 13:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for "equal" debates: We had a number of very similar discussions recently, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about sleep and many more, where the discussion resulted in delete. That's not directly an argument however. Still, I think we deleted enough similar lists with similar arguments (the most prominent of them are given above in the discussion) to justify discussing the next set of examples in one batch, rather than 26 individually. --B. Wolterding 13:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - vague standard for inclusion. Many of the songs included on the lists are not "about" the topic but instead merely mention the topic in the lyrics or have a particular word in the lyrics or title and what with Wikipedia not being a directory of loosely-associated topics this doesn't wash. There are many precedents for similar lists being deleted recently and these don't appear to be any better. To address some of the specific keep comments: it's true that some of these lists have been considered for deletion previously and remained as either keep or no consensus. However, consensus can change and, especially in a no consensus closure from 10 months ago, it's not unreasonable considering the recent deletions of a number of similar lists to revisit these. While mass nominations can be problematic in determining consensus, they are not forbidden by policy and IMHO seeking to procedurally keep these lists on the basis of the form of the nomination is not a compelling argument. The nomination and the comments in support of it riase compelling arguments for deletion and seeking a closure on procedural grounds does not rebut those points. Otto4711 14:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have invited particpation from several projects that may be interested in or affected by the outcome of this discussion, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs, Wikipedia talk:Lists (stand-alone lists), and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music. Several of the individual lists nominated for deletion appear to fall into other, more specific, Wikiprojects, but I don't have time to deal them individually. It would seem to be good practice to make notification of affected projects an obligatory step in the AfD process. BTW, is there an article deletion project somewhere?--Hjal 16:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to protest that the nuclear war one could still be useful (in relation to the Nuclear weapons in popular culture article), but going through it, many if not most of the songs have barely any actual reference to nuclear weapons at all, it is just a hodge-podge of original research and songs which feature the word "nuclear" in any context. Bleh. --Fastfission 22:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is not a trivial point, but, it can still be useful (and encyclopedic). It is partially annotated now, and it should have more work done on it, including some culling. Couldn't a reader or user coming to that list from the article you mentioned be interested in songs that refer to nuclear war in different ways? Anti-war protest songs? Allegorical references? Space opera? Tempestuous love affairs? A list allows for annotation or sorting as it develops. I just added the dynamic_list template and edited the opening paragraph to read as follows: This is a list of songs in which the primary subject is nuclear war, whether actual, contemplated, or imagined, or that include an explicit reference to nuclear war or use of nuclear weapons in the title. Link or annotate the entries to indicate their content, with appropriate citations." What do you think?--Hjal 05:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all I do not see where WP:NOT is violated in any of the lists. The songs in the list are not at all loosely associated, as it was argued, they are closely associated with the topic of the list. In my opinion the content can be useful for some readers. There might be mistakes in the lists that require cleanup but that does not affect the value of the list itself. doxTxob \ ^talk 01:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Can be useful for some readers" is not a valid argument. For the loosely associated lists, I would like to quote WP:LC: "A 'list of X' should only be created if X itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article." Since there is nothing encyclopedic to tell on "song about tequila", or the like, there's no point in keeping a list of such songs. It's just a random intersection of two concepts, song and tequila. That's also the reason why these lists are so arbitrary: If an article "X" existed, then it would hopefully be clear what the good examples are that need to be included in "list of X". But in the current state, the lists just contain any song that would contain the word "tequila", or similar. --B. Wolterding 08:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The list should start with a better statement about the criteria for inclusion, I think, but it does tie to an encyclopedic section of an article, at Tequila#Popular culture:

See also: List of songs about tequila

Tequila is a common topic of popular culture, ranging from films that simply use the name, such as Tequila Sunrise (film) (1988) to songs about the drink. According to Tom Robbins's book Still Life with Woodpecker tequila is the preferred drink of outlaws. Sandra Lee of the Food Network refers to tequila as "her friend." In song, tequila is diversely portrayed, ranging from Jimmy Buffett's semi-serious Margaritaville to The Eagles' maudlin Tequila Sunrise. Tequila even enters the popular news media. For example, Mel Gibson's anti-Semitic outburst when arrested for drunk driving was attributed to tequila consumption.^[1] Sammy Hagar, rock star (singer of the bar anthem "Mas Tequila"^[2]) and owner of Cabo Wabo Tequila described tequila's stigma as, "the stuff that you go, 'I will never drink that as long as I live,' and you have gotten sick in college on rot-gut tequila." This image of tequila as the instigator of particularly egregious intoxication and hangovers is pervasive in references to the drink in popular culture,^[3]

In a way, that precisely illustrates my point. There is no article "tequila song"; and if someone created it, it would probably be deleted due to lack of notability. There is, of course, an article about "tequila", and that one refers in one sentence to songs about tequila. Expanding this to a whole list of all(?) songs that refer to tequila is not an encyclopedic addition to the topic "tequila"; rather it is mere trivia. In fact, articles of the type "References to X in popular culture", whether in list form or not, are usually regarded as problematic, as described in WP:POPCULTURE. --B. Wolterding 14:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - per previous reasoning. Haven't got anything to add that hasn't already been said, the reasons for removal are pretty compelling. DarkSaber2k 12:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. We can have equally useless and unmaintainable "List of songs about ..." for hundredths of thousands of topics. Pavel Vozenilek 15:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all (although there are some I would delete if presented individually I won't support the mass removal). These have been poorly maintained, but it would not be "impossible" to maintain them. These sorts of indexes are useful and cannot be created/replaced through the usual wikipedia means. We discourage articles on marginally notable songs, so categories wouldn't work well. I'd like to see a higher threshold for inclusion (e.g. each song listed must link to an wikipedia album article or be supported by a citation from an external source), and possibly some well-sourced text to introduce the list. -MrFizyx 16:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All I don't see where any of them fall under the deletion criteria. And as for what Wikipedia is not....it is not paper. - T-75|talk|contribs 20:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All! Now! Songs about Pakistan? Why not about Kiribati, or Lesotho? —^Jack_Lumber^/tɔk/ 21:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I do hope whomever closes this is a reader and not just a counter. There is simply too much being lumped together here. -MrFizyx 23:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - As do I, because if the closing admin is a reader, he won't need to count. Let's have a review of the keep arguments:
    - Keep because I don't get why we're deleting them
    - Keep because I don't like mass nominations
    - Keep because the list rocks
  - Yup, really strong arguments. Any one who closes this AFD as is with a no consensus or keep is just asking for a deletion review. Bulldog123 02:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply: First, my comment above was not targeted so much at you, Bulldog123 or anyone providing an argument as it was at the many editors who are swooping in, voting "delete" on a list of 26 articles (without reading them), making some joke, and moving on. Second, your characterization of the debate is of course entirely false, but then again a reader will know this. I'll pass for now on posturing by putting my own spin on the deletion arguments. Lets talk about the one part you got more or less right, my position which you describe as: "Keep because I don't like mass nominations."
    - The problem as I see it is that you cherry picked through Category:Lists of songs about a topic for, what I assume was in your opinion, the easiest to eliminate. If you really wanted to discuss similar articles, you could have, for example, presented List of songs about Pakistan alongside of List of songs about California, List of songs about New York City, and other, [[List of songs about {place}]] articles. Through careful selection, you've managed to avoid all the crazies that come out when you nominate List of songs about masturbation, and I assume you wouldn't dare nominate List of songs about the Vietnam War or List of Halloween songs, because many more editors would immeadiately see the value in these.
    - I have voted "delete" in the other presently occurring "List of songs about..." debates, and I'm not about to defend List of songs that depict radios. Within the 26 articles listed above, however, are lists that connect nicely to encyclopedic topics and some that have survived past VfD/AfD nominations. All deserve a fair hearing. The list you have composed above offers a grouping that is no more significant than the worst of the ones that you would like to see deleted. -MrFizyx 14:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I did only select the ones I thought would meet with succes. Had List of songs about masturbation been thrown in, there would have been more people keeping all solely for that one. Bulldog123 20:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        So you admit it. You didn't really "pile together all the ones that fit the same bill," as you claim in your nomination and that your choices skew the debate by avoiding what you see as the "wrong kind of attention." I think that is reason enough to reject this nomination and ask you to return to doing these one at a time as suggested in the closure of the previous very similar debate from last November. -MrFizyx 21:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I DID pile together all the ones that fit the same bill. The masturbation and Vietnams don't fit the bill. Vietnam songs might have some kind of significance so a separate AFD is warranted. The masturbation one underwent and AFD too recently to nominate, and I wouldn't nominate it in bulk anyway because of such strong feelings. I did pick and chose ones, but I don't see that there's anything wrong with that. Bulldog123 01:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply: Many of these might have some kind of significance, all warrant separate AfDs as a means of determination, not one editor's selections. List of songs involving video games has returned from debates as "keep" three times. -MrFizyx 17:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentYes, that's right, there is quite some discussion, but there is quite a list of proposed deletions as well. The problem as I see it is that the lists we are talking about are similar, yet not identical enough to delete them all at once. So it is hard to judge them all together as there is only the option in this case to either delete all or none of them. As Jack Lumber expressed his surprise about "Songs about Pakistan?". Maybe that indicates the right way to go here, take them one at a time. Inspired by B. Wolterdings argument above, I looked at some of the lists and found that quite some songs have articles about them. And when we are talking about "A 'list of X' should only be created if X itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article.", we should notice that the X is the song on the list, and if you find some songs about a common topic Y that are each encyclopedic enough to have articles the list might be created. That might be a way to figure out the lists that might not be encyclopedic, suggest them for deletion one at a time and find out if their content is encyclopedic enough to stand the test. doxTxob \ ^talk 23:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All - What purpose could any of these lists possibly serve? ~~Besides maybe a few hours of entertainment for the bored..~~ ~HJ ^[talk]@½ -08:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there needs to be a general decision about policy with these, because I think most WPedians would think these lists appropriate, and would want them kept, and improved, not deleted. I understand trying out an article or two to test the waters, but to put them all in like this, when there's even one you say is the best of the lot. It's hard to raise the question when deleting the first one without using 'othercrapexists", so we need to think how we can best evaluate these. When its a general question over a type of article, AfD may not be the place. DGG 05:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as the nominator stated in the nomination, several of these lists have been nominated and deleted in the recent past. The water has been tested. Otto4711 14:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment to closing admin: this is DGG's second !vote in this AFD. Otto4711 14:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AfD's are not a vote, the outcome of the discussion is determined by the quality of arguments, not the number of them. doxTxob \ ^talk 17:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I am aware that AFD is not a vote, which is why I put the exclamation point in front of the word "vote" in my comment, which is standard shorthand in XFD discussions. The point still stands that this is the second commment from the person which starts with the bolded word Keep, which is improper, and it is completely reasonable to post a comment drawing attention to that so that the closing admin doesn't misconstrue the bolded word. Otto4711 01:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all lists that can never be complete or referenced - including these. By "referenced" I mean for the list, not individual inclusions on it, as that would still leave no evidence of completion, or ability to reference non- inclusion. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - they're all just pointless trivia IMO, and there's precedent for them being deleted. FredOrAlive 13:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - I fail to see why they violate WP:NOT. Also, some may be substandard quality, but others are not. Some of these lists have already survived AFD in the past. As said above, some of them are useful and they closely associated with the topic on hand. --Andromeda 17:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all but "... about bands or musicians", as that seems to be the only one that would be verifiable, and (at least to me) seems more encyclopedic than the rest. The rest are just fluff and can go. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All per nom. Small enough list for me to not be the same as the prior problem group nom. Unmaintainable. Dimitrii 22:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All -- I hereby propose the ULTIMATE LIST TO END ALL LISTS: The List of Things Banned by the Taliban (contents: every single work of art, music, science or literature ever made except the Qu'ran. And most articles of clothing. And many foods. And....)--Mike18xx 05:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are too many unrelated topics here for anyone to defend within the span of an AfD. Lets suppose I were to choose the first, List of songs about weather. First, I need to demonstrate that this is encylopedia worthy. I need to show that these lists have been compiled in reliable sources and that others must find them useful. I might start with these (after a bit of googling):
- Bob Dylan, "Episode 1: Weather", Theme Time Radio Hour, XM Satellite Radio (Dylan selected weather as the song topic for his first show!)
- Alan Robock, "'Tonight as I Stand Inside the Rain': Bob Dylan and Weather Imagery.", Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 86:4, April 2005, p.483-487 (I don't know the contents, but it sounds damn scholarly)
- Rachelle Oblack, "Using Weather Songs in the Classroom: A Lesson Guide for Teachers", weather.about.com (includes lesson plans and pages of "top 10" weather songs by decade dating back to the 1960s)
- "Wondering whether we have all the weather songs...", 1233 ABC, Newcastle, NSW (list compiled by a radio station)
- Rikky Rooksby, How to Write Songs on Guitar, ("The most common imagery in popular song is meteorological: the weather. Think of cliches like 'winds of change', 'my tears fell down like rain', ...")
- Rob Reid, Children's Jukebox: A Subject Guide to Musical Recordings and Programming Ideas for Songsters, p.150~153 (section devoted to weather songs)
- Annalisa McMorrow, Wacky Weather! Reading, Writing, and Speaking about Weather, 1998 (includes some songs)

Second, I would need to address concerns brought up here, such as how the list is to be maintained. This would require a clean-up, setting up some standards for the songs entry into the list, etc. A lot of work. Third, then and only then could I try to persuade any knee-jerk deletionists that there might be something to this. A couple of editors might pull this off in a debate about one article, but there is no way to do this in a debate about 26 articles. If the closer decides that he or she must delete these, please userfy all of them for me so I can give them proper consideration (you may place them in a format such as User:MrFizyx/songs/List of songs about weather, etc.). I still think it would be much better to reject this nomination and let the debates continue at a reasonable and measured pace. -MrFizyx 05:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted as CSD A7. -- Merope 15:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uk branch owners of pizza hut[edit]

Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. Contested prod, though it seems to be attracting a lot of vandalism at the time of nomination, for some reason. ~Matticus ^T_C 15:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously. Herostratus 15:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was all gone. Sr 13 06:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ender Bowen[edit]

Also nominating the following: Machina: Revolution, Machina (series), Machina (book).

Delete all. There is no evidence that this author or his works satisfy Wikipedia's standards for notability. The only sources given in the article are from the subject's own web pages. A Google search for "Ender Bowen" brings up 100 pages (27 unique), mostly MySpace or forum postings. Search for "Machina Revolution" results in 387 hits (69 unique), many of them just articles talking about a "machina revolution" in Final Fantasy. ... discospinster _talk 15:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all especially Ender Bowen. Fails WP:N], no third party references.--Ispy1981 15:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. articles fail WP:N. Also they look like they are advertisements masquerading as articles and if that is that case they met the criteria for speedy deletion. (Duane543 16:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete all: whom? Notability comes from secondary sources and none of the articles have any. Fails WP:V. Bridgeplayer 19:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - per above. Victoriagirl 23:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus, defaulting to keep. The issue seems to boil down to whether this man's appointments or jobs were notable positions or simply ceremonial duties, and there are good arguments for both sides. - KrakatoaKatie 05:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edwyn Burnaby[edit]

Attempts to discuss notability have been ignored so I am forced to AfD. This person held no notable title or role. He held purely ceremonial role such as Deputy Sheriff and Deputy Lieutenant during his 60's before his death but these title hold no actual power and are purely ceremonial - therefore failing WP:BIO. Vintagekits 15:21, 12 June 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)).

Strong keep. He was High Sheriff of Leicestershire which is notable, albeit within a limited circle! Certainly notable enough for the fact to be recorded in publicly accessible secondary sources - the very definition of notability. Many English counties have lists of High Sheriffs (see here) although Leicestershire is not among them as yet. All those with lists carry a request to expand them - in other words to create more articles like the one being slated for deletion here! Personally I have no interest in minor 19th century English aristocrats, but I'm sure there are people who do. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 15:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, on what basis is the role of High Sheriff of Leicestershire notable - the role is not an elected one and hold no powers other then ceremonial. Why per WP:N and WP:BIO is this role notable - it is less notable than a local councillor and that role also fails WP:N.--Vintagekits 15:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete* No point in getting bogged down on such insignificant roles in history. Are we to include local councillors who at least were voted into position? I think not Coeur-sang 16:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This user has only 6 contributions (4 of which are AFDs for British nobles) [28] Astrotrain 16:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Any chance you could comment on the point the editor made rather than the editor?--Vintagekits 16:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Vintagekits Astrotrain 20:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable, SqueakBox 17:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see the value of having him in the Encyclopedia. If we let the site get bogged down with usual information it defeats the point of wikipedia. The site is for recording useful and valuable knowledge. Not trival matters such as this. I know someone that served as he of my city's Committee of Adjusts, he shouldn't be on wikipedia nor should Edwyn Burnaby. If the site was to list all the people in English history that 'served' in these useless positions what good would it serve?Maplecelt 17:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. High sheriff is a largely ceremonial appointment, not a substantial judicial office (and not even local judges would normally be notable, let alone an attendance office akin to bailiff). The remainder of the entry is genealogical. --Dhartung | Talk 19:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He is one of the monarch's representatives. He is also a magistrate (JP) and a member of Court with close access to the monarch. Wouldn't you say that was pretty notable? David Lauder 10:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep if you read WP:ISNOTPAPER, you'll find it doesn't matter how many we get 'bogged down with.' We are to assume unlimited space, and as such the only criteria for this entry should be verifiability & notability. Verifiability is met, but notability is questioned by the nom and others. I don't see the claim of "no notability." This man held a public office, whether you consider it to be ceremonial or not or 'interesting' or not is entirely besides the point. someone will find this interested and useful, and it's not up to us to debate who it is. He held a public office and it is documented, therefore he meet WP:BIO. Barsportsunlimited 19:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, which part of WP:BIO states that if you hold a public office you are notable? Infact it states the opposite. As for "someone will find this interested and useful, and it's not up to us to debate who it is" - What can you say to that!?--Vintagekits 20:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reponse to vintagekits this is exactly what wp:BIO says about politicians: "Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures." This is a provincewide office. period. there are secondary sources to establish notability. period. i dare say also that i feel your continued comments that respond to every single comment people put on here is bothersome and annoying. let other people get into the discussion. some people don't want to have their opinions heard if they feel someone is going to scream at them every time. Barsportsunlimited 21:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to have a slanging match with you because you seem like the type of person that would never change his mind even if he thought he was wrong so what I will do is ask you what Province is it?--Vintagekits 21:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to have a slanging match with you either, but here you go again- questioning my comments and my arguments. It's getting ridiculous. An AfD discussion isn't an investigation; I don't need to give a signed statement of fact or answer silly questions about provinces or anything else. He's held a privince wide office. PERIOD. I don't care where, I don't care how, I don't care how long, and I certainly don't care to discuss it any further. I would change my mind if you gave any actual arguments about anything, but you don't. You don't give any arguments; you just sit around and try to point out holes in other people's arguments by writing what I would deem rather abusive comments towards people trying to advance their opinion. The fact that you are this invested in debunking a disinterested editor's arguments like myself only add fuel to the accusations that of a bad faith nom.Barsportsunlimited 21:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that he didnt hold a Province wide office - what Province is it - this is an AfD - it is a discussion not a vote. --Vintagekits 21:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, it looks like one of your typos but isnt found elsewhere on the page, SqueakBox 21:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the grounds that it is a largely honorary appointment and merely receiving it fails WP:N and WP:BIO. If we kept this because he held a ceremonial appointive post, then we would need to keep articles for all Kentucky Colonels , Indiana recipients of the Sagamore of the Wabash, Nebraska admirals , Admirals in the Texas Navy [29] , and honorary Colonels of Tennessee, South Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana, North Dakota, and Alabama. In some of these cases, the title was once actually a commission in the state militia or as an aide to the governor, but now they are ceremonial or honorary. Some but not all of the recipients of these awards were otherwise notable, as successful businessmen, entertainers, artists, civil rights pioneers, or athletes, so if a High Sheriff is otherwise notable he can certainly have an article. Edison 20:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a noteworthy figure for wikipedia to have an article on. Tiocfaidh Ár Lá! 20:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd say merge to High Sheriff of Leicestershire - except we don't have an article. If we don't have an article on an office - and he's only notable for holding the office - we're really scrapping the barrel-Doc^g 21:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia is not short of space yet and British history and those who made it needs to be documented. Should be expanded rather than deleted. --Gibnews 22:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gibnews - you'll get no-one more committed to British History than me. But how did this individual 'make history' and where on earth would the sources to expand it exist? Give me some answers and I might change my !vote.--Doc^g 22:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per Doc the High Sheriff of Leicestershire does not seem that notable a role --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 22:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable about this person.--padraig3uk 23:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not assume he is not notable because his office was appointive--a succession of such office indicates an influential country gentleman. I'm not going to start trying to do 19th century local history, but I would assume that printed sources of the time have material about all such gentr. Ths is a reasonably modest and appropriate article, unlike some others. DGG 02:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- a very notable gentleman in his time, and with important royal ancestory to Her Majesty- sourced and verifiable with potential for expansion. Astrotrain 08:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the potential for expansion? Can you indicate some sources? Or is that just clairvoyance - which isn't a good argument?--Doc^g 08:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are expansion potentials in his army career and court appointments, and more on his family life. Astrotrain 09:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And where would there be secondary sourcing for that?--Doc^g 11:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: One of the Queen's official representatives in a county, as well as a magistrate, as well as a member of Court close to the monarch. Sufficiently notable. David Lauder 09:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That might merit mention on a list of holder of office x, but in the absence of any biographical sources there's not more to say. We are not Who's Who.--Doc^g 11:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly Who's Who is a publication of those living today. This a short biographic stub about an individual notable in his time. Encyclopaedias are full of stub small entries. There is plenty of scope within Wikipedia for this sort of an entry. David Lauder 12:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Verified and notable. - Kittybrewster (talk) 00:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stong Keep Nomination is wrong on most points. High Sheriff and member of the Privy chamber were not purely ceremonial positions when Burnaby was appointed. Just because a position is appointed does not make it non-notable, either. All members of the Supreme Court of the United States are appointed. So are all Cabinet ministers, like Secretary of Defense or Secretary of State. US Senators were appointed until 1912. (I could go on.) Edward321 15:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 19:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Magee (journalist)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This is a biography of a living person, yet there are no reliable third party sources cited whatsoever. I don't believe such sources exist, so this article will always be in violation of WP:BLP. GlassFET 22:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being one of (how many?) founders of the Register is of extremely limited notability. The Register is not as notable as it seems to us because internet-related stuff is overrepresented due to our demographic. Founded another online mag, which is bluelinked. This is still not enough. We don't have founder information except for very notable entities. Furthermore, the inclusion of links such as "The post that got Magee fired from The Register" makes my nervous indeed, that this is or could be scurrilous information and thus a violation of WP:BLP. Herostratus 15:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moreschi ^Talk 15:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although the (co-)founder of two technology publications would seem notable, there are too few reliable sources for a balanced article. --Dhartung | Talk 19:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. It's not the strongest consensus by any means, but the arguments for retention seem to outweigh those for deletion. - KrakatoaKatie 06:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Mabel Fitzwilliam[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Attempts to discuss the notability of this person have been either ignored or reverted. The defense for Lady Mabel's notability is based on her title and her political career. At the moment she is the granddaughter/sister of nobility with no title of her own, failing WP:BIO (and that even failed the proposed WP:NOBLE (which also failed)), and also was local politician, again failing WP:BIO Vintagekits 15:06, 12 June 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)).

Keep. Rotherham council (hardly a bastion of reaction - part of what was once known as the 'People's Republic of South Yorkshire') mentions her here as one of the Rotherham Greats. Personally I think it's interesting that a scion of the nobility ended up as a social worker and running Workers' Educational Association classes. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 15:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - local councillors fail WP:N! Then claim that because she was a social worker is notable - what planet are you on? P.S. The "Rotherhams Greats" page also includes Marco who was a bear in a zoo - get a grip of yourself, is this was wiki has slumped to? P.P.S. Just to clarify she didnt run the Workers' Educational Association she ran classes for the Workers' Educational Association in the town of Maltby --Vintagekits 15:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't want to get into a ping-pong discussion with you Vintagekits, so I'll post this then stop and let others decide between our arguments! The good thing as far as I'm concerned about notability is that we (you, I and other editors) don't have to decide on it. What we need to do if we're editing well is to find citations to reliable secondary sources. The Rotherham Council page cited above is an official page from a local government body. It lists 34 entries of 'Rotherham Greats' from the 20th century. Yes, a stuffed bear is one of them and a ship another! But the other 32 are all noted with apparent affection and respect by the Council. I think Rotherham Council is better placed than you or I to judge notability for a local figure like this (even if I'm typing this ten miles from Rotherham...) I may never have heard of her before today, and you may not like her aristocratic origins, but a reliable external source calls her notable. Over to you for the last word... Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 16:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I am saying is that she fails WP:N - that much is obvious and your arguments that she is listed on the Rotherham page is fine but this is wiki, here on wiki we have our own criteria for assessing notability and dont seem to have the same criteria are the local council in Rotherham!.--Vintagekits 16:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nominated before. The result was Keep. She was very well known in her day, and just because certain editors aren't aware of that it does not detract from the notability. There are external sources, even though many of them do not, I agree, appear on the internet, unfortunately.--Counter-revolutionary 16:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, The other AfD was keep because you and your cabal hi-jacked it (they will be along here again soon). Now can you explain per wiki policy why this person is notable. Additonally if there are other off line sources that prove her notability then please feel free to add these - but you cant say that the article should be kept because there are unlisted off line sources - either get the sources or dont! If you are unaware of the criteria that you should be applying here then please read the Politicians section of the Criteria for notability of people--Vintagekits 16:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does not really add to your argument to harass and respond to every comment made here, just some advice.--Counter-revolutionary 16:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion not a vote - if you fail to address the substantive issue and prefer to avoid the notability issue then I have a right (if not a duty) to highlight this.--Vintagekits 16:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete*Having taken the advice and read the criteria I can't see where she fits into it.Coeur-sang 16:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This user has only 6 contributions (4 of which are AFDs for British nobles) [30] Astrotrain 16:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Any chance you could comment on the point the editor made rather than the editor?--Vintagekits 16:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Not having edited the article does not deprive one of the right to comment." [31] Just what was your point Astrotrain re Coeur-sang edit history? -Domer48 17:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That there's something "dodgy" about contributing infrequently and specifically to Afd's made by Irish Republicans.--Counter-revolutionary 19:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having read the criteria Politicians section of the Criteria for notability of people, Regards --Domer48 17:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A fellow Irish-man like User:Vintagekits i see, Domer48.--Counter-revolutionary 19:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. -Counter-revolutionary comment is a little less subtle than this,[32] but equally irrelevant. What is the point you are trying to make? Can you explaine it to me, of is it another cas of Ní duintear fuil as tornap. Myself I find them a great way to learn policies, in a practical way. But comments like that above lends nothing to the discussion, and just assumes bad faith. Regards --Domer48 20:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As you'll see, Counter-revolutionary, I think like you that this article should stay. But using 'arguments' like this against other editors is despicable. I presume that you are a fellow-Englishman/woman; you bring no credit on our country when you comment in this way. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 20:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article is full of socks, at least one of whose master is obvious, and no apologies needed for the good faith actions of Counter-revolutionary and Astrotrain in trying to see justice prevail in this sustained anti-Brit campaign, SqueakBox 20:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Given one of the accounts you've labelled as a sock is clearly Canadian I'd say your comments are an indication of how desperate some of the "keep" voters are. They refuse to actually discuss the notability of the article, ignore notability guidelines and throw sockpuppet allegations without any foundation. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. when you say one of the accounts is Canadian have you done a check user or are merely assuming good faith? Personally I feel no desperation to keep Lady Mabel but I do want to see justice done and identifying newbie SPA's in such an afd is standard, I would equally suport outing any keep socks, SqueakBox 20:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You've accused the editor in question of being a sock of Vintagekits, I'd suggest it is you who should be requesting a checkuser. Put up or shut up! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please remain civil (which telling me to shut up is not), SqueakBox 21:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable, SqueakBox 17:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having also just read the Criteria, IMO she does not meet the requirements to be on the site. If we aren't going to follow the requirements is there a point to having them?Maplecelt 17:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The above user has only made about 10 edits [33], notably on other controversial AfD's by User:Vintagekits--Counter-revolutionary 19:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; fails to have the secondary coverage required by WP:BIO. The one book cited cannot be counted as a biography of M.F., for all I can see. --B. Wolterding 18:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Doesn't quite meet WP:N by being on a local council or by whom she was related to. No newspaper or book articles are presented to show she was notable for being a socialist. Edison 19:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not worthy of an article. Tiocfaidh Ár Lá! 20:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a notable and interesting individual. Why am I surprised at the identity of the nominator? David Lauder 21:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, please comment on why he is notable rather than the nominator - I tried to discuss the notability before nominating this article. Also I could say why am I not surprised that you have turned up here. Lets hope that once your cabal have gotten your !votes out of the way we can then see what the communty thinks. --Vintagekits 21:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is not surprised by the identity of the nominator as it is the same nominator who brought about the first afd, which resulted in keep. It discussed notability and resulted in a keep.--Counter-revolutionary 21:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep verifiable and interesting - don't care about some arbitrary criteria -Doc^g 21:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - This page has the look and feel of the usual suspects trying to remove reference to notable British people from Wikipedia, and harassing anyone who votes against them. --Gibnews 22:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, thank you for commenting on the editors and not even having an opinion on her notability despite !voting "Strong keep". --Vintagekits 22:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its no problem, That the article is notable is self-evident. However as you seem to spend a lot of time trying to delete articles you could consider nominating some of the pages describing people whose notability is solely based on membership of proscribed organisations. --Gibnews 07:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete due to insufficient non-trivial sources. Relies excessively on one source, which is scarecely a major one. Of course, as an Englishman from a thousand-year-old school and whose wife's grandmother ran for parliament and cut George Brown's majority to 4,000 I am, needless to say, strongly biased against any English minor nobility. Oh, wait... Guy (Help!) 22:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I've never been one to love discussing WP:BIO concerns, but the lack of "multiple independent sources" et al part is what closes it for me. David Fuchs^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 22:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is nothing Notable about this person.--padraig3uk 23:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For this article some good research seems to have been done, and there is accordingly some particular things to say. Someone said above that social workers are inherently not notable, but WP covers people in all professions. the work she did is explained in the article. I've noticed something curious about unconscious bias--the people themselves in a field or from a background are as likely to think almost everyone else from the same profession or background non-notable as to think almost all of them notable--it can go either way. As a librarian I can see thinking all my colleagues important, or alternatively none of them really any more important than myself. DGG 02:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I really didnt fully understand anything you said there. I dont think anyone said the social workers cannot be notble, what is more likely is that social worker do not gain automatic nobility - I would agree this, would you disagree, I would say they are notable if it can be shown that they made some breakthrough in the field of social work. What did she do that was notable in the field of social work? This is about notability - why is she notable?--Vintagekits 02:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- an important and significant noblewoman, with distinctions in her field, sourced and verifiable. Astrotrain 08:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well-sourced article about notable events. JJL 13:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable ironically for being an aristocrat turned socialist, had a Times obituary Sept. 28th, 1951 (also, the article should be titled Lady Mabel Smith shouldn't it?). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets minimum requirements for verifiable references, and it is an interesting article. The Times obit needs to be used as a ref. Tyrenius 23:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- She served twice on the Labour Party National Executive Committee. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable for being an elected politician of interest. TamB
Obvious keep. Reasons given above by others. - Kittybrewster (talk) 07:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very interesting and well researched article. Could do with a slight rewrite to make it more readable, though. Tryde 08:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well referenced article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by IP198 (talk • contribs).

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

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

The result was no consensus. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calvary Evangelical Church, Brighton[edit]

Completely non-notable --Vox Humana 8' 13:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - google.co.uk returns 326 hits, and is very unlikely to have been the subject of multiple non-trivial reliable sources. Article only relies on its own website as a source. Non-notable.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, the building itself is of interest, both architecturally and as a social phenomenon (urban evangelism in the 19th century), article as it stands is weak though and needs a lot of work. DuncanHill 14:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, per DuncanHill--Ispy1981 15:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 15:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep building is significant and there appears to be an interesting religious history here too. The details of the present congregation should be kept to a minimum.--Doc^g 21:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- although I wonder whether this meets WP:COI I think it passes the WP:POKEMON test. Knowing what churches exist around the world MAY be encyclopedic. Perhaps this article could be merged into an article about churches in Brighton to include The 11th Century St. Nicholas Church, St. Bartholomew's, and the Church of St. Peter. MPS 21:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to be notable, although the article should include sources not only from their website. Jacek Kendysz 23:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no reason for a general encyclopedia to list all the churches around the world, just the notable ones, but only under the "all the churches" criterion could this possibly be considered encyclopedic. It's in Victorian building, like many UK urban churches, its named after Calvary, they hold sunday school and prayer meetings. Sometimes they have outside speakers. Nobody from outside the city though, has the least idea they exist. DGG 02:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - MPS makes an interesting suggestion - but I would suggest that the better-known and more historic Brighton churches, such as St. Peter's or St. Paul's really do justify seperate articles. However, I would support something along the lines of what is done on major band pages, where a little info is included on each album, but there is a "Main Article: Album Name" link - for those, read Churches of Brighton, with a little info on each church and a "Main Article: Church of St. Name". Would this be workable or appropriate?--Vox Humana 8' 14:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Vox Humana 8's suggestion sounds good to me - would combine breadth of coverage in the main article, with depth in articles for the major churches in the City. DuncanHill 14:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Vox's suggestion, providing someone is willing to write such an article. Without third party sources, for which I am seeing none, this Church does not warrant an article of its own. J Milburn 16:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - It seems rather an ordinary church. The Railway Mission aspect may confer slight notability. However the rest is merely a summary of the church website, without any other external source. Peterkingiron 23:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Doc glasgow, the church appears to be notable in an encyclopedic sense. Yamaguchi先生 04:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as Vox has suggested to the newly created Churches of Brighton. I've found little of note about the church except the building. John Vandenberg 05:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, not a valid page for AFD. Please see Wikipedia:Requested moves. Non-admin closure. YechielMan 14:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Church of St. Paul, Brighton[edit]

Unnecessary redirect page - article needs to be moved here Vox Humana 8' 13:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close-Redirects are handeled at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, not AfD. However, from the sound of the nom, you may want Wikipedia: Requested moves.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jock Ewing and merge verifiable content. I've redirected the article; previous revisions are available in the page history so that (verifiable) content from them can be merged into the Jock Ewing article. MastCell ^Talk 19:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jock Ewing portrait[edit]

Delete - no sources attest to the notability of this television prop. Otto4711 13:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I provided a number of external links that discuss how this portrait (actually three separate portraits) is notable. The original portrait and its later replica were used in a very popular television series (Dallas) and its successor made-for-TV movies and documentaries, often in a prominent manner. The other portrait now hanging at the Southfork Ranch is a focal point of this notable tourist attraction in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. I believe this history establishes notability far beyond that of a "television prop." Casey Abell 14:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment By the way, this photo gallery at the Southfork Ranch web site (referenced in the Wikipedia article on the ranch) prominently displays the ranch's version of the Jock Ewing portrait. Again, this portrait is hardly just a TV prop. Casey Abell 14:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of the external links are reliable sources. Otto4711 15:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We'll just have to agree to disagree about the reliability of the sources. I don't see any reason to doubt the authenticity of any of the links - the painter, the TV documentary, the IMDb page, the writer, or (which I just added) the Southfork Ranch site. Casey Abell 15:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Reliable source" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia. At a minimum the source must be independent of the subject matter of the article. The website of the painter is not independent of the painting. The owner of the painting is not independent of the painting. IMDB is not a reliable source as anyone can submit information to it and fact-checking is minimal. The painting is not the subject of multiple independent reliable sources and thus fails Wikipedia notability guidelines. Otto4711 16:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but again I can't agree with this. Are you actually suggesting that Hagman, Ro Kim and Southfork Ranch are unreliable in their assertions because of a lack of "independence"? You might as well say that mlb.com is unreliable in its assertions about baseball because it's not "independent" (however defined in wikilawyering) of the sport. Some common sense has to be used here. And the comments at IMDb are confirmed by episode summaries (an example) and discussions at a number of other sites. I just find it impossible to believe that some huge conspiracy is afoot to peddle false information about this (these) portrait(s) at a wide variety of websites. Casey Abell 18:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that you might want to read WP:RS so that you may come to understand what "reliable source" means in the context of Wikipedia articles instead of tossing around faintly perjorative words like "wikilawyering." Otto4711 19:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marginal keep. But the external references to show images of the picture (though welcome) do not validate the detailed story told about the picture/s. The twists and turns (Hagman takes pic as memento, copy is made... etc) need sourcing with some in-line citations. With these provided, the article would be an amusing addition to Wikipedia. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 15:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, I couldn't verify all the details when I wikified the article. But I found a lot on the web which verified most of the story. For instance, there's no doubt that Larry Hagman still owns the original portrait: he says so in his memoir Hello Darlin' on pp.209-210, as I verified on Amazon.com here by searching in the book. Couldn't verify all the stuff about his lending the portrait for the replica in the reunion documentary, though. But the website on the reunion documentary, which is already referenced in the article, makes a big deal about the "real" portrait being used instead of the Southfork ranch version. And there's no question that the Southfork portrait is different: here's a nice large version that shows the overlay of the ranch at the bottom. The prominence of the portrait in the show and the successor programs is unquestionable: there's a lot of episode summaries and other material on the web that a Google search on the Jock Ewing portrait turns up. If this article survives AfD, I'll footnote a lot of this stuff in, but I don't want to waste even more work. (Wimpy, I know. I really liked working on this article when I saw it on the wikify list because it is such an amusing bit of pop culture. But seeing a lot of edits go down the drain is no fun.) Casey Abell 15:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into article on Jock Ewing any contents which can be sourced. I can accept that as a character on a major television show, Jock Ewing should have an article, I don't see why his portrait should be in its own article. FrozenPurpleCube 16:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A merge would be okay with me. I definitely want to keep the history of the article, though, because I think more and more of it can be sourced given some time. It's amazing how much stuff is scattered around on the web about this (these) portrait(s). There's even a USA Today article that mentions it. Casey Abell 17:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable TV show prop. DCEdwards1966 19:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Jock Ewing. The character is notable, this prop (actually three) is not. The trivial and unverifiable quality of the sources speaks to its (un-)importance. --Dhartung | Talk 19:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom sorry, casey, i see your point about how we measure what a source needs to be before it's "reliable." I know it can be frustrating trying to put something up that you think is important and interesting, but somtimes, as I have learned in making articles, you just have to let it go. sometimes you just can't find anything reliable and that's that. to be fair, i wouldn't say this is really notable either, on top of the fact that the sources are unreliable. Barsportsunlimited 19:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I love this type of article - trivial yes, but interesting. To delete it on grounds of notability would be murderous and totally missed the point of wikipedia: that we can include verifiable trivia. However, there's the rub, as true as this story may be, it isn't verifiable. Post me a note if sources for the story (not just snippets supporting original research) crop up, and I'll move to strong keep.--Doc^g 21:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge the show really did reference the portrait alot, or the actors directed dialogue or focus towards it. 132.205.44.134 21:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After reading everybody's opinions, maybe the best compromise is a merge and redirect to Jock Ewing, which would include a single paragraph on the portrait(s). I believe there's enough sourcing to support a paragraph that notes: (1) Ro Kim originally painted a portrait, (2) it was a prominent feature in a number of Dallas episodes, (3) the portrait now hangs in Larry Hagman's house, and (4) Southfork Ranch has a different portrait that is a focal point of their Jock Ewing room. With all due respect to the nominator, and not wishing to continue wikilawyering (not a perjorative term - I'm doing it more than anybody here), I do think enough on the web meeting WP:RS exists to support such a paragraph. By the way, I added a single sentence to the Jock Ewing article over a month ago about the portrait, and it was an apparently non-controversial addition. I think this relatively small expansion to a paragraph should also be non-controversial. Casey Abell 15:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I worked on two 'Dallas' Productions, and can attest to all that is in this article. I was the one that borrowed the painting from Hagman, and had it's replica made at CBS' Graphics dept, purely because I didn't want to risk damaging Larry's original. I still have the 'replica' - the one with the signatures in my home, and was the one who took down the Southfork painting to replace it with my replica, so I can validate everything in this article. I don't know what I can do to help avoid deletion, but I thought this was a nice informative article about a painting that people might remember and might want to know more about. James Yarnell 06:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid, your attestation isn't really relevant. You may know all this is true, but we need verification from sources. If this article can't be verified by more than you, then it will be deleted. And nothing here gives any verification.--Sandy Donald 19:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. _{Non-admin closure.} Ichibani _u^t_c 04:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Louie McCroskey[edit]

Non-notable college basketball player. While he meets the most basic level of notability for sportspeople, a player who averages less than 5 points per game is not deserving of a wikipedia page Thomas.macmillan 15:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His college career's not done yet, and he's expected to be one of Marist College's top players next year (as in, he will probably average more than 5 points). Also, there was some press to be made of his shouting match with coach Jim Boeheim.[34] Chengwes 16:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is only borderline notability - but I think there is just about enough notability to justify inclusion in WP. -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 13:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - when googling the name, results return alot of hits but mostly from his recruiting information. He seems to have been a sort of "disappointment" once he got to college and this is why my keep is weak. Is a high school career enough to justify WP:NOTABILITY? His avg. of 5.6 pts a game is definately non-notable. Please weigh in on these issues. Plm209^{(talk to me • contribs)} 13:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Googling is not reliable, as it is possible that he has been Googlebombed, thus wrecking the credibility of such a test.--Vox Humana 8' 13:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not using it as a criteria by number of hits but for a general idea of his accomplishments. Likely, he has not been Googlebombed,why would one even think that is a likely cause for the results? Let's not be paranoid here. It's not like all the links were malicious, just not much about his college career. Plm209^{(talk to me • contribs)} 13:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a former member of the Syracuse University Orangemen, and a current player for Marist College, this person has "played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports," and as such meets the notability guidelines for people. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The highest level in amateur sports in basketball is playing for an American university, rather than, say, the Olympics? Do all players who represent their universities around the world in any sport qualify, or is it just American basketballers? Nick mallory 14:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, I think so. At least as far as men's college basketball in the US is concerned, pretty much any athlete on the team is going to be the subject of extensive, nationwide, third party coverage by disinterested reliable sources, and that's ultimately what any notability guideline is supposed to insure. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I might want to clarify here, since there are different level of men's college basketball in the US, is this just applying to NCAA Division I players, or players from ALL Divisions? Wildthing61476 14:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, I was thinking of Division I schools here. Did not mean to express an opinion on smaller schools, who may not get the same level of attention. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't think it is fair to use such loose guidelines (basically that any division I athlete with a couple of recruiting pages is notable). For one, it is systemically biased against athletes in other countries who do not have such wide spread press coverage. I believe we should use a higher standard for people such as Louie McCroskey and other athletes: Did he have any impact on his team or sport? Was he captain, leading scorer or even a consistent starter? In 100 years, will information on him be useful? The answer to all of these is no. Just to mention, I started an AfD on Matt Gorman, which you can view by clicking his name here. ~~If any of those viewing this are administrators, could you speedily delete Jeremy McNeil, as it was sent to AfD in October but recreated.~~ These are all NN-Syracuse basketball players. Thanks--Thomas.macmillan 15:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please delay that speedy delete request. If you read the Jeremy McNeil delete page, that was for an earlier entry that seemed to be based on a fictional character. The Jeremy McNeil that is currently there is playing for the National Basketball Development League right now. Thanks. Chengwes 15:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep? i guess i have to vote keep per smerdis of. he does meet the notability of playing at the highest level of amateur sports. on the other hand, this is an awfully low notability requirement. I think that criteria should be significantly revised and revisited. i think i agree with plm on this, that we have to find something better, but unfortunately we can't just change wikipedia policy by deleting this article. we have to go by the letter of the policy, and as is written now, this man fits, i guess? comments?Barsportsunlimited 19:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let's write about him when he gets to be a good pro. There are gazillions of players around. Note that the notability criterion is «Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports», that is not the same as the highest amateur level in a professional sport. - Nabla 00:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect both pages. Sr 13 06:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mass vision[edit]

This page page violates WP:V and WP:RS by failing to provide sources, it also fails to assert its own WP:Notability for inclusion. In fact, it provides no information whatsoever verifying "Mass vision" as being a genuine term. Everything covered here is also covered under Mass hysteria, which is a widely used and verifiable term.

Mass vision also violates WP:NPOV by failing to provide any critical analysis of mass vision.

perfectblue 12:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unsourced, does nothing to verify the existence of the term or its notability, covers only what is already covered in more depth elsewhere. - perfectblue 12:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep: page needs work, but not the same as mass hysteria. mass hysteria is anxiety. mass vision is unexplaned event, witnessed by many - statues moving ect. very common. keep keep keep. (Unsigned comment by Spencerk

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete: no reliable third-party sources, does not verify notability. CapitalSasha ~ talk 13:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources, adds nothing to Mass hysteria, poorly written, no references... Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 13:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Editors might want to bear in mind that the original title of this page, before a bogus copy-and-paste "move" by Spencerk (talk · contribs) (which I've just fixed in order to restore GFDL compliance), was mass hallucination, which, unlike Spencerk's chosen name of "mass vision", is a widely-used name for a concept. Uncle G 14:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mass hallucination, or mass hysteria, is the correct term. The statues don't move, the sun does not stop in the sky, this article attempts to give bogus respectability to such nonsense. Nick mallory 14:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mass hallucination should redirect to Mass hysteria and not here. If there are concerns of re-created then this should be re-created after deletion as a redirect to Mass hysteria as well, and salted. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Howard Bloom actually argues that "Reality is a mass hallucination"[35], and as pointed out above there are other sources around. In my opinion, the term should at least lead somewhere, whether our collective mind here deems the current article salvageable or not, but I would suggest to move it back and continue editing from there. --Tikiwont 13:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
note - agreed. name of page doesnt matter to me, whatever is more npov - Mass vision or mass hallucination or something else. point is, there is not a page for this, when lots of people see something weird. lets make it. Spencerk 01:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC) p.s. im not a hippy.[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Non admin closure. The Sunshine Man 12:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Gorman[edit]

Non-notable college basketball player with a career high 2.9 points per game average with only 5 career starts Thomas.macmillan 15:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Named as one of 16 finalists for the 2002 USA Basketball Men's Junior World Championship Qualifying Team on June 2, 2002.[36] Also was a member of Syracuse's 2003 National Championship team, which I will be creating a template on. Chengwes 16:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Completely fails WP:BIO and has no WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 14:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Members of U.S. Division I men's college basketball receive national coverage from third party reliable sources, without regards to how good they are, how many points they score, or how many starts they get. This is what notability guidelines for biography are meant to ensure. Attempting to winnow top ranked players from also-rans is going to raise PoV issues and falls outside the scope of notability guidelines as currently written. This fellow was a member of a team that won a national championship. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BIO. He was a member of a team that won the national championship, so has clearly "played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports." This and his other awards etc are sufficient evidence of notability.--Kubigula (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

N135CR[edit]

Another helicopter tail number article. I see nothing notable or remarkable about this one (unlike some others, with notable crashes, etc.) Obviously, my preference is delete. Philippe 21:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete As a CSD A7: no assertion of notability. An extreme example of what violates Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Right up there with articles for all the license plate numbers of the vehicles in my town. Edison 14:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable helicopter.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; this is only slightly more notable than an individual automobile. N396JS should probably go too. Zetawoof_(ζ) 20:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's an honorable job, but this vehicle is not notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability must be attested to by second- or thid-party verifiable sources, which the page fails to do. - BillCJ 22:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as for the article on N396JS - this does nothing to say why this particular helicopter is notable. If any third party sources can be found, it would probably be better to add them to the Eagle III article - as it would be probaly be easier to demonstrate notability for the operator rather than the aircraft - news sources are likley not to mention individual aircraft. Nigel Ish 18:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Helicopter N202LF currently has an AfD, interesting. Fails WP:N, I can't really see any reason to keep it. OSborn 19:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - CErtainly NN, and I do not think there is anything worth merging any 'parent' article. Peterkingiron 21:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a notable aircraft. -- Hawaiian717 21:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. AFD is for articles, but this is a redirect. Non-admin closure. YechielMan 14:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas chamberlaine[edit]

Incorrect capitalisation in page name. The page was probably made in error. It was a redirect to "Nicholas Chaimberlaine Technology College" after a move. There is now a page "Nicholas Chaimberlaine" (correctly capitalised), so this page is now confusing and I think that it should be deleted. Snowman 09:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - This is not an article but a redirect remaining after a move. There is no reason to delete and if so, WP:RfD would be the place to discuss. --Tikiwont 14:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect since someone did the merger.-Wafulz 03:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original Shortland Street Cast Members[edit]

Non-notable, worthless list, unsourced Dargaville Dylan 11:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Shortland Street. Propaniac 15:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shortland Street#Original cast members (1992). I have already merged, along with the equally worthless Long serving Shortland Street Cast Members. Someguy1221 05:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - as soon as possible. 03:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Merge to Shortland Street. Main article is short enough to merge this into without creating any problems of it becoming too large an article. --Ace of Swords 21:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and delete per Someguy1221. --Ace of Swords 21:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can't delete due to content merging. Someguy1221 01:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted per WP:CSD G11; extremely vague and context-free promotional article about a "software development movement and philosophy." - Smerdis of Tlön 14:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Testivus[edit]

This article appears to be marketing. It is edited mostly by user Asavoia who is probably Alberto Savoia, the author of the only external references. Brett 21:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - as per nom. Also blatant avertising. -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 13:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snowball keep. Nothing's wrong with the article. Non-admin closure. Kwsn^(Ni!) 18:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Queers[edit]

No sources, not notable, tone, advert Mdbrownmsw 17:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Passes WP:MUSIC at every step. Not a single instance of advertising. Tone adheres to WP:NPOV. Btl 21:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Agree with Btl. Skottapplecore 09:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looks legit Rackabello 13:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep clearly passes the WP:MUSIC test. They have toured internationally, article includes links from outside sources, etc. Plm209^{(talk to me • contribs)} 13:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many albums on labels with long lists of other artists and releases. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 14:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - almost a bad faith nomination, almost WP:POINT.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is linked to by more than 100 other articles; the group has a lengthy list of releases, has existed for 25 years, has toured extensively, and as noted by Btl it passes WP:MUSIC. They may not be as well known as some groups, but that doesn't make them less notable. Salamurai 16:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well-established long-time punk band, lots of albums and recognition. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Long-established band with All Music Guide article. Possible speedy under WP:SNOW. Capitalistroadster 02:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Eluchil404 17:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Titus books (publisher)[edit]

I'd just like to register a heads up that this article seems to have been marked for deletion by someone engaged in a personal feud.

I don't know what the history of it is, or why I have been targetted, but Literato's only other contribution to Wikipedia was to place a puzzling message on my talk page threatening me with stalking and physical violence. NZ forever 01:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Weak Keep - still needs more editing to bring it into a WikiP style article. But I now believe there is enough to warrant inclusion. -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 09:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC) Delete - No assertation of notability. -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 13:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to allow editors time to find and insert references. I think tagging the article with ((references)) might have been more charitable than listing it as AfD. Several Ghits, mostly from author blogs but at least one from publicly-funded arts NGO in new Zealand. Given that the publisher obviously exists, and had produced several books in the last few years, I'd be surprised if it couldn't meet notability criteria for organisations. But the editors who want to keep it do need to find and cite those references. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 14:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as now revised. A much better article now that 1finalmercymission has fixed it. Sufficient notability. DGG 03:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC) Weak Delete One journal and nine books do not make a notable publisher. (Nor does a publishing house usually become notable in two years--two decades is more like it.) Probably there is more to be said, so say it. How "many" of its authors are firmly established? DGG 02:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, allow editors time to fix this. The website lists more publications than the page does currently. My feeling is that it probably is notable by New Zealand standards - the move for deletion was malicious and didn't cite notability. Seems a shame to delete it, but someone needs to put a bit more effort into the page.NZ forever 03:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and redirect Varjak Paw (film) to Varjak Paw. Cúchullain ^t/c 06:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Varjak Paw[edit]

I've set this article for deletion until someone can fix this article. In my opinion, though, this article is so messed up that we should begin again. I've also noticed that some parts of this article cover the second book. We could also split this article up and clean it up a bit. Astroview120mm 03:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article and also

because the film has not yet been released and thus violates WP:CRYSTAL. The whole fictional universe is not notable. YechielMan 14:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Preliminary Google search suggests that the book/character are notable. The article is bad, but it's definitely not beyond cleanup. The film article should be merged to Varjak Paw, though. Propaniac 15:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note I went ahead and cleaned up the article. I've never read the books, so there may be some errors (if the article remains, anyway). They sound cute, though. Propaniac 15:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral However, I think we should make a separate article for the second Varjak Paw book. The article is a lot better now, another article that can be cleaned up is The House of the Scorpion. 24.6.156.190 01:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete This article is still pretty inaccurate and is a stub. Also, I don't think we have enough information to write about the movie, so I agree with Yechielman. Still, it's better...
- Note that the above unsigned comment was left by the article's nominator and should not be considered a separate vote. Also, being a stub is not a reason for deletion, and inaccuracy should only be considered as a reason to delete if the article is beyond repair, which I find very hard to believe since it's now so short. Propaniac 14:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Astroview120mm 01:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: look this up on google or Ask, and you get quite a few hits. With some improvement, this article could be notable. ~Crowstar~ 15:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, copy/paste from Russian WP. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Глобальные катастрофы[edit]

Delete Article entirely in Russian, which is not appropriate in English Wikipedia. --Camptown 21:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listed as an A2 speedy not sure if this was actually coppied from the Russian Wiki (I don't speak any Russian) but in any event should be deleted or Transwikied to the Russian Wikipedia Rackabello 13:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The kung fu mummy[edit]

This entry violates every possible guidelines for notability of films. A quick Google search shows no results when it comes to news articles. The only really relevant hits are either the official website or IMDB - which the notability guidelines say is a good source, but doesn't prove notability. When you see how their presence on IMDB is hyped on the links section of the official website, I tend to agree.

Delete. Mgm|^(talk) 11:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 13:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be only available on DVD from the filmmakers--equivalent notability to a self-published book or album. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. --Edtropolis 13:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please do not cite a proposed guideline as a guideline for deleting an article. Edison 14:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failure to show it has had significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject as per WP:N. Edison 14:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Speaks poorly for the authoritative nature of IMDB. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 14:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
del --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This movie almost is notable for its complete lack of any mention in any WP:RS. It's entry in IMBD is odd as is its entry on Amazon.com. If they can get some WP:RS to comment on that, then it might be a keeper. However, delete since does not meet WP:N. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete*Coeur-sang 19:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delte per nom. IP198 14:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect, without deletion, thus permitting it to be easily recreated without admin intervention should one of the other bands become notable. Incidentally, an AFD isn't necessary to redirect or delete pages like this. Redirects can be done by a single editor, and disambiguation pages that point to a single article are explicitly covered by WP:CSD#G6, housekeeping.Chaser - T 05:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catharsis (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Unhelpful DAB page, only links to one actual article, the others are red links which point to what appear to be non-notable bands. I say delete and redirect to the one existent article and if the other bands listed become notable enough for their own articles, then recreate at a later point. Rackabello 12:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment an apparently unrelated article at this title was deleted through AFD at an earlier date. See original nomination for details. Rackabello 12:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. What's the point of a disambig page with one blue and two red redirects? Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 15:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the one existing article, or move the existing article to this title. I hate these disambig pages with only one blue link. Propaniac 16:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. Paul High School (Ottawa)[edit]

Non-notable high school, I don't even think it meets the criteria for a stub article Rackabello 12:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD A3 (no content whatsoever). The single line here, that it is located in Ottawa, is obvious from the title. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ottawa Catholic School Board. Poof! problem solved... But something needs to be done about ridiculous navboxes like Template:OCCSB, which is probably responsible for the premature creation of this article. -- Visviva 12:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listing as a CSD candidate Didn't think this met the criteria initially, but you have a point, no content whatsoever IS a candidate for deletion under category A3, and that's exactly what this article is other than a rephrasing of the title Rackabello 13:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy. --Tone 13:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co mi Panie dasz?[edit]

Basically a non-article. Editor seems to have history of creating these types of articles and this one in particular has already been speedy-deleted. - eo 12:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy A1 Rackabello 13:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Krimpet (talk) 12:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inner[edit]

Non-helpful dab page. As far as I can see all entries should be removed for the page to conform with WP:MOSDAB. Another such useless dab created by the same user, Outer, is also undergoing AfD. IPSOS (talk) 12:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yea, and Outer's AfD is leaning towards keep, just as this one most likely will too... What is it with you deletionists?? ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 13:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Resorting to name-calling will not bolster your arguments. On the contrary, it will weaken them. Uncle G 13:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - As will your continued removal of whitespace in order to make it harder to reply to discussions. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 01:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As with Outer (AfD discussion) (where, contrary to the author's claim above, there are several cogent arguments to delete that are strongly based upon Wikipedia:Disambiguation) none of the places and things listed are actually known simply as "Inner". This is a puported disambiguation article with zero things that are actually ambiguous, and the very thing that Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Lists cautions against. Delete. Uncle G 13:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as could probably be useful given the number of items listed on the DAB page, and users may be searching for one of the items there but not know the exact term the page would be under.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this not what disambig pages are for. The number of items is irrelevant becuase, as Uncle G notes, there's nothing ambiguous about the artcles' names. There's no reason for the page - it's just a list of articles beginning with the word inner - its not functioning as a disambig page. To quote the disambig guide line: "Disambiguation pages are not search indices."--Cailil ^talk 15:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Lists. Deor 15:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—As per UncleG's and others' comments above, this page is not in keeping with the current consensus as to the function of a dab page. --Paul Erik 15:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally and utterly pointless. The In article linked under "See Also" is a much better example of a list of things that actually need to be disambiguated. Propaniac 16:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Ohhhhh, OK, so what makes In worthy of a dab page but not Inner? Puhleaze--don't by an inconsistent, contradicting hypocrite... ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 01:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Wow. First of all, as Uncle G said, In (or IN) is a list of articles for things that are ACTUALLY REFERRED TO as "IN" and could be the reasonable target of someone simply searching for "IN." This is obviously different than the likelihood of someone searching for "Inner" when they want "Inner ear," or whatever. This had already been explained repeatedly by other users; the fact that I didn't feel the need to spell out the reasoning yet again doesn't mean that I think there is no difference but I just like "In" more, or whatever. But your use of inconsistent, contradicting and hypocrite in succession, as if they all don't mean the same thing, indicates you're more a fan of redundancy than I am. Propaniac 13:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Calling another user an "inconsistent, contradicting hypocrite" seems a bit incivil, bordering on WP:NPA vio. —Gaff ^ταλκ 01:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is the second time that you have resorted to calling editors names in this one discussion alone. Please stop this, now.
    In redirects to IN, which lists various things commonly known by the two-letter acronym "IN". Uncle G 12:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the argument that, contrary to the above claims, this is not a disambig page but rather amounts to a "List of articles with Inner in their name". None of these items are ambiguous and none of them referred to as "inner". Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its a standard disambiguation age. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- No, it isn't. If you think that it is, please point to two things listed here that are commonly known as simply "Inner". There is no ambiguity to resolve, because there aren't any things where articles at or redirects from this title would be appropriate. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Lists. Uncle G 12:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I have serious issues with Σɛ_Þ² because of his/her general complete lack of tact and civility. However, pages such as this increase the access and browsability of Wikipidia. There are major problems with searchability and navigation on Wikipedia. Pages like this open up whole new dimensions for the way that average users (not able to use Special pages for searching) interact with Wikipedia. I think that this is a way to vastly expand the search capacity of Wikipdia. —Gaff ^ταλκ 05:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- DeleteJust like deleting Outer. We flat out do not need disambig pages linking together every loosely associated group of things that have one word in common. Nobody is going to search for Inner. This is illogical. —Gaff ^ταλκ 19:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Says who? That's your opinion--not mine. I like to trace root words of things back to their source and learn how they're used elsewhere. This is what an encyclopedia is for. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 01:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Actually, that's what a dictionary is for. The dictionary, where every article can have usage notes and etymology, is over there. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Uncle G 12:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Do you know what etymology means? It means history, essentially. Do you know what encylopedias do? They are historical references. Splitting up dictionaries from encylopedias is stupid and deconstructionist--it's time to reconstruct and bring everything together, not keep it separate. Haven't you been keeping up with the progress of consciousness for the past, oh, hundred years or so at least? Things are moving together, not apart (despite what the theoretical physicists believe is happening with the universe). ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 14:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Wrong. Please read and learn our Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy. Uncle G 00:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - One word that you will want to check on is Hypocrisy. There is no hypocrisy in my critique of this page in this AfD, despite the quite frankly incivil remarks you leave in the edit history: 01:19, 13 June 2007 Eep² (Talk | contribs) (4,876 bytes) (replies to the hypocracy). I would appreciate not being accused of hypocrisy for simply voicing my opinion. While it is interesting to trace root words, as you mention, I'm not really convinced that its useful or encyclopedic. Nonetheless, I will back off from voting on this and stay neutral. —Gaff ^ταλκ 01:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Looks like someone needs to look up the word encyclopedia (see http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=encyclopedia too). In case you'd rather not visit the links: "A book or set of books containing articles on various topics, usually in alphabetical arrangement, covering all branches of knowledge or, less commonly, all aspects of one subject." and "A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically." Comprehensive--know that word too? The incivility here is the inability for most people in these discussions about disambiguity to understand basic concepts (such as what ambiguous means). What's interesting to you may not be interesting to me. Interest is a relative concept (as are consensus, notability, credibility, and every other term Wikipedians enjoy tossing around to support their biased "arguments"). ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 04:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- average users (not able to use Special pages for searching) — Your argument is a fallacy based upon a falsehood. "Average users" can type "Inner" into the search box and press the "Search" button, yielding the special page Special:Search/Inner, just as any other users can. Disambiguation articles are not, and should not be, hand-written substitutes for what the MediaWiki software can do automatically. Uncle G 12:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Again, the special pages don't give a brief description like a hand-written dab page would. The fallacy is yours (again). MediaWiki sucks at navigation (which is why it has to all be coded in the first place by end-users)! MediaWiki sucks as a message board/forum, too, which is why discussion/talk pages are crap and need to be hand-formatted (and why whitespace between replies is easier to read and reply to--HINT HINT)... ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 14:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Wrong. Search results don't have to be hand-written. The software can quite happily produce various kinds of lists, many of which are even linked to in this very discussion. Uncle G 00:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki can not produce a descriptive list of results without includind wiki markup. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 04:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Oh dear, yet another list of items that happen to contain the same word masquerading as a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 02:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless any of these entries are actually referred to as simply "inner", in which case just delete the ones that aren't referred to as "inner". This is not disambiguating a term, just a word, and we are also supposed to redirect adjectives to nouns. Dekimasu よ! 07:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People who are looking for an article that begins with "inner" can use Special:Allpages; it's bound to be more current than this steaming pile. The editor who piled up this mess, instead of continually rolling his eyes, should have directed tham towards WP:D, which governs "different topic pages that could have essentially the same term as their title". "Inner" is not the natural title for any of these entries, so they should all be deleted, so the whole page can be deleted. Chris the speller 14:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Again, the special pages don't give a brief description like a hand-written dab page would. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 14:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Special:Allpages is not very user friendly, particularly for casual browsers not aware of Wikipedia's behind the scenes search capacities. Pages like this only increase the cohesiveness of the project. —Gaff ^ταλκ 19:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Actually, stike that: Check out this. Thhis is way superior to what this page Inner can accomplish. I'm back to delete. —Gaff ^ταλκ 19:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - One can do Special:Prefixindex/Inner, too. (This is linked to from the search page, notice.) Uncle G 00:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the special pages don't give descriptions and include redirects...why is this such a hard concept for you people to understand? ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 04:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Disambiguation pages are meant to disambiguate between articles that have the same name. None of the articles listed are called simply "Inner", so this is an unnecessary page. If you think the navigation system here needs changing, simply making pages like this without discussion is not the way to go about it. WarpstarRider 00:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then delete all entries on dab pages that have links to any articles that do not only use the page's name. Have fun with that! ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 04:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Rombola[edit]

The article was kept because the previous nominator was a sock of JB196 so it was ruled as “Speedily deleted as a Keep (with no prejudice against renomination”. I renominate it because signing a developmental contract with the WWE and working on OVW is in itself not enough to achieve “notability” – also badly fails WP:N and WP:V MPJ-DK 12:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I agree with MPJ-DK that holding a contract with WWE or OVW does not make someone notable. Most developmental guys don't ever see the light of day and are released as quickly as they were signed. Most of these people have never been heard of either. The article itself is a stub, and I believe that the article should stay ONLY if it can be proved that this guy is indeed notable aside from him just being given a developmental. The article should probably be put on the backburner to see if he does anything in the future, but for now... Delete! Hellswasteland 13:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. The article can easily be recreated if he ever does become notable. Nikki311 22:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As currently fails WP:BIO. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO - G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 22:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD A1. —Kurykh 16:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sexy Little Thug song[edit]

Someone please speedy delete this mess. Not notable, titled incorrectly.... and "remiks"? I have no idea why this exists. - eo 12:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT to In Da Club Rackabello 13:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sexy Little Thug already redirects to In Da Club, is this really nessacary Rackabello 13:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. as per nom.--Edtropolis 13:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged CSD A1 on basis that there is virtually no context/ content and the article is redundant Rackabello 16:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by ^demon (CSD G1: Patent Nonsense). Non-admin closure of orphaned AFD. Serpent's Choice 14:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prison History[edit]

no coverage of topic at all, wrong capitalisation, parallel articles exist up to a point <K F> 12:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy G1 I can't even understand the text half the time Rackabello 13:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre-Yves Hardenne[edit]

Estranged husband of a fairly minor famous person. No assertion of possessing notability in his own right. Lurker 12:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable in his own right but Justine Henin is by some way the best female tennis player in the world. That's not 'fairly minor'. Nick mallory 12:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable in own right. -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 13:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he's only notable for being Justine Henin's husband, so he doesn't deserve his own page. -- Hux 07:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable in his own right. Note to nom: is Justine Henin really a "fairly minor famous person"? A ecis^Brievenbus 11:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, being a top tennis player does not necessarily mean everyone will know who you are. A spouse of, say, a world leader would be notable in their own right Lurker 13:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cúchullain ^t/c 06:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of free shell providers[edit]

WP:NOT a web directory; this information could just as easily be on the Open Directory Project. It doesn't seem very encylcopedic, with the transient nature of most free shell providers. —Crazytales (public computer) ^{(talk) (main)} 12:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Web directory article, doesn't belong in an encyclopedia Lurker 12:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
begrudging delete per nom, despite personal LIKEIT...can't see how to make this type of thing encyclopediac. DMOZ has a Unix Shell Providers section, granted not as well annotated (specific features seem to have their own sections, e.g., IRC Shell Providers). DMacks 16:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually found that page extremely useful. I did not even know that such entities even EXIST. Therefore, the argument that they can easily be found on other places does not hold - you first have to KNOW that something exists, and only afterwards can you search for it. ;) (Sorry if I did not reply as I should, but I found no other way than to "edit" this.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.65.73.2 (talk)

Delete per Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. Also, this list is massively incomplete. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list at DMOZ is not maintaned at all, most of the providers in that list doesn't even exist anymore I think. This list on the other hand is very up to date and clean. But if it's not suitable for Wikipedia, I guess it'll have to move someplace else. But I have no doubt about it beeing very valuable to people looking for free shells. Independence 12:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stays This article is the only up-to-date list of free shell providers where also others can contribute on the Internet. The other lists are badly updated and maintained by individuals and contain a list of many shell providers which are allready dead. The list on DMOZ where others could contribute is blocked for access. There are other comparisons available on wikipedia, so I see no reason why this one would have to be removed. It is a great help for people that are looking for a free Unix shell access. Prunk 12:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think better choice that merge to Shell_provider instead of deletion. Araki 15:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stays Deletion is bad idea. It's better when there is everything in one place... But if you treat it like Yellow Pages it can be simply splited to articles about every free shell provider but i my opinion it is pointless. The other thing that is better than deleting is Araki's suggestion. Zawor 12:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NOT#DIR & WP:N. —^Jack_Lumber^/tɔk/ 21:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stays The article presented here is the only half decent location to find a free shell provider. I have yet to see any other page, weather it be on DMOZ or found on Google that is able to give such a detailed and well maintained list such as this one. --TimGws 12:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article presented here is the only half decent location to find a free shell provider We don't decide on whether an article stays by examining the shortcomings of other websites. Lurker 13:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nor do we decide on whether to keep an article based on how it might be useful. Zetawoof_(ζ) 16:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slight keep. I only say this because I'm not entirely convinced that deleting it would serve any benefit to the encyclopedia. --Android Mouse 04:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; deletion is not needed. A list of notable shell providers is appropriate. This article could be trimmed, or merged with Shell provider, or split into articles about each notable shell provider. John Vandenberg 05:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the free shell providers listed here appear to be notable besides Super Dimension Fortress (and even that one is kind of borderline). Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Arbornet is the one I thought could become an article; Rootshell may also have enough history to be notable but a quick search doesnt confirm that. As I said initially, I would be happy with a merge (provided the history is retained). John Vandenberg 02:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically a web directory article, and those are covered by WP:NOT. I don't know much about UNIX and it's tough to determine whether the entries are notable or not, but considering the system specs (all but one being less powerful than the ordinary PC I'm using to type this) I'd say likely not. I hope this can be transwikied somewhere, as I'm sure it's potentially useful, but Wikipedia is not the place. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's actually a good point - with a few notable exceptions (SDF, Arbornet, and HP Test Drive), most of these "shell providers" are running on what sounds like consumer hardware and DSL connections. These aren't "shell providers"; they're -- I don't know what to call them exactly, but they are, among other things, unlikely to stay in operation any longer than it takes them to get their first abuse report from their ISP or law enforcement. Note, for example, that this list contains no less than three providers that opened this month, or just look at the history: there's a huge amount of "churn". Zetawoof_(ζ) 02:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I appreciate what you are saying about this list possibly including shell providers that are fly by nighters, but I would like to make a point that many historically important free shell providers were running on equipment that we would scoff at these days; in fact many were running on outdated systems at the time, because the machines had been retired from their intended role. Regarding the churn, all lists need to be maintained to prevent spam. This list could do with a tighter inclusion criteria to make it easier to prevent spamming, but that doesnt mean that the list isnt of valuable. At the same time, I think the list should also include free shell providers (of note) that have shut down, probably in a separate section/table. The period when free shell providers where an important part of the Internet culture is long gone, and most have closed up shop or gone commercial, so the most notable entries on this list are currently excluded. John Vandenberg 02:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT, as well as being a non-notable list containing (mostly) non-notable companies. I doubt a professional shell company would offer a shell server using Ubuntu with 160MB of ram on a home speed connection. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 05:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Or the one running on a 233 MHz Pentium MMX with 160 MB RAM and a 10 GB hard disk. Seriously, I understand that some of these places are running on limited funds, but that's just ridiculous - I've pulled better machines than that out of dumpsters! Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Shell_provider. Very torn on this one. I can definitely see great usefulness potential in this list, but WP is not a directory and usefulness does not mean encyclopedic. Merge would be best option that satisfies both sides. Tendancer 18:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3516[edit]

Non-notable punk house. An editor removed the prod notice, claiming notability, but I don't believe it meets the criteria. heqs ·:. 12:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. and block the user for removing the prod notice. --Edtropolis 14:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What next? Article to advertise raves? Edison 14:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR, unreferenced, does not assert notability. Do not block user but explain why the article was AFDed on their talk page. A contribution like this is a sign of a potential helpful editor moreso than any vandal.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Although this article needs heavy cleanup, this is a prominent punk house in New England having hosted a plethora of shows throughout the years. the continued existence of this house relied on its lack of press coverage throughout the years. --Jonny swagger 15:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is no reliable documentation of the venue, it fails verifiability. heqs ·:. 16:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete This house has played an incomparable role in the lives and careers of Boston's finest. We're not discussing whether or not this house should go in a history book or whether people approve of what this house is all about- we're talking about Wikipedia. 3516 is a small-town landmark and if the flying spaghetti monster deserves a spot, 3516 surely does. Primmahhhhh Primmahhhhh 19:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Flying Spaghetti Monster has dozens of references that assert its notabiity. 3516 only has first-hand accounts by a handful of editors with few or no other contributions. heqs ·:. 19:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — No notability and original reasearch. *Cremepuff 222* 21:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, note that both User:Jonny swagger and User:Primmahhhhh have two edits. *Cremepuff 222* 21:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete I would like to invoke WP:IAR in this particular case. To be able to produce "dozens of references" or any at all will prove incredibly difficult, albeit I'm sure that some sort of reference will pop up if the proponents of this article (myself included) are given some time to find sources. The reason for this is because at the time that the venue portion of the house was active, it would have proven disastrous to have anything published about the house. The City of Boston has recently become overwhelmingly hostile towards the local underground music scenes, including but not limited to the punk scene, and many venues were being forced to close or to follow an ever tightening set of rules, thus undocumented, illegal basement venues became increasingly more popular (even having its own "the basement scene" compilation), and continue to be popular. One of the key attributes of these is that they are spread by word of mouth, and the internet. Any publication about the house in any reputable source would have tipped off the authorities into shutting down the house and or the venue for good. Thus demanding loads of proof right off the bat is not only unfair, but illogical.

Also please note, that I have never been to 3516, nor have I personally met any of the "major players" at the house, and the current incarnation of the 3516 article is my doing. I did add information taken from the forums and from others original research(testimony, it seems is regarded by many of you as original research), though a forum does not satisfy WP:VER it is the closest thing to a reliable source we have readily available, due to the reasons explained above. 216.20.113.243 18:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)kcy210[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lauran Gangl[edit]

Notability of the subject is not established.

Speedy delete G11 and A7 - she's not notable, and the page is a blatant promotional autobiography. The picture tells you everything you need to know about her (and some things you might prefer not to know), so that should be deleted also. YechielMan 14:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak ~~Keep~~ Delete(edited to add: The claims have not be substantiated despite contacting the author and requesting more specifics) The article looks like it was created by someone not skilled in formatting and organizing a good Wikipedia article, so it could use some help, but the subject appears to have sufficient notability for an article. The article claims she competed in the Calgary Junior Olympics in 1988 and placed 14th in figure skating, which is remarkable for a Type 1 diabetic. This bears confirmation through someone with access to the records of that competition.(All I could confirm was that Calgary hosted the 1988 Winter Olympics). In another area, she appears to be a successful musician and songwriter, with a band which toured internationally, to have been written up in Newsweek, and is claimed to have received two gold and one platinum awards from the RIAA. Refs need confirmation and cleanup and article needs cleanup. Nothing at all wrong with the picture if it meets Wikipedias licensing standards. Edison 14:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Definitely some borderline claims to notability in there, but the article is totally unreferenced/OR, has possible NPOV issues (is promotional), looks like a possible COI or autobiography, and on top of all that, it's one of the most badly formatted messes of articles I've seen in a long time. Since it's unreferenced, the information is not verified. Sources do exist though (google her name), although whether they are reliable is another question altogether.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The notability of the subject is in question. My original reaction was a weak keep and strip the article down to an appropriate length but what is left does not appear more than promo material. --Stormbay 18:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Spent a few hours cleaning up the article and checking references. This one is unusual in approaching notability from several vastly different aspects of the subject's life rather than from one aspect only. Seems to be a legitimate musician per [37] and references discussed on the talk page showing she sang backups for notable musicians, and that notable musicians have appeared doing backups for her albums. I could not directly verify awards won, but that does not rule them out. Appears to have skated in 1988 junior olympics, to have gained PhD in marine biology, and to operate swim school for diabetic children, having had juvenile diabetes from age 4. Her band apparently toured all over US and in Canada, which would perhaps qualify the band under WP:MUSIC. Perhaps someone with better access to University Microfilms UMI can verify dissertation, see if any notability accrues from it. I do not follow this music scene, so I'm not sure what does or does not prove notability. No evidence of chart-topping, but several albums are for sale via Itunes etc. Edison 19:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverified unless carefully checked in every detail against sources which do not derive in any way from her, including all blog postings and reported interviews and photographs without authentication. It looked strange that the article never mentioned the university of her degree, or the year. I cannot find any possible PhD receipient in any field of study in Dissertation Abstracts with her last name and a first name beginning with L. (there a hint that her birth name is Laura, not Lauran.) (I also checked her first name with her husband's last name. ) Diss Abs sometimes runs a few months behind, so I checked in google scholar and found nothing at all that could have been a biology thesis or any marine biology publication formal or informal by her name. Ditto in Scopus or Scirus. Ditto even in Google! I conclude that this part of the biography is fake, and I consequently wonder how much of the rest has been invented. DGG 03:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:V on several points. An internationally-known musician, who sang backup for top-drawer acts, and has 10 friends on MySpace and 7 listeners on Last.fm? Doesn't add up. I tried to verify the three songwriting claims here, since they aren't in her AllMusic credits, and came up dry (although two of them turn up as GangBangs songs). There seems to be a lot of name-dropping going on, and to be perfectly honest, I get a bit of an Essjay vibe here. Unless it's from an unimpeachable third party source, I doubt almost everything in this bio. Whic is too bad, I liked the song on her MySpace.--Dhartung | Talk 06:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, non-notable, and fails WP:V. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 18:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment More information is now on the talk page relative to the subject. Her PhD was while she was married to Jake Mancini, so apparently the name would be J. L. Mancini or Janet Lauran Mancini or Janet Lauran Mancini. It is claimed to be from June 2003, Univerity of Newcastle, England-- Ophthamology Sciences. This would relate to research she is claimed to have done on the eyes of sharks. The comment also mentions St Andrews University, Scotland-- Marine Sciences, but it is not clear if this is related to some joint study related to the PhD or to her undergrad work. The poster says her subsequent professional work was as "Dr. Lauran Gangl-Plant" aster her second marriage. Perhaps someone with access to dissertation abstracts could now confirm this. Edison 20:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like advertising or promotional material. Her connection to marine biology is completely unreferenced. The tone of the article does not inspire confidence that it is all correct. It shouldn't be up to regular Wikipedia editors to rescue an article that has so many shortcomings. EdJohnston 22:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Attempt to verify the scientific career I can't verify any part of it under any likely name. Not the thesis, not any possible publication. No one by any of the names has ever gotten a PhD at Newcastle UK. No one by any name at all has ever gotten a PhD there on shark eyes. She would certainly not have been notable as a scientist anyway with a thesis and 1 or 2 published papers, I did the work because he absence of solid information where it should be found makes one doubt the rest. Possibly I've slipped up--possibly the name was altogether different than any of the 3 proposed. If the award winning records can't be verified either, I'd conclude the whole to be irresponsible exaggeration. DGG 05:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The creator of the article, User talk:Ladymermaid , Elle Tyler- Gangl , the sister in law of the subject, has not replied to postings on her discussion page with such useful details as the title of the dissertation, or which of several names the subject might have used on the dissertation or any publications. In any event, being a PhD certainly would not satisfy WP:BIO. Ditto for a newspaper reference, even without a web link, for the claimed skating in a junior olympics, which also by itself would not justify an article. Ditto for awards for songwriting. The claims have not been proven, nor have they been disproven. This has not struck me as a hoax article, but as more of a tribute to a relative, but I am now switching to a call for deleting it. If someone, someday, comes up with adequate referencing, especially with an adequate claim of notability, it could always be re-created. Edison 17:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge all into S Club 8. Note that "merge" is a form of keep, and the article historys will remain behind redirects. DES ^(talk) 15:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy Evans[edit]

Each of the members of pop group S Club 8 have their own articles, yet there is nothing to suggest that any of them individually meet WP:BIO. (Jay Asforis has already been nominated for deletion separately). Being part of a notable band does not make one notable. Rather, information on members of the band should be covered in the article on the band. Furthermore, most of the information in all of these article is redundant to the article on the band. Calvin Goldspink is the only member who even comes remotely close to being notable outside of the band, and the only claim to notability in his article is that he has shot a TV pilot, which is borderline at best. Natalie 11:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would not be adverse to a hack-and-slash merge to the main article, per the points raised. -- saberwyn 11:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the main S Club 8 article. I don't know about the pilot Calvin did, but Rochelle Wiseman also presented a popular children's program for a while, so I'd consider her notable outside the band. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Jay to the list. It makes no sense to me for his article to be judged separately from the rest of the members. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - Treat them much as you would WP:EPISODE - start the articles in the main band space, the hive them off as the members become notable in their own right. (copied from Jay Asforis afd) - Tiswas^(t) 12:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to retain information on Wikipedia, whilst preventing unnecessary proliferation of articles, leaves option open to resurrect individual articles as/when the individuals' careers develop. DuncanHill 14:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at the very least Calvin Goldspink should be kept, he is currently starring in the new CW TV series Life is Wild. As such he is maybe more notable than the others who have al but disappeared since the disbandment of S Club 8.--NeilEvans 19:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and redirect back to the band's article, first copying anything in these articles that is notable and not already there to that article. A1octopus 22:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a GFDL violation, or at least at variance with normal wikipedia practice. if information is to be merged, the history of the source article should be retained behind a redirect. This also makes it easier to reexpand should future events warrant doing so. That is why "merge" is regarded as a form of "keep", not a form of "delete". DES ^(talk) 16:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Junk get rid of it asap. Gives wikipedia a bad name. Probably written by her apparently somewhat dissolutioned parents. Whatever, it has no place in an encyclopedia.
Note that Jay Asforis has just been merged as per the closure of the separate AfD for that article, and a place has been created during that merge to hold the info on the other members of S Club 8. This seems like a reasonable course, but i have no strong opinion on whether any of the other members are already independently notable. Note that such a merge would allow easy re-expansion/splitting if any of these people subsequently becomes notable, or additional sources are found establishing notability. DES ^(talk) 16:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have struck Asforis from the list of nominations since I closed the separate AfD on him as a merge. DES ^(talk) 16:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sr 13 05:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of coats of arms of English counties[edit]

Contrary to Fair Use policy, purpose of article is to gallery format Fair Use images. — Moe ε 11:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is information, like Gallery of sovereign state flags, that truly begs for graphical presentation. I do not believe that any of these traditional heraldic images are copyrightable in the United States; they lack originality. Even if they were, contrary to some opinions, our fair use policy does not categorically forbid the presentations of galleries of fair use images; what it actually says is that "The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational and user-interface elements is normally regarded as merely decorative, and is thus unacceptable." A gallery of heraldic images is not "merely decorative" any more than a gallery of flags or currency is. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very useful resource, information impossible to adequately represent non-graphically. DuncanHill 14:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep would this be any different than lots of other articles here, if we merely added the populations of the various entities to the tables? Does lacking that change the character of the use? If one thinks this a copyvio, perhaps it ought to be taken there, but it seems a stretch claim to me. In the absence of a copyvio, this is an obvious keeper. Carlossuarez46 16:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a useful article because it helps me to see the differences between different English coats of arms. MPS 21:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see where this article is not in line with policy and worthy of being deleted. - T-75|talk|contribs 16:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Would you want to delete a gallery of the flags of the 50 states of USA? It would be possible to describe them all in heraldic French, but few of us know that it means. The pictures are much better. These are frequently used as logos by the counties, and so are notable. I doubt there are any copyright problems, since the College of Heralds create coats of arsm with the view that they should be published. Peterkingiron 23:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica (crater)[edit]

Seemingly non-notable Titanian crater. I could not find the journal articles (searching [38] and [39]) nor the mainstream media articles (searching google) that would make it notable like, for example, Eberswalde (crater) or Tooting (crater). It is, however, listed with 14296 other extraterrestrial features that have been named by the International Astronomical Union. Unfortunately notability for extraterrestrial landforms is equally as unexplored as the landforms themselves, so needs further input than a ((notability)) tag requires. MER-C 10:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing wrong with articles about craters, as long as they contain actual information besides their location. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that "Jessica" is a crater on Titania is already covered in List of geological features on Titania means this article is useless and redundant. Given that this is an extremely unlikely search term and it is extremely unlikely any additional information about this crater will become available in the near future, it ought to be deleted. It may be premature but I'm going to remove the redlinks in that list article to discourage creation of individual crater articles with no additional context. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A big hole where the necessity for this article should be. There's actually more info in List of features. Clarityfiend 18:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm pretty inclusionist, but I can't see having an article on every feature of every astronomical body in the solar system. Unless there's enough info to make an article that's more than a stub, it's hard to justify having an article.--Kathy A. 19:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless there's some additional information about the notability of this crater (and I could think of at least 50 different types of information that would make it notable), it needs to go. We don't want Wiki to be a long list of obscure hummocks on some moon somewhere. Orangemarlin 23:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was to keep it, based on rewrite, though serious attention is needed. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 18:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agency.com[edit]

Consensus needed. The article does not establish the company's notability sufficiently and was flagged as ProD. However, it should probably be discussed first as it seems to me to be a bit of a borderline case. — jammycakes (t) 10:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN advertisng agency Lurker 11:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Blatant Advertising for an NN Advertising Agency Rackabello 13:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even Speedy Delete - Blatant advertising. -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 13:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. as per nom.--Edtropolis 14:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus needed. Over the next few days I would appreciate the opportunity to add relevant NPOV info to improve notability and look forward to receiving your feedback on that effort. DeepDishChicago 14:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I declined the speedy, but I see no way that this article established the notability of the company.--Chaser - T 16:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC) Keep the awards in the rewrite did it for me. Number 5 on AdWeek's list of ad agencies, wow!--Chaser - T 14:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notability concerns. Addhoc 21:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC) Keep - good rewrite. Addhoc 19:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus Sought An expanded article has been posted. Please review and comment. Additional citations for notability will be added, and the page will be maintained. If there are no additional comments or issues posted by 21 June, 2007, I will remove the Deletion and Notability tags. ThanksUser:DeepDishChicago 09:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based upon the expanded article I would say Weak Keep and also tag with ((cleanup-restructure)) and ((sections)). -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 14:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment.~~ Although the references make a more convincing case for notability, it now reads more than ever like a company brochure rather than an encyclopedia article. If it stays, this needs to be addressed. — jammycakes (t) 16:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also note that a recent edit to the article [40] was carried out by a user from IP address 38.115.171.46 which apparently belongs to agency.com. [41] The only other anonymous edit from this address was to a draft version of the rewrite in User:DeepDishChicago's user space. [42] This leads me to suspect that there may be conflicts of interest involved in the rewrite, though admittedly a company of that size which has won several industry awards probably is notable enough for Wikipedia. My final opinion is Weak keep, but tag with ((COI2)). — jammycakes (t) 13:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep closed as an WP:AGF keep there has been effort to address concerns raised in this afd all delete recomendations were prior to these edits. Gnan garra 04:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Club Filter Melbourne[edit]

This article has been nominated for three speedy deletions (twice sucessfull), once not. An Admin has suggested to nominate it as an AfD. I blieve the article is unsourced and unreferenced. It is about a once a week club night, in Melbourne Australia. All over the world every night these occour had many of them have had musicians play who went on to become stars. My basis for nomination is the article is unsouced/unreferenced and non notable. Rehnn83 ^Talk 10:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 10:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The references given are not verifiable due to insufficient citation, and the subject matter's notability has not been asserted.--Yeti Hunter 10:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed with nom - no citation (WP:V and possible WP:RS), and no notability established (WP:N). Orderinchaos 00:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I changed my mind: Editor of Mixmag, and an Inpress article, are provided as references already. These loose referenes should be reworked as citations then there would be no arguement to notability.Garrie 01:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have asked Nina to rework her prose to more formally acknowledge her sources. I agree that currently there is insufficient information to create back-references from what is already in the article. If this is not done the article should be deleted as it is not verifiable.Ga rr ie 05:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources are established. Google News Archive comes up with a couple of references in What's On guides. [43]. Capitalistroadster 02:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and allow to expand. This will be covered very extensively in magazines. It has been recorded as a notable club in the Triple J techno timeline. See also [44][45][46][47]. John Vandenberg 06:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supercess[edit]

spammy poorly-sourced neologism. PROD tag contested by editor other than author. tomasz. 10:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spammy neologism and if not spam, then a copyvio from here. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 10:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious neologism. --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 16:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson (gubernatorial candidate)[edit]

Not notable -- didn't win anything apparently. Included because his name is funny?Pablosecca 10:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Rackabello 13:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. This guberatorial candidate is a hoax.--Edtropolis 14:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He's not a hoax - a review of the election results from California in 2004 and 2006 indicates that he was indeed on the ballot and did indeed lose by the margins indicated in the article, so he's a real guy and the info on this article appears accurate. That said, there's no sources to prove this guy is in any way notable, so unless losing multiple elections is a criteria for N, he has to go. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Uvaduck 22:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable article Xtreme racer 20:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted by User:Friday. YechielMan 16:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Christopher Johnson[edit]

Unsourced article about an author without any evidence that the books are notable. Unable to verify the content. Contested prod. The creator's response to the prod warning makes me question the good faith of this contribution. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Looks very like vanity - see the initials of the main author of the article in question, GCJMcShane. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 10:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no google hits, no sources --h2g2bob (talk) 11:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:BIO. Should have gone on the prod in the first place. Martijn Hoekstra 11:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 0 sources, 0 Google hits on name, 0 Google hits on book. The book article Rune - The Story of Boann by the same editor was deleted and the editor made this post. Is that a threat of a DDOS attack if the editors creations are deleted? PrimeHunter 12:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CSD A7. I might have just tagged it db-bio in the first place. Anakin 12:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete - not verifiable, not notable.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry Poppens[edit]

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 09:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of anything meeting the notability criteria in PORNBIO, and all of the supposed assertions of notability are uncited and, quite frankly, things that most porn actresses are notable for. She started doing anal? Alert the presses! Natalie 10:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. as per WP:Notability. Haven't heard of this person. Is she a fictional parody of the fictional character Mary Poppins?--Edtropolis 14:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not just anal, DOUBLE anal Natalie! Seriously though, no awards, and looks like "just another porn actress" (my words). Wildthing61476 14:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability established. Acalamari 16:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. JJL 17:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete I'm not sure if I fully agree with those who opined delete, but the numerical consensus is clear and the policy-based arguments are at least reasonable. If someone wants this moved to userspace or project-space in an attempt to come up with a version that satisfies the delete arguments as to sourcing and OR, drop me a note and we can discuss it, or go to WP:DRV. DES ^(talk) 18:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films by gory death scene[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Completely original research. There is no objective standard to determine what a "gory death" is. There are two sources, one a book published in 1965 which can't source any film published after that date which is therefore most of the article. The second source is a website that is user-submitted, therefore unacceptable. Other than films which can be sourced to the book, the rest are included based on the opinions of editors on what constitutes a "gory death", thus failing policy. Despite it being nominated twice before, there has been seemingly no effort to ensure this article complies with Wikipedia policies of verifiability and no original research so in my opinion it's time this was deleted. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 08:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research concerns, lack of a proper definition of "gory" for the list. For instance, putting Jack Dawson's death in Titanic as a gory death is stretching it (It was hypothermia where the cold water gradually weakened him until he passes out, there was no blood, guts or anything "gory" in it) . Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but perhaps change to List of films by violent death scene. Someone apparently has a grudge against this article, already surviving two AfDs. That said, I see what the nominator is digging at, so criteria must be established. That said, this is a useful list for people researching violence in films. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs09:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You are welcome to check the history of the article and both previous AfDs, I have not contributed in any manner prior to today. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I should note that the two previous AfD's were both "no consensus" and therefore should not be seen as a "survival" or any kind of affirmation for this article. Also, Jamyskis, I'm afraid that the only argument you're putting in for keeping it is that "it's useful." Please see WP:USEFUL for why that is not a valid reason to keep an article. --Hnsampat 11:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coment Also on further reflection, if it was just violent as opposed to gory wouldn't that be particularly indiscriminate? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's pretty indiscriminate as it stands, which is why it probably ought to be deleted. --Hnsampat 11:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well it would be even more indiscriminate is what I meant, as violent is much broader than gory. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What the article needs though is a sentence or two added to the introductory paragraph clearly stating that the films mentioned are examples (and, by implication, that any such list can never aim at being exhaustive). I know the following is not a "keep" argument (no need to refer me to WP:OTHERSHITEXISTS or whatever it's called), but deleting this list on grounds of "original research" would open a Pandora's box of similar requests for deletion. <K F> 14:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN This is the most ridiculous list I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and that's saying something. "List of films by gory death scene"? Hello??? If that's not original research, I don't know what is. But hey, it's a funny list, and can be filed away in the attic. YechielMan 14:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We have plenty of articles on ridiculous topics. Take the Tree That Owns Itself, the Society for the Prevention of Calling Sleeping Car Porters "George", the Infinite monkey theorem, Toilets in Japan, Pimpmobile and Exploding whale; half of them are featured articles. Gory death scenes are a real thing, so are we to abhor real things because they're silly? --Kizor 15:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've seen Wikipedia:Unusual articles. The unifying thread in all of them is a specific, well-defined breed of insanity, as opposed to a random collection of films based on one relatively minor feature within that film. YechielMan 16:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's a bad idea to list films based on one aspect of them particularly an aspect such as "gory death scene" when most films tend to either have none of them or lots of different ones. Next is List of films by sappy make-up scene, List of films by continuity errors, List of films by graphic sex scene, List of films by the name of the protagonist's pet dog, etc. Nice trivia but not encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 16:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can someone please direct me to a good working definition of the word encyclopedic? I've seen it waved around repeatedly, having spent a few weeks in policy discussion, and it's starting to get irritating. From what little I know of the issue, such conceptualization might be highly difficult in my native language (we have no equivalent to 'un-American', either) making me unused in thinking that way. If my language is too self-centered, I blame the difference for that too. But now we're way off-topic. --Kizor 16:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR and WP:NOT, grouping films by "gory death scenes" is trivial and indiscriminate in my book. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Death by sword/knife will be an infinitely long list; also OR (e.g., I disagreed with some of the placements--where are the third-party refs.?). JJL 17:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No, it won't. It's far more restrictive than a list of all movies where people are shot to death, which indeed would be unacceptable. When "death by gunfire" began to get ungainly large, it was changed in discussion to the more appropriate "death by excessive/graphic gunfire", which is of manageable size and has worked well. Along with special cases, like snipers shot through their own scope being covered in "death by ocular trauma" instead, it will easily last for the foreseeable future. As far as I can see, the same can be done with blades. Why couldn't it? --Kizor 18:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the frying pan, into the fire. "Excessive gunfire" is an entirely subjective criterion. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - for all the same reasons why I nominated it the last time. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely associated topics and Wikipedia articles require neutral POV. The films on this list with death scenes by similar method have nothing in common with each other in terms of theme, style or genre. They don't even necessarily share much in common by way of the supposed commonality, the death scene. Apocalypto, a lavish, big budget film about one man's experiences at the fall of the Mayan civilization, is in the "violent organ removal" section alongside I Spit on Your Grave, a low budget exploitation shocker about a woman taking revenge on the men who violently raped her, because one includes the sacrificial removal of hearts and the other features a man's balls being ripped off (I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine which film had which scene). These films are lumped alongside other films from every conceivable genre, style and subject matter which feature "gory" deaths by other means. There is no possible objective definition of what constitutes a "gory" death scene, thus the inclusion of any film on this list is reliant on the opinion of an editor as to whether it should be on the list. Otto4711 18:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Here's a question I don't think anyone has asked yet: What possible purpose does this list serve? I can't think of any possible reason that categorizing movies by their "gory death scene" would be useful to a reader. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT#IINFO.--Tone 21:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do not understand how that applies. The section specifically prohibits only certain kinds of collections: FAQs, travel guides, memorials, instruction manuals, Internet guides, textbooks, sole plot summaries, lyrics databases, statistics and news reports. This is none of thse. If you think that the criteria are too lax, by all means bring up your grievances, they have been strictened before to make the page more discriminate. --Kizor 21:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the list there is not exhaustive. Those items are the things about which consensus has been determined to have been achieved. It does not mean that nothing else can be an indiscriminate collection or that NOT#IINFO doesn't apply to other sorts of articles. Otto4711 07:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is exactly where it starts getting a bit weird. I've raised the very same question before concerning the List of people by name (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 23) but didn't get any answer, and the list was deleted anyway:

What people say here over and over again is delete it because it is an indiscriminate collection of items of information. They even quote the relevant Wikipedia policy. Now the List is even a "textbook example". However, the List of people by name is not any of the things mentioned in WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE (List of Frequently Asked Questions, Memorial, Travel guide, Instruction manual, Internet guide, Textbook or annotated text, Lyrics database, Plot summary, Statistics). Referring to WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE is probably the weakest delete argument of all, as no one is willing, or able, to explain why it applies here in the first place. <K F> 22:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I've pointed out here that "the article needs [...] a sentence or two added to the introductory paragraph clearly stating that the films mentioned are examples", but again this is not taken into consideration. Rather, a single contributor realises that they "can't think of any possible reason that categorizing movies by their "gory death scene" would be useful to a reader" although it must be clear to anyone that the vast majority of articles here at Wikipedia are useless to any randomly chosen individual and that that's no reason to want to see them deleted. The "clear consensus" is looming again. <K F> 22:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Before making any more comments of "clear consensus", you should be aware that consensus cannot overrule the fact that at present this article fails WP:V and WP:OR. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." (WP:V) All you have to do is watch all those movies. Alternatively, you can rely on the expert knowledge of those Wikipedians who compiled the list. As far as WP:OR is concerned, I don't believe that a mere list can ever be "original research". And what does that phrase about my commenting on "clear consensus" mean? Is that some kind of threat? <K F> 23:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By watching a film, how does an editor determine whether the death is suitably gory for inclusion on this list? As for relying on the "expert knowledge of those Wikipedians who compiled the list", you do realise you've just argued in favour of deletion? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Enlighten me, please. <K F> 00:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting. <K F> 07:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait away, I'll just let your comment speak for itself. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the easy way out, and I can't quite take it seriously. If you've run out of arguments, say so. If you haven't, please explain to me in what way I have argued in favour of deletion. <K F> 10:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you've misunderstood. There's no need for me to argue that point, because your "argument" is pro-deletion. If you don't understand the significance of what you've said already, no amount of patient explanation from me will help. To be honest I don't take anything you say seriously, so I'd quit while you're behind if I was you. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, it was a honest question. There's no need to lapse from being polite. --Kizor 10:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kill this article by "gory death scene" (i.e. Delete) - First of all, there is no way to objectively define the word "gory." For instance, the shootout at the end of Taxi Driver was considered extremely graphic in its day, but is not so bad by today's standards (although, in my opinion, it is still quite brutal). Who is to say what constitutes "gory"? Regardless of how one defines it, there is no way to define "gory" without injecting one's point of view, which violates Wikipedia policy. Even if we change it to "violent" or something else, we can't change the fact that this is going to be an insanely long list with films on it that often have little or nothing to do with each other. Already, we see Taxi Driver, Scream, Saving Private Ryan, and Star Wars: Episode III (!) all under the category of "excessive and/or graphic gunfire." Um, the first one is a psychological drama that has no violence whatsoever until the last scene, the second is a slasher film filled with violent deaths (but doesn't have much artistic value), the third is a graphic but critically acclaimed World War II drama with lots of violent battle scenes, and the fourth is a sci-fi adventure where there are no firearms and no blood! This list is a clear-cut violation of the policy that Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be about loosely-connected topics. Sorry guys, but this one's a no-brainer. It's got to go. --Hnsampat 23:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment - I would like to say this to anybody who thinks this list is "useful." I, for one, would never want to look at this list. You know why? Because in order to read information about one movie, I'd have to read spoilers for 50 or more others, many of which I haven't seen but intend to see. So, I just wouldn't look at this list. Many others wouldn't either. Keep that in mind before arguing that this list is "useful." --Hnsampat 23:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- One more thing - Since I mentioned the list of films containing "death by excessive and/or graphic gunfire," ponder this. Home Alone features a film-within-a-film where one gangster shows up at another gangster's office and, after a brief conversation, the other gangster pulls out a tommy gun and unloads the entire clip on him while laughing maniacly. The scene features no blood whatsoever, is in black-and-white, and is so ridiculous that it is, quite frankly, kind of funny (although it's probably disturbing for young kids). Now, this gangster clearly kills the other guy by "excessive gunfire." One shot would've done it and this guy unloads the entire clip. In fact, he keeps shooting at the guy while he's down on the ground. So, should that go on this list? If you say "no" and your reasoning is that the film-within-a-film is not a real movie, let me give you this. In Dick Tracy, there's a climactic shootout between the police and the bad guys and our hero unloads on one of the principal villains. Here's a kids' movie that is rated PG with a hero who kills a villain in self-defense via "excessive gunfire." Should that go on this list? --Hnsampat 23:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. "This is going to be an insanely long list" (Hnsampat)—well, only if we erroneously believe we have to finish it; not if we just give examples. As far as spoilers are concerned, the newly formed anti-spoiler group will argue along the lines of "This is an encyclopaedia. Information is revealed" (see Wikipedia talk:Spoiler). And who would believe there are people out there who find Finnish exonyms (Sweden) "useful"? And yes, all those films mentioned above could go on this list—it's up to the individual user to compare those killings and draw their own conclusions (and, by doing so, do some "original research"). <KF> 00:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've always disagreed with "examples", but "not conclusive" is another thing. There's even an accepted practice for marking that. More importantly: Hnsampat, what does the top of the article say? --Kizor 00:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - That's exactly my point. The top of the article defines "gory" from the point of view of the author. The author of this article clearly has established criteria for himself/herself as to what constitutes "sadistic" or "brutal" or "gory" and is now injecting that point of view into the article. However, Wikipedia policies dictate that we cannot inject our points of view as criteria for lists; we must follow a neutral point of view. The criteria for inclusion must be objective. "Gory" is an emotionally loaded word. It carries a connotation of brutality, sadism, and essentially is supposed to describe something generally considered revolting. What is revolting, however, differs from person to person. There is no way that the word "gory" can ever be objective and so there is no way that this list can ever have objective criteria and therefore it's got to go. --Hnsampat 02:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - But it's not loaded. "Gore" is well established: Explicit graphic violence "visually depicted, especially the realistic depiction of serious physical injuries involving blood, flesh and bone matter." "Gory" is, in several dictionaries, defined to mean "involving much bloodshed and violence", "Full of or characterized by bloodshed and violence," or variants. There's a clear, dispassionate, clinical definition, it therefore is not dependent on feelings. --Kizor 04:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Question. Does the BBFC "inject its point of view" when it rates films? Does a contributor to Wikipedia "inject their point of view" when they add categories to articles? (See Talk:Talk Talk (novel) as an example.) <KF> 07:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am not terribly familiar with the workings of the BBFC but if they operate anything like the MPAA then yes, they most likely do inject their viewpoint when rating films. Deciding that material of a certain type is or isn't suitable for viewing across the board by all people under a particular arbitrary age is very much the result of the injection of any number of viewpoints (viewing violence is less harmful than viewing sexually oriented material, viewing heterosexually oriented material is less harmful than viewing homosexually oriented material, viewing material of any sort is harmful at all; just for starters). There is no purely objective standard for rating films. Even one that relies on the mechanical counting of specific words or events (number of times the word "fuck" is said; number of people who get shot; whatever) is at its root subjective because of the presumption that the words or events it's tabulating are such that basing a rating on that tabulation is warranted or reasonable. And yes, if the category is one not based on an objective verifiable factual standard (Category:Chemical elements for instance) then inclusion in a category is (or can be) the injection of an editor's viewpoint. Which is why categories that are subjective or have arbitrary standards for inclusion are considered overcategorization and are frequently deleted. Otto4711 10:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced and not indiscriminate. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Exactly how is it well sourced? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is the antithesis of "well sourced". There is only one source listed, and it is not referenced anywhere in the list. Zetawoof_(ζ) 07:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - (editconflict) I believe he means that every single list item has content details that are "verifiable without specialist knowledge", as policies say. More literary sources would be neat (and should be obtainable - a mistake on the editors' part. Partially mine.), but on the level of primary sources, it's sourced completely. Heh. --Kizor 07:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Each of the films in the list is a separate source. <K F> 07:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But it's not "verifiable without specialist knowledge" as stated above, because we have to "rely on the expert knowledge of those Wikipedians who compiled the list". One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is verifiable without specialist knowledge, it's just time-consuming: All you have to do is watch hundreds of films. I'm sure you'll recognise someone being, say, drowned in liquid iron. Apart from that, there's something called division of labour (and has been ever since the neolithic I suppose), so why not have others do some of the job? Are you able to verify all other articles here at Wikipedia all by yourself? <K F> 10:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. Chill. Please take a break and a breather or something. You know that that the statement about experts (apparently meaning people who have seen the film in question) was badly phrased - by sticking to ridiculing the word choice of a non-native English speaker instead of addressing the issue, you give an impression of yourself that you might not want to give. That's how I'm reading the situation, anyway. --Kizor 10:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, I would like to refer you to one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia, which is that you must cite your sources. The burden of proof lies is not on the reader, which means that the reader shouldn't have to go out and watch every single movie. Rather, there must be a direct citation of some reliable source calling a given scene in a given movie "gory" if you want to keep that scene on this list. That is the idea behind verifiability. The idea is not that the information exists "out there somewhere" and people are free to look it up and so there's no need to cite it here. --Hnsampat 19:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The information does not exist "out there somewhere". Rather, the source—a particular film itself—is clearly cited. True, you would probably have to add whereabouts in the movie you'd find the particularly "gory scene"—beginning, middle, or end. However, if you think that's not enough, the ensuing dilemma will have far-reaching consequences for all sorts of lists here at Wikipedia: You'd have to find dozens, if not hundreds of books citing scenes from films mentioned here as "gory", which, I guess, is not feasible. If you found just one or two books citing many, or most, of the scenes, it would be a copyvio to list the scenes here. By analogy, a list such as the List of illnesses related to poor nutrition—a random choice—would almost have to be speedy-deleted as it seems to violate practically all Wikipedia policies (no sources, POV, original research). As I said above, it would open a Pandora's box, there'd be new deletion sprees. Personally, I'd prefer When Harry Met Sally to any gory death scene, and I hardly ever watch such films. Maybe that's why I found reading that list very very interesting. <K F> 21:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all the obsession with trivial lists of deaths in films. The JPS ^{talk to me} 13:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because this list is completely trivial. The term of "gory death scene" is subject to an editor's interpretation, a violation of Wikipedia's no original research policy. Such an indiscriminate list also lacks real-world context. Gory deaths in films should be explored in a prose article using outside references with specifically cited examples, if such an article does not already exist. Here, the subjective and indiscriminate nature of the article makes this list unencyclopedic. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not move it to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/List of films by gory death scene so it remains accessible to those who want to use it or work on it? Maybe someone could even come up with a generally accepted version. <K F> 21:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Everyone is talking about the usefulness of this list. I personally found it very useful. It helped me discover lots of films that I hadn't heard of before. Everyone is also saying how the list trivial. One person may view the list as completely pointless, but another person may find the list extremely useful. The fact if it's trivial or not (which is what most people are arguing on this page) is also the reader's point of view. I find the list pretty comprehensive and have personally read through it multiple times, removing and adding things that followed the beginning paragraph's guidelines. I hope maybe this will give everyone on here a different point of view. -Moviemaniacx
Keep. OR and standards will be addressed in detail when I get home from work, I've been lucky to get away with even this part of my reply. (*cough*)
As for what purpose the list could serve: The list is useful for film theorists, fans of splatter films and of action movies in general, those who'd like to learn about the prevalence of a particular dramatic technique, or look for parallels to an instance that they've seen (delayed dismemberment, for instance, is beloved among action movie watchers), or to learn about the cinematic treatment of something (such as how lasers are presented in fiction) ...quite a lot of people, really... this is not just idle theorizing, let me present a real-life example. I frequent TV Tropes Wiki, which collects and catalogues conventions in visual media. The place Joss Whedon is fond of and which makes the producers of Lost laugh. One recent entry was about the unrealistic way lava and other molten substances are consistently presented unrealistically on TV - convection, the far greater danger, is ignored. (Think the way a character in Volcano balances right above a lava flow, where the air would be heated by hundreds of degrees.) For researching that, one minute on the section "burning or other extreme heat exposure" of this article is well more productive than twenty minutes of browsing articles on disaster movies without knowing where to look. --Kizor 08:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your bottom line here is that "It's useful." Please take a look at WP:USEFUL to see why "usefulness" is not in and of itself a valid reason to keep an article. --Hnsampat 10:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, but I'm aware of WP:USEFUL. Please don't be so quick to assume that the other side's arguments are founded on ignorance of policy. It can really get rather irritating. This is, as I expressly said, a fragment of an argument. It's (finally) being continued below. Above is a specific counterargument to the claim several people have made - including yourself at some length - that the article should be deleted because it's useless. When saying that it's not useful is valid grounds for deletion but saying that it is useful is to be ignored, something's wrong. --Kizor 12:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC), updated 21:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Further, it also helps the claim that the article is in line with WP:LIST. --Kizor 21:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin - I hope I'm not mischaracterizing anybody's argument when I say this, but it seems like the general consensus favors deletion and the few dissenters who argue for keeping the article do so because "It's useful." However, WP:USEFUL describes quite nicely why "usefulness" is not in and of itself a valid reason to keep an article. --Hnsampat 10:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Another note to closing admin Deletion of this list is a foregone conclusion, so can we move it to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/List of films by gory death scene (see above)? I'd do it so it doesn't hurt. <K F> 11:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mega-Delete Precisely what I would call Overlistification. Many of the "keepers" are not aiming at presenting a strong argument for actually retaining the list but rather pushing for no consensus. And also why does it matter if it is sourced?. Sourced does not mean encyclopedic. Bulldog123 16:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. WORKING ON IT! --Kizor 17:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Yes, delete it a million times, but can we first projectify it? <K F> 20:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonsense. —^Jack_Lumber^/tɔk/ 21:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Why nonsense? It's real. Film genres are dedicated to it. --Kizor 21:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Easiest WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, why? Quote: "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". The only thing the items of this list have in common is a gory scene, that's pretty loose, especially since most are not noted as being a list (e.g. Nixon's Enemies List), but as scenes from a film (most aren't notable scenes at all). Bignole 22:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. "Pretty loose"? What about the following: What does a nuclear test in the Nevada desert have in common with Agatha Christie's murder-mystery play The Mousetrap so that they are both mentioned in the same article? And that page violates all kinds of other policies as well (original research, unsourced, POV). Who can explain those double standards to me? By the way, could we move our gory list here to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/List of films by gory death scene so it remains accessible to those who want to use it or work on it? Maybe someone could even come up with a generally accepted version. <K F> 22:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAX is not a particularly compelling argument for keeping this article. If you think 1952 violates Wikipedia policy or guidelines you are free to nominate it for deletion or otherwise work on it. Its existence does not justify the existence of this article. Otto4711 22:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mine was no argument, whether compelling or otherwise, but a simple question (see above). (Now of course someone will point out that this is not the right place to ask questions.) Before anyone can come up with any more three-letter abbreviations, I realised quite some time ago—what with the sheer abundance of ready-made and neatly capsuled [[WP:XXX]]s—that this list wouldn't have any chance of survival, at least the way it looks now. That's why I think that it should be projectified so that people interested in it can still work on it. It seems to me that such a solution would cater for all needs. <K F> 23:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it, the overwhelming consensus of this deletion discussion here is not only that this article ought to be deleted, but that the topic itself is irredeemably unencyclopedic, meaning it has no hope of ever being suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. How, then, do you suppose that this topic will somehow be made suitable for Wikipedia in the future? --Hnsampat 00:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any consensus that this topic is "irredeemably unencyclopaedic". As to your question, I'm not interested in gory death scenes, so I wouldn't know. People working on film articles might want to use the list as a point of reference ("A similar scene exists in ..." or whatever). Generally, once a useful (yes, WP:USEFUL) list has been compiled, I think it's sad to see it go. <K F> 17:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to copy it to your user page if you want to keep it. Just remove the categories from your copy. Otto4711 15:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did so the moment it was nominated. That's not the point. People who want to use the page will have difficulty finding the list there, and anyway I don't want people to mess around with my user pages. Is it so difficult to understand that I'm not arguing here on my own behalf? <K F> 15:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Irredeemably" is an awfully strong word at the best of times, not to mention when the subject in question has already survived AfD twice. --Kizor 21:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What purpose does this page serve? It is a seemingly pointless and indiscriminate (and inevitably incomplete) collection of films linked by no criteria other than that someone dies in them, and this death has been judged by someone to be 'gory', which is arguably POV/original research itself. Arguably, any film that includes a death scene could be included on this list somehow, which means it would probably encompass over half of all films ever made! There are places for this material - but they are websites specifically intended to inform viewers of a film's violent content, not an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is NOT the MPAA. Terraxos 00:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC) (Comments edited by myself for civility - Terraxos 19:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Yet another pointless death-list. (E.g., Sopranos deaths AfD.)--Mike18xx 05:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closing admin. I have to join KF in requesting the projectification of this article on the condition that that's actually a word. It's accepted practice that a willing party can rewrite a deleted article into a better version. In this case, a party of several people. This article is too large for a single editor, particularily if films must be sourced to something else than primary sources; a workable definition of "gory" - which CAN be done - or a name change needs wider attention about consensus anyway. If it doesn't work, if it can't be done, then the attempt will dry up and no harm done. This discussion doesn't say much about the outcome of that process, a greatly different matter, especially since we cannot gauge the effects on the noncommitted - those who do not participate in the discussion because haven't formed an opinion one way or the other, or think they don't have the expertise, etc. Not that I can speak for anyone else but I do that all the time. Give us the body. Here's another factor. I have initiated transwiki procedures (always wanted to say that; it means translating into a non-english Wikipedia.) This is NOT a single person's or a momentary effort - I don't even want to think about how much time it'll take to look up the translation of every movie name on the list alone - it needs the list on hand. Wikipedia forks would be outdated and lose formatting, which at more than 100 KB is a non-trivial issue, as well as the discussion pages, which feature considerations and precedents that are valuable in adapting to local conventions. Access to article history is paramount is the process will have considerations of reorganization or of the lines drawn between sections, which it will have. Userfication is for as little as possible for as little time as possible, deviation Considered Harmful. --Kizor 22:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Holy WP:NOT batman! Where are we going to get sources for this? We cannot just watch movies and classify them ourselves, that is original research. This is not even an encyclopedic topic, not even close. ^(H) 15:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely unencyclopedic and worthless otherwise. --Arm 17:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In the why-on-Earth-didn't-I-think-of-this-before department, how about considering renaming this to "List of films by graphic death scene"? --Kizor 18:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alamo[edit]

Though-sorting in progress, for reals this time around... Here I'm trying to vocalize (electrolize? Whatever.) what I've been bursting to say since the 12th. Unfortunately my wiki editing is currently a three-front war, which is an improvement over last week's four fronts, and I've been pegged down by both a full-time job and a summer exam. I'd hate to see this closed before what I believe to be considerably important points are considered.

Another of Wikipedia's unconventional strengths, the list of films by use of the word "fuck", lists the films that use it the most, with a cutoff point of 100. Why 100? It's an admitted arbitrary number, but one that was agreed - by consensus - to be a point where there's indisputably a great number of uses of the word. This list is no different. It says in the lead that it does not have an absolute definition of gory, it has a working standard. This standard has - again by consensus - been decided to be a workable cut-off point, that makes classifying a work as gory require no more than a smidgen of personal interpretation. This smidgen is one that's vital for "Category:Fiction by genre" to function - or for WP:OR itself to function at all. A quote from the beginning of the definition of "reliable sources" on OR: "There is no firm definition of "reliable," although most of us have a good intuition about the meaning of the word." It then goes on to state criteria to help in defining what counts, exactly like this list. It's hard to imagine harder evidence that it's acceptable to cover a subject using a working definition that requires an acceptable amount of interpretation, instead of an exact one, than this: A pillar of the project, vital to Wikipedia's existence. And there's been no debate here over whether or not the list uses an acceptable amount, only a rejection of the concept.

Articles on fiction, including a number of featured articles, use the works themselves to tell what happens in the plot. Primary sources are accepted.

After the last AfD gave reason for a tighter policy, criteria were established and the list was made to fit them. Entire sections, such as drowning, were removed altogether for not measuring up. The list was considered to be sufficiently sourced because every single item on it was considered to have acceptable primary sources, which I've discussed above. There was consensus, and the only raised objection also criticized us for covering the deaths of Jews along with the deaths of humans. In short, more wasn't done because sufficient measures were considered to have been taken. Though he was not under obligation to do so, it's a pity that the nominator did not use PROD or start discussion to call attention to the matter and see in detail if the article could be made to meet his standards before attempting to remove it altogether. --Kizor 15:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - even assuming arguendo that the steps taken regarding tightening the list are sufficient to address the OR issue (by the way, if kept or projectified you might want to run the filter again as the last I heard neither freezing nor asphyxiation were particularly gory), it does not address the concern that the list violates WP:NOT#DIR. No amount of tightening of the definition of "gory" changes the fact that the films in each section are unrelated to each other except in happening to have a death scene of a certain type and that films from different sections don't even have that in common. Any number of examples from the list have been offered to show that the films are unrelated to each other in terms of plot, style, genre or theme. Otto4711 15:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed that they were sufficient because of the whole "agreement and no objections" thing. Running the filter will likely be a good idea - heck, it's casual maintenance for Wikipedia lists - but there are ways of making both of those things gory. Face (and not head) dipped in liquid nitrogen, shattered against a table, sort of thing. But this is a matter for cleanup more than AfD. And I've been getting to WP:NOT#DIR, thanks for bringing it up. --Kizor 15:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (although I'm amazed that people spend time on such a thing) I don't find the concers regarding WP:V and WP:NOR to be valid, the film is the source for each claim made. (What do you want a timestamp for when discribed event occurs?) As for decisions of what to include/not include, I think editors do that on every article that isn't original research. Is the concept here notable? I'm sure we can find some reliable sources that discuss these types of scenes. Such sources really should be consulted and listed within the article as this would help address the the WP:NOT#DIR issue, but the criteria in the intro suggests that this collection is not random. -MrFizyx 18:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Cosmopolitan. Sr 13 04:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Global civilization[edit]

The term is a non-notable neologism, while the article itself has no context nor verfiable sources. --Gavin Collins 08:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article has gained no incoming links since it was drafted 2½ years ago. Google finds plenty of hits for the two words together (a pretty common adjective-noun conmbination) but none for the concept as a distinct phrase. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 11:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the primary author of the article, Roy da Vinci (talk · contribs), is attempting to document a new idea of world political unity that xe thinks has been invented in the late 20th century. In fact, this isn't a new idea. People have been talking about and proposing unified world governments for a long time, as world government in fact says. Herbert George Wells wrote about world governments in The Outline of History, published in 1921, on pages 1090–1191. (Here's irony for you. An editor without an account pointed out Wells' book in the article in 2005. An editor with an account immediately edited it out as a "moronic theory".) The Parliamentary Association for World Government was founded in 1950 and the World Parliament Association in 1952. Benjamin Franklin Trueblood wrote a book, The Federation of the World, proposing a world government in 1899.
This article is a load of unsourced rubbish and a hypothesis invented directly by Wikipedia editors based upon a false premise. Delete. Uncle G 13:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Possibly related to New World Order.--Edtropolis 14:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 09:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The concept is not new. The idea is covered in the article Cosmopolitan already. The page Global civilization can redirect to that article. Since the article does not state any sources merging information into the Cosmopolitan article might not be too wise. doxTxob \ ^talk 03:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect. as per DoxTxob.--Edtropolis 20:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accidently voted again.--Edtropolis 20:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Knight (Professional Wrestler)[edit]

(Listed as AFD since article has already been speedy deleted once then recreated.) Article reads like a hoax, a US based wrestling company with a PPV deal yet no coverage on the main wrestling sites? My immediate guess would be a backyard fed or an e-fed, neither of which belong on Wiki, maybe an AFD vote will get the point across MPJ-DK 08:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:V. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. as per CSD:G12.--Edtropolis 14:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Nikki311 22:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ridiculous article with fails the 3 core policies. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Mmm Hmmm... Agreed, Ridiculous Hellswasteland 14:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genevian[edit]

Delete : hoax - I nominated this article at the request of Uwe who gave the following reason : "I strongly believe that this article is either utter nonsense or utterly irrelevant. Contrary to the claim in the article, the proper and sole authority on the Geneva Convention is the International Committee of the Red Cross. Google does not know anything about "King Jacque de’Geneveeve" or the "world-renowned mathematical historian" Fredrick Lausberg, and the mathematical twist in the "Origins" paragraph looks like a weird conspiracy theory. Finally, to the best of my knowledge Geneva was not annexed by Switzerland. Also, the rest of the article looks highly suspicious as well. The books listed under "References" are either general publications about Geneva or the Geneva Conventions, or they seem to be non-existent like "Strategy of the Week and a Half War". The ISBN given for that title belongs to the book "Strategy of the Seven Weeks War: 1866". So, the article is either totally bogus or the product of a very very twisted mind (or both). My question is: can you propose it for deletion? I've never done it before in the English Wikipedia, and the process seems to be more complicated than in the German Wikipedia. --Uwe ". I concur with his reasoning. JoJan 08:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: it's clearly complete bollocks. --RFBailey 09:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per very well put nomination. Natalie 10:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom and editors above. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 11:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in agreement with the above. Acalamari 18:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely bogus. Sandstein 11:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - Nomination withdrawn (Non administrator closing per Non-administrators closing discussions). --Tikiwont 12:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accessible tourism[edit]

I've been keeping an eye on this article for the last day or so. The author of the article (User:Luisvarela) has self identified as working for a company that deals with "accessible tourism". The whole thing reads like an ad, in fact a major portion of it was removed because it was a copyvio from.. ads (see Talk:Accessible tourism). The author of the article keeps removing ((ad)) from the article, despite the lack of improvement. Now, there might be enough to this specific market to warrant an article, so I'm taking it to AFD instead of marking it as a speedy for advertisement. Ned Scott 08:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The author has also uploaded a number of pictures from his company's flyers. I'm not sure if he fully understands what it means to release these images under a free license, especially considering they contain the company's logo. -- Ned Scott 08:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reads like an advert. -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 13:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Doesn't seem like an advertisement. But it does need to be rewritten.--Edtropolis 14:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - 36K google hits, does not truly read like an advert, but again probably contains OR and only cites one source. At the very least it seems like it could be a valid encyclopedia topic.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ unless someone shows a reliable source that uses this term besides the companies marketing it. And the article was spam in my opinion, considering that external link (which I have removed). I can't comment on the source, not speeking spanish and all. Someguy1221 22:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. Someguy1221 09:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is on the concept, which is N. The term seems to be the usual one. The "companies' marketing it are the quasi-governmental National tourism Offices of each of the European countries & some elsewhere, and many cites, provinces, etc. I added 8 or 9, and only stopped so it wouldn't be a web directory. And I have at least one conference. More's there for the searching. DGG 06:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems to answer my concerns. Now knowing this, I'm fine with keeping it and just marking it for cleanup for any other concerns. -- Ned Scott 07:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge then Redirect to Tourism#Niche_tourism.--Mike18xx 05:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Lian Xing; redirect Elsa Weissenger to Syphon Filter (series). The former seems to be a major character; but the lack of references is problematic. The latter is not notable or verifiable. If a characters list is created in the future the information on both characters can be placed there.Cúchullain ^t/c 06:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lian Xing[edit]

Not a notable video game characters. They are just random secondary (support) characters from the game. 650l2520 19:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

Comment If my memory serves me correct, Lian as far as the Syphon Filter storyline goes, is notable as a second lead character, not a random secondary support one as the nomination states. I myself wouldn't lose sleep though if this article were deleted, as the zenith of the Syphon Filter has long since happened (though that may change with a new SF game due this September), and all of the other affiliated Syphon Filter pages are prime candidates for deletion/merging/cleanup. On this particular article, I have no vote. 68.186.51.190 23:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Lian Xing is a notable second lead character in the franchise. In fact, she's a major part in the new Syphon Filter game, Logan's Shadow. - Throw 09:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Elsa. I have no clue about Lian. :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 08:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge - I've never played Syphon Filter, but I'm voting to keep both articles and merge them with the Syphon Filter article, or even create a Syphon Filter Portal. There's enough games in the series to consider it a universe, and Lian Xing seems to have been included in many of the games. As far as Elsa is concerned, if a Syphon Filter Portal is created, she should be included. She may be a minor character, but minor characters have been included in other entries... such as the list of Minor characters of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Now comes the slightly-biased part... according to Elsa's entry, she appears to be a lesbian(ish) character in a video game. I think that it's important to keep her entry due to low representation of LGBT characters within video games, and also link her with the LGBT Portal. --Rich 08:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources to establish real world notability. Jay32183 00:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If we deleted everything that didn't have sources to establish real world notability, then there wouldn't be much of Wikipedia left... :) Wouldn't requesting for citation fix that? Rich 07:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Requesting a citation is not a solution for anything. The articles fail the notability requirement. The choices are "get sources" or "delete". "Keep and hope there are sources" is not acceptable. Jay32183 03:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - They are both notable characters in their own right --SGCommand (talk • contribs) 11:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:N they would need "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" to be considered "notable". Neither of the articles are making that claim. 650l2520 21:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or merge as a weak second choice) major character in a major series. The core games have published strategy guides which could be used as sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We aren't looking for sources to say the character exists. We need sources about the creation of the character and the reaction to the character. Jay32183 23:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isn't a minor character. Syphon Filter is a notable (and not just in the wiki sense of the word) game series, and she's been one one of the central characters in all of the games, and a playable character in the majority of them. Although I endorse merging most of the rest of the character pages for minor villains and support characters. Ubersuntzu 22:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- None of that matters if there aren't reliable sources to provide real world context. Jay32183 23:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jigsaw (wrestler)[edit]

Prod contested without improvement. Non notable minor league wrestler, no evidence of multiple reliable independent sources. Only source is a wrestling fan site that allows wrestlers to pay for a profile and accepts submissions direct from them. Fails WP:BIO and WP:V. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 08:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no improvement on sources attempted when removing the prod. Does not currently demonstarte notability nor verifiability.MPJ-DK 08:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That guy looks like Strong Bad from Homestar Runner. That image probably violates WP:COPYVIO--Edtropolis 14:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wasn't aware that looking like an internet cartoon was grounds for deletion. Nenog 04:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not put up for deletion because some copyright violation but his notability (or lack of it) as a wrestler. There is no copyright violation just because the mask is red with black on it, the black is a jigzaw puzzle piece that upclose does not resemble Strong Bad at all. MPJ-DK 06:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment True, but I see no notice on Whacks's site that states all the photos are copyright free either. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment are we discussing deleting the picture or are we discussing deleting the article? Let's stick to discussions of deleting the article, whomever wants to remove a picture for copyright reasons is free to do so - so let's stick to the deletion process for the article why don't we? MPJ-DK 10:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Hey Hack, you know I normally agree with you, however I am familiar with Jigsaw and he has worked in many federations, as well as has been featured in publications, and notable newsletters. I do however feel the article needs a lot work and needs to be referenced better! Hellswasteland 14:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no valid secondary sources provided. All content appears to be first hand sourced therefore violating WP:NOR. Image is likely copyright violation. Notability is questionable at best. Once you weed out the wikipedia scrapers and mirrors, and sites referring to jigsaw puzzles, your down to approximately 2200 google hits, comparatively if you google me and remove comments regarding wikipedia or wiki (alkivar -wikipedia -wiki) your getting 2,360 hits. If this guys only as notable as I am, he probably doesnt deserve his own article. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Toushe' LOL! Hellswasteland 18:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. It remains to be seen whether or not all these links to onlineworldofwrestling.com really qualify as reliable sources or not. Burntsauce 21:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For establishing notability for independent wrestlers absolutely not, and reliability is also extremely dubious, for more information see here. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes because ever single solid wrestler listed on OWW bough their profile. Once again you seem to overlook the fact that this is also posted: "If a wrestler's profile is posted, and we eventually discover that you submitted fraudulent or misleading information...then we reserve the right to erase your profile and keep the fee as a service charge". Nenog 00:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, I didn't overlook it in the slightest. Please don't make incorrect assumptions, and also familiarise yourself with the burden of evidence. That page proves that a profile is not an indication of notability, and that the information may not be reliable. This is an encylopedia not a wrestling fan site. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My comment wasn't about whether or not OWW establishes nobility, it was in response to your comment: "reliability is also extremely dubious". As far as I know this is the second time you've posted that page omitting the fact that if the wrestlers are found lying their profiles can/will be deleted. Nenog 02:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please read WP:V and WP:RS, your argument holds no water. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Where specifically in those two? Nenog 02:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator due to lack of reliable sources. Yamaguchi先生 04:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails the everything test. RFerreira 05:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete both. No references, notability not established. Cúchullain ^t/c 06:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Format Proliferation[edit]

Appears to be an article about a neologism and may contain original research (probable presentation of a specific theory in business) or does not have enough available information for more than a dictionary entry without crossing into spam or advertisement. Also including SKU Proliferation in this discussion. Cquan (don't yell at me...) 16:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr 13 05:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. The term and concept seem common enough from a quick Google search, and the article had only just been created when it was given the AFD tag. I think it should be allowed a little more time to develop. Propaniac 15:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 08:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both These are the only two contributions by the author, suggesting a conflict of interest. (Yes, there can be a profit motive in promoting this idea of Format Proliferation.) Also, it strikes me as original research. One source is not enough. YechielMan 14:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SKU, redirect Format -- Refs abound on Google.--Mike18xx 05:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charlestown lads club[edit]

Deprodded without comment, but this is just an amateur junior club. Punkmorten 07:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable - Google gives no results at all apart from 2 WP articles - does it even exist? ChrisTheDude 09:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per ChrisTheDude - fchd 12:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete as not verifiable.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely non-notable. Almost an A7 speedy. Oldelpaso 17:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as highly non-notable. Qwghlm 20:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete no sign of notability. --Angelo 02:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as WP:CSD#A7 (non-notable person) and it borders on WP:CSD#G10 as an attack page. KrakatoaKatie 08:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Holbein[edit]

Proceedural, really. Contested Prod of a contested speedy of an utterly non-notable race car driver. The subject and his buddy/"rival" are the only editors. I'd recommend speedy. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 06:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The AfD notice has been removed twice from the page. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 07:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per being totally non-notable. --Haemo 06:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete four times repost, advert, falis WP:NOTE. Sandahl 05:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom city studio[edit]

AfDs for this article:

G search doesn't appear to provide any evidence of notability. All I see is promotional material, evidently self placed. The creator of the article is "Jeff Powers", shared last name with the founder of the studio. Philippe | Talk 04:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, can someone close this one? It's actually a speedy for recreated and advert. Philippe | Talk 05:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Falangism in Latin America. Cúchullain ^t/c 06:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Falange Boricua[edit]

Not notable, non-existent organization. The only sources are hoaxes. Delete I am nominator.--Cerejota 05:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned in a lot of places on google for it to be a hoax. I admit the article is not great but I am not a Spanish speaker and feel that if it was given attention by a Spanish speaker who could translate the resources available on the internet then it could be significantly improved. Keep and tag for clean-up or attention of an expert as a result. Keresaspa 14:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the mentions in google are for the same primary source. In fact dozens of other civil disobidients during those arrests alleged in one of the sources: the "news item" mentions several patently false -or lets say unverifiable- claims. Not a single FBI agent performed arrests, they where all US Marshalls(Vieques). Not a single reliable source mentions this group. This is one guy with a geocities account. Not notable.--Cerejota 16:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I have just relisted this) comment Searching the web I really only found many sites restating the same, but they are all falangistas (from Chile, Spain, ...), which sort of makes them primary sources. Thus more are needed and I found none. Still I have one question: what is your source for the claim that the arrests were not made by the FBI but by US Marshalls? Your source may establish existence, and may be an interesting source to access the subject's notability. - Nabla 20:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Local mainstream press during the events, and the law: the FBI provided support and help, but the arrest where happening unde rhte authority of US 13th Circuit Judges, excercised legally by US marshalls. Navy-Vieques protests has serious quality issues, but it is not OR when it states that "In May 4, 2000 civil disobedience encampments inside the practice grounds were evacuated by U.S. Marshals and Marines."

Furthermore, while arrests on the part of the FBI in Puerto Rico generally get press coverage, there is no single mention of the arrests alleged in the article, anywhere not even on the other falangist websites, which only repeat what they did.

Lastly, the USA publishes a list of what it considers "terrorist" organizations, there is no such action as "banning" an organization. At most its members can be tried under RICO laws, or in cases of corporations, their charters revoked, but there is no instance of banning any organization in recent history. Any such action on the part of the USA would have led to a shitstorm on the part of civil libertarians!

While my allegation of a hoax might constitute OR if published in the actual page, I am allowed to do OR in arguing deletion, am I not? The only reason I am not calling for speedy deletion is because is has been up for a big while.--Cerejota 23:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Off course you may, and should, research. I did not knew of the 'Navy-Vieques protests' article (not mentioned neither here nor at 'Falange Boricua') so I did not understood that it was a protest not by this group. If it were then being arrested by the FBI or US Marshalls would be an edition problem, not a deletion matter. Given that it is not, I now understand the inconsistencies that you are pointing at. So I think deletion is the way to go, unless sourced. And I found none I think is reliable in several spanish language pages I've seen, as they all seem to simply echo the same primary source. - Nabla 03:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete It does seem to exist, but the quality of the websites is unimpressive to me (though I don't know Spanish). A cleanup/expand job could certainly work. YechielMan 14:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 14:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nabla 20:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: some of the discussion above happened after this first relisting. - Nabla 16:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A thorough search of Google News Archive found nothing about this group or its supposed imprisoned founder. There is a small mention in one book, but only in relation to it being mentioned on a Spanish Falangist website. Fails notability, assuming it is correct. --Dhartung | Talk 07:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The weight of opinion here seems to be in favour of deletion and I accept that it is a minor movement and probably not deserving of a separate article. That being said I created the article as a redlink from List of fascist movements by country where there are a number of similar minor redlinked groups. As such I will create a master article to deal with all of them entitled Falangism in Latin America which will also deal with other more important groups such as the Bolivian Socialist Falange. With this article created Falange Boricua can be redirected along with all the other redlinks. It is a feature of Latin American political life and should be dealt with somewhere but I accept that each group need not have their own article. Keresaspa 12:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine. - Nabla 13:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not totally sure of the process now, whether I leave it to be closed first or just go ahead and redirect. Rather than risk it, I'll wait. Keresaspa 14:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Falangism in Latin America. -- Satori Son 01:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Falangism in Latin America. John Vandenberg 07:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Beccan[edit]

Murder victim. Child was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Newsworthy at the time, but no evidence of any ongoing significance. It is hard to say "non-notable victim" but there you have it. If the murder is notable, and I think it is not, then this should be moved to being an article on the muder, and certainly not a biography. -Doc^g 21:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A sad case indeed but just being a victim, even a young one, isn't notable. JodyB_talk 22:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Should probably be a section of an article on gang shootings in the United Kingdom, along with a similar event I recall occurring in Birmingham (I don't remember the victim's name). JulesH 15:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 08:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hugely notable for the family and the community she came from, and obviously much more newsworthy than most other deaths. But when placed against other murders there is sadly nothing to set this one apart from many others. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 12:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
R.I.P. to Danielle Beccan and to Danielle Beccan. See WP:NOTNEWS. YechielMan 14:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm more tolerant of articles on subjects with "single-event notability" than some, but I can see no appropriate place to include this material at this time. The subject does not appear to have been discussed in any wider context (the sole Google Scholar hit is a trivial one-off mention in a book). In cases where these subjects are involved in a well-defined event, I support merger to the article for the event, but in this case the event is a drive-by shooting that, while tragic, is not itself notable. A brief mention might be possible in an article about the gang involved, if it was notable; I am not able to determine if that is the case, but Waterfront Gang does not currently have an article. Serpent's Choice 15:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied and salted. Natalie 06:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom city studio[edit]

Google searches don't reflect any notable albums or artists. The only hits are promotional, obviously self-placed. I believe it should be deleted. Philippe | Talk 04:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't do my research - has been deleted previously, switched to speedy. Philippe | Talk 05:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Watching the last episode of the series myself (which was very disappointing, in my opinion), I've never heard of this character. Sr 13 04:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Leotardo[edit]

False fictional bigraphy Whitecap 04:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At present, a google search for the title (in quotes) returns only 9 hits, of which 2 are sports books (taking bets on the character actually existing) and 7 are blogs. Unless someone can show some print sources or some other evidence of notability, this character should be, at best, a footnote in the main Sopranos article. Natalie 06:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect. to The Sopranos.--Edtropolis 14:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mostly OR about the ending. JJL 17:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revise to show controversial status. Article states that it is debateable. Nevertheless, with all the talk, it deserves it's own page. Over 500 hits now, mostly blogs but on Stern, Opie and Anthony, MSNBC...where did this come from?

Keep Page This appears to be a valid entry for now. It is growing in popularity and does not seem to meet the criteria for deletion mentioned above. The page has been revised to address the controversy and as far as "google hits" there are over 900 with numerous news articles citing it (Chicago Tribune, NY Post, Washington Post and spokespeople have had to address the "rumor"). I want to see it through. Looks good to me.

CommentThis page may look good to you if you have no interest in the truth. Sadly for you, a character by this name never existed on the Sopranos. Do some research before you do damage to human knowledge. Stanley011 18:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - This derives from an unsubstantiated Internet rumor started by some guy with a Wall Street Journal email address so people took it seriously. The page didn't have even the known details right and consists of made-up nonsense. Wikipedia doesn't chronicle rumors. Tvoz |talk 14:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Considering revisions to address the controversy and rumors, this deserves a page. Although "rumors" don't belong in Wikipedia when presented as fact, the page has developed as one that acknowledges the history of the rumor first started in the "viral email" to one that objectively describes Nikki Leotardo's role in the final episode.

CommentBut there is no character "Nikki Leotardo" or any version of that name credited in the final episode - the character alluded to is identified differently. This is OR pure and simple. Tvoz |talk 05:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC) edit: HBO comments on non-existence of the character Tvoz |talk 16:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: A character by this name never existed on the Sopranos. This page is either vandalism or just extremely misguided. Either way it has not place on wikipedia. Stanley011 18:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big Five Pageants[edit]

(Sorry for my weak English)First, Wikipedia and Global Beuties must set a guidelines or criteria in making the big four to big five. The article in wikipedia titled Big Four pageants seemed to have contradictory on what some admin of Wikipedia insisted. On the other hand, Global Beauties have also a fault in this manner. The contributor had no fault in contributing Big Five Pageants. To the admin, please polished also the Big Four pageants article. Anyway, delete the Big Five Pageants article.
Second, the author and Global Beauties think that Miss Tourism Queen International must be included in the major pageants because the pageant has joined by many countries, like Miss Earth, Miss Universe, Miss World, and Miss International. Miss Tourism Queen International has been participated by almost 100 countries, defeating Miss Universe and Miss International.
Although the Miss Tourism Queen International was only established in 2004, why the Miss Earth, who has established in 2001, be included as one of the Big Four Pageants? In terms of number of delegates, Miss Tourism Queen International outshined Miss Earth by approximately 10-20 delegates. Rellon Boisbaudran Le Havre, 14:59 June 14, 2007

Just because Global Beauties is touting Tourism Queen international as a major pageant doesn't mean it is... that is entirely POV. Given the existence of Big Four Pageants, this article is in my opinion misleading. PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 04:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete no sources to justify its claim to any of the top 5 pageants, or the term, which returns 3 Ghits Ohconfucius 06:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Lancini87 18:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, author's request is what I infer from:

(cur) (last) 2007-06-13T03:35:47 Crapton (Talk | contribs | block) (empty) (←Blanked the page)

Resurgent insurgent 18:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Klingon programming[edit]

Hoax, said episode of Star Trek has no such content. Episode 71 was The Mark of Gideon, which had nothing like what the episode described, then again no episode did. Wingsandsword 04:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Google only finds iterations of a humour article. Production episode 071, Whom Gods Destroy, also has nothing to do with this, unsurprisingly. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 06:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If some of the "academic literature in Computer Science" stating this is a common alternate name for Extreme Programming can be provided and sourced, I might be brought around to redirect this. Failing that, beam it into a volcano. -- saberwyn 10:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The humour articles are quite good though. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 12:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even a funny hoax. zadignose 14:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism. JJL 17:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Talk about outsourcing. Besides, their customer support is terrible. ("Today is a good day for your computer to die.") Clarityfiend 19:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Computer: This is the Editor. Article Destruct Sequence. Code CSD, A1, G1, 3 *boom* LaughingVulcan 04:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SIbI' De' yIQaw'. (Destroy the data immediately.) I believe that Klingons use a little bit different form of extreme programming than described in this hoaxalicious article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of city nicknames[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article's last AfD closed as no consensus. The keep arguments stated that this article could have its lack of sourcing fixed, but nobody ever fixed it, it just stayed as it was in violation of NPOV. It still claims that places are "Capital of <insert claim here>" without any sourcing at all, frankly I think much of it is made up titles, colloquial titles and self granted titles. This fails WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:V, and most of all WP:NOT. This is not an encyclopedic subject but list with very little content per entry. This is an indiscriminate collection of information. ^(H) 04:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced and original research with plenty of time given to address the issues. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 04:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, this is useless trivia that may or may not be mentioned already in most of the cities' respective articles. It's unsourced anyway. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Core desat 04:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, original research, clearly falls under WP:NOT... shoulda been deleted the last time around. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Due the characteristics of the information presented, we can't cite sources references." That sentence right there shows that this article is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Delete. (messedrocker • talk) 04:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but apply chainsaw. Contrary to the sentence noted above, portions of the list are referenced, and probably many other portions could easily be. -- Visviva 04:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, after this article is treated with much chainsaw, it would be as if a person is ridded of all their body parts except part of their left hand. Would the article be worth keeping? (messedrocker • talk) 04:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. For the proper way to include a list of city nicknames in Wikipedia, see Nicknames of Houston. --Evb-wiki 04:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Damn that's a good article. (messedrocker • talk) 04:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm really impressed with that article. Natalie 06:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. It shows that the claim "the nature of the info does not allow for sources" does not hold water. Even nicknames can be sourced, and it's not encyclopedic if it doesn't provide context. There were a few proposals that could not be sourced; they were simply not included. --Evb-wiki 12:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate collection of information, which is what Wikipedia is not. Sean William @ 04:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the "keeps" in the last AFD were on the condition that this article was improved by adding sources for every example. That hasn't happened, and this list has been tagged for lack of sources since November 2006. Masaruemoto 04:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think it's indiscriminate - I think this is the kind of list people some people would find useful (if in a trivial way). I don't think two months (since the previous AFD) is enough time to give it to be cleaned - I think the size of it is probably intimidating to editors. Maybe chainsaw it after six months or so. CitiCat 04:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Two months is long enough to bring it up to featured article, nobody even made an effort. Most of it is not even citable by its very nature. ^(H) 04:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom due to verifiability issues, article serves as nothing more than a trivia magnet attracting fly-by-night editors. Broken beyond repair. RFerreira 05:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is waving a red flag at us to see how we react. It taunts us with " look, this fails WP:V, but please keep me!" Getouttahere. It has to go. Ohconfucius 06:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an article can only be kept so many times on the argument that it just needs to be cleaned up. This hasn't happened, after four tries. --Haemo 06:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. If it hasn't been fixed yet, it won't be. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 06:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nice chainsaw! -- Visviva 07:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete A rather useless article, which cannot be allowed to stay here. It isn't fit for wikipedia, it just isn't. -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 12:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep outside the context of WP:BLP, articles are to be deleted due to lack of sourcing only if no sourcing is likely to be found. That's not the case here. There are lots of articles that are unsourced since ..., but they aren't deleted. Carlossuarez46 16:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the WP:NOT issues? ^(H) 16:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per H. —^Jack_Lumber^/tɔk/ 18:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The list should be pared down; five nicknames for Gary, Indiana are four more than we need to know. But a city's nickname is usually a matter of pride for its residents, especially a name with a long tradition. The nicknames are often an alternate way of referring to a location: if you run across "The Big Apple" or "Gotham" out of context, it's good to know what's referred to. Finally, this list is working at a global perspective. I don't know if the residents of Jakarta or Buenos Aires have another name for their city, but articles outside of en:Wikipedia might yield that information. It never hurts to learn a little bit more about the rest of the planet. My ONLY misgiving is that lists like these are open to vandalism. Mandsford 02:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep No need to delete it now that it has been chainsawed to only include referenced information. The current version is a good starting point to rebuild the page properly, and editors who do want to make the effort to look for sources can still find the old set of nicknames in the page history. Anyone who originally voted to delete should reconsider as it is a completely different article now compared to when the vote started. Easel3 17:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not changing my vote... the list is and will always remain a target for random useless trivia, as such the list really is not worth keeping. Certain nicknames can and should be placed in the articles on the cities themselves. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 21:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, individual nicknames can be redirects to their city, if more than one city shares the nickname, make a disambiguation page. This type of "index" while informatative is not encyclopedic in nature. ^(H) 21:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment City nicknames are a worthwhile and interesting topic, and I believe it's a topic that does belong in Wikipedia (regardless of whether it's a target for vandalism or useless edits, which many worthwhile pages are). Whether you agree with that statement or not, that issue has not been the main focus of this AfD and I don't think there is concensus here to delete the article for that reason. The main thrust of the opening paragraph above was about the lack of sourcing used, the NPOV violations etc, and the fact that nobody ever fixed it. Most of the delete votes have used that argument as well, with many implying that the article has had enough chances to have the unverified facts cleaned out and that it will probably never happen.
Since then, RFerreira did a great job of doing just that, completely changing the situation. With respect, I think this AfD has already achieved its correct outcome by deleting the 90% of the article that most people had a problem with, and I think the fair thing to do now would be to withdraw the nomination. I can't see a clear indication that the remaining 10% on its own deserves or would have received a delete vote. Easel3 14:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I see a lot of people that object on the grounds of WP:NOT. ^(H) 14:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but there are also many who don't. Currently I count 5 votes to keep and 13 to delete (in other words, 4 delete votes changing to keep would make it even). Of those 13, four either explicitly mention WP:NOT or use words to that effect. Six others use arguments relating only to sources or verifiability or the fact that it has taken too much time to be dealt with, without explicitly endorsing your arguments per nom. The other three don't mention WP:NOT but do say 'per nom' or similar, however one of these three predicts that the page will not be fixed, and another demonstrates that articles about city nicknames can exist on Wikipedia, although in another form. Altogether, I wouldn't say there's a consensus that WP:NOT applies. Easel3 15:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming I'm the editor to whom you refer who "demonstrates that articles about city nicknames can exist on Wikipedia, although in another form." E.g., Nicknames of Houston. And this is true. Nevertheless, to clarify, it's not so much the ability to provide a source for each item listed that shapes my opinion, but rather the fact this list is not encyclopedic because it does not provide sufficient context. IMO, lists worth keeping provide textual context indicating the similarities, differences and connection the listed items have (i.e., they are not mere lists). In the list being discussed, we have items simply listed without texual explanation as to the connection (and mostly without real info about the item itself). Of course, the only connection these items have to each other is identified in the article's title. Therefore, even the chainsawed version fails WP:NOT in my book. --Evb-wiki 16:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that I was referring to you before (and I do want to make it clear that I wasn't meaning to represent or reinterpret anyone else's opinion with my summary, just trying to make a case that the article deserves the benefit of the doubt rather than the deletion it is heading for, considering the recent major changes and a comparison with arguments made before those changes). I certainly agree that the list would be far better if each nickname was provided with an explanation of its background, and that the article currently is nowhere near as good as the excellent Houston article. But I would still say that it is a list that is well worth having a Wikipedia article about, and so it does not fail WP:NOT imo. It definitely needs a lot of improvement but I think it can be rescued from its current state without needing to be deleted. So I would still argue that this AfD should be marked as 'no consensus' and the new, shorter article allowed a chance to rebuild and be judged on its own merits after a few weeks. Easel3 16:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Most of the entries on the list are sourced, no matter how many tags and templates at the top of the page say otherwise. (The article is not in great shape, but with most of the entries sourced I see no breach of WP:V or WP:NOR) Several city nicknames are well-known (e.g. New York = Big Apple) and information of this sort does have some lexicological interest. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. No non-Lonely Planet references to determine notability. Cúchullain ^t/c 06:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seoul Kims' guest house[edit]

Contested claim to notability based on Lonely Planet listings. I lean towards deletion based on lack of additional independent sources, and because Wikipedia is not a travel guide or directory. Visviva 03:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Listing in a travel guide does not confer notability. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 07:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I can vote keep on my own article, but come on people, what is up with this attack new articles thing? There is little information on wikipedia regarding what is around Hapjeong station. Just because it is not notable to you in your frame of mind, doesn't mean it isn't globally notable. Hapjeong is a major station in Seoul and this youth hostel has many visitors. I think that you automatically swarm around it to shoot it down just because you don't know about it personally... that's just silly. It is in two books, and can be found in other websites on the internet. This hostel is a lot more notable than minor characters in sailor moon (as way of an example, an old page that I saw on wikipedia, and countless other minor but notable pages on here) Work with me to add details about this hostel instead of shooting an infant before it has time to grow. Thanks. Nesnad 12:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You can... How would you feel about a merge-and-redirect to Hapjeong Station? That would allow the information to be preserved, and would help to fill that article out a little too. -- Visviva 02:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a bad idea... although I still haven't had made clear to me why this isn't notable enough to have it's own page when random snack foods from foreign countries and minor voice actors for foreign cartoons have their own pages and etc. Can that be explained to me? To me it feels like people are just jumping on the bandwagon so to speak with the whole "delete this" thing. Thanks. Nesnad 14:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (unless we can transwiki to Galbijim Wiki? Anyway I think that the article creator may be interested in contributing there.) cab 01:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You guys, if there is a page on this very minor person Sanae Takagi (as example, I personally think it's a prime example because this hostel is for sure more notable than this voice actor. That is just one of billions of minor but on wikipedia articles) why can't there be a page on a youth hostel? This is just ganging up against something for the sake of it, there are a lot of minor pages on wikipedia, this IS notable. Why can't you guys help me add information to the article instead of just killing this article as is? It is notable, someone please explain to me why it isn't? This is madness. Nesnad 10:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that people are ganging up on you for no particular reason, but there are in fact a lot of reasons why people may feel this particular article (along with others you've pointed to) don't belong in an encyclopedia. We have policies to try to determine what is notable and what isn't. See Wikipedia:Notability. General hard proof of notability is that the subject in question has been written about non-trivially (e.g. not in a laundry list or directory) by multiple reliable sources which are cited in the article.

The fact that Wikipedia has articles on loads of minor people, game characters, etc. doesn't mean that Wikipedia's founder or some administrator explicitly authorised them to create those pages. It just means that one single random guy like you or me felt like creating the page. In fact, every day, hundreds of pages that some random people felt like creating get deleted because large numbers of other random people think we should not have articles on those topics, and can cite policies to support their thinking. This process isn't without controversy --- look through the log of yesterday's deletion discussions to see some of the disagreements this generates. But in general, the best thing to do when you think about creating a page is to find sources beforehand. cab 01:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cab, thanks for the intelligent thoughts. I see I made the mistake of thinking wikipedia articles were BUILT instead of having to come prefabricated, ready from the start. I was in a hurry and didn't put all the content into this article from the start, and for that I realize I apparently made a mistake. But honestly, being that information about this place can be found in at least two books if not more, and other websites, why is it still being slammed as not notable at all? Can that be explained to me? I have read the article about notability and I am still in the dark. Thoughts? Nesnad 15:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and as way of a PS, I assumed people would read the sources before not counting them, but reading your comment about "not in a laundry list or directory" makes me feel like you and the others on this page haven't even read the source and are claiming it to be invalid. I have read both sources (and so can you) and it isn't a "directory" or laundry list or whatever, its an article (yes tiny, but its not just a name of a place with a phone number, it really talks about the place) and it is a decent source. Read it before you knock it, know what I mean? Nesnad 16:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I read the Lonely Planet entries in question (thanks to Google Books); they appear in a section which gives large numbers of one-paragraph descriptions of similar businesses, which feels to me like a trivial directory entry. I guess we have a different opinion of what constitutes a "laundry list". Regardless, if your goal is to provide as much information as possible about the guesthouse, like I said above, Galbijim Wiki is your best bet, because they allow testimonials from webforums, personal experiences, travel guide style information (e.g. "how to find this place", "nearby restaurants", "which room numbers are the best because they face away from the noisy street"), and the like to be written into articles. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is an encyclopedia which is largely restricts itself to using books, newspapers, and the like as sources, and highly discourages personal testimonies or travel guides; so here, we're heavily restricted by policy as to what we can write about this topic. cab 04:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cab, thanks for pointing out the list of pages being contested. I was too busy last time, but tonight I looked through it and found quite a few articles on there being voted KEEP that have less significance than this one. I'm not sure if List of Samurai Shodown characters will maintain its keep votes but the fact that it has a few keep votes when this one has none seems to show the "Korea isn't notable, move it off to some Korean specific use Wiki" bias that you seem to be sharing with the other "delete this" people. Why can List of Samurai Shodown characters get any keep votes when this one has only got delete votes? Does anyone see the bias? Thanks. Nesnad 18:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied as a copyvio. Natalie 06:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Williamsburg oil spill[edit]

No context given, this appears to be about a local news event rogerd 03:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No context, no data, no information. What in blazes is this? Please, somebody provide more data and at least some context. Is this for real? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, mainly it's a copy/paste of this site. Interesting blog. Now we can Delete this as a copyvio. It's at most Wikinews anyway. CitiCat 04:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Neutral for now. See The Ooze, a current New York magazine article about the 1940s oil spill (arguably augmented by a century of industrial chemical dumping) underneath Greenpoint. The article mentions cancers in the area that some believe are connected. This particular spill -- I'm not sure how much they're saying it's a separate spill and how much they're connecting it to the Greenpoint spill. It's a poorly written, POV article with atrocious sources. --Dhartung | Talk 04:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete lacks context, and thinly disguised copyvio of this article. Both speediable offenses. Ohconfucius 06:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hot 16[edit]

No Ghits on subject, references do not support notability -- Mufka ^(user) ^(talk) ^(contribs) 03:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed. Lose the accompanying image, too. Astrovega 03:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of notability. I got rid of one of the references since it was just a link to the Wikipedia article on his hometown. One of the two remaining sources is his MySpace page (which is usually not accepted as a RS). Lrrr IV 03:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. There can be a new article when he knocks 50 Cent off the charts. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 06:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom;above. Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 07:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable young rap artist.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many musicians aren't that notable, but if the facts in the article pass WP:V then what's wrong with it? Gabefarkas 13:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pigman Road[edit]

Delete as non-notable legend. Google search for "Pigman Road"+Angola only brings up 19 unique results. "Pigman Road"+Buffalo does a bit better with 35, but some of the results appear to be about a music group. The subject is of local interest only. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 02:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"This topic isn't written about much, especially on the internet these days. It's maily spread through word of mouth, passed on in snippets and stories people tell one another about hearing about 'this Pigman thing', and it's tough to find out about the Pigman legend, so that's why I've decided to bring this to you." That's pretty much the opposite of Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Delete. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it was a 'real' legend it would have sources. Even by the standards of nonsense it's rubbish. Nick mallory 03:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even ghosts can't have phantom sources. --Haemo 06:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probable hoax.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, seems to be a fantasy tale thought up by someone who chose to promote it via Wikipedia.[48]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, unverified material should be removed editorially. Cúchullain ^t/c 06:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Break of Reality[edit]

Fails notability criteria laid out by WP:MUSIC. The band mentioned is a local band from Rochester, New York, composed of a few kids from the Eastman School of Music. The only mention given in the article is by the Democrat and Chronicle, Rochester's local newspaper. While the band claims to be sponsored by Red Bull, nothing exists to support this claim.[49] Additionally, no other significant coverage exists.[50] CA387 02:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Break of Reality is now based in NYC and has preformed shows across the country. A google search returns 9300 results of which the first 3 pages are almost entirely related to the band and are from varying sources and outlets. In addition the article has been submitted and vetted by the clean up task force. Just my 2 cents mcwiggin 03:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A search for "'Break of Reality' -Wikipedia" returns 915 results, not 9300.[51] Of these, none of them meet the criteria for inclusion under WP:MUSIC. --CA387 05:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No one vets articles on Wikipedia, and even if this were the case the clean up task force wouldn't be making decisions about notability. We check spelling and punctuation. Natalie 06:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Democrat and Chronicle is a reliable source. There's nothing wrong with it being a Rochester newspaper. And there are several articles in Rochester City Newspaper. See the list at http://www.rochestercitynewspaper.com/search/?cx=004748461628237154377%3Adzq_-dlyh7e&q=%22Break+of+Reality%22&sa=Search&cof=FORID%3A11#946 --Eastmain 07:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think I misinterpreted criteria number one at WP:MUSIC, then. Still, all unsourced material about Red Bull sponsorship should should be removed. I'll change my vote to keep (and maybe vote for a close per WP:SNOW). --CA387 15:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Actually, I'll take that back—I think that a mention in the Democrat and Chronicle would still constitute "trivial coverage". It certainly doesn't fit with the rest of the spirit of WP:MUSIC. --CA387 15:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. This band appears to have been mentioned in their local newspaper somewhat and thus seems to meet criteria #1 for inclusion under WP:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles, unless local newspapers don't count. However, the band also seems to meet criteria #7 for inclusion under WP:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. --Leon Sword 18:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definite keep - Factiva returns 2 non-trivial mentions of this band. Edward Ortiz (12 June 2007). "Cello quartet rocks New Directions fest". The Sacramento Bee. p. E3. (530 words), and 4 paragraphs in New York, New York, edited by valerie block, 4 June 2007 from Crain's New York Business page 6, Volume 23; Number 23. Far from deletable under CSD A7, and far from deletable under WP:MUSIC. Resurgent insurgent 13:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absynthe (band)[edit]

An entry for an unsigned band that has yet to release any material. Fails WP:MUSIC. Premature, at best. The creation of DTNeko, who identifies herself as band member Emma Maree Urquhart, a single purpose account. Victoriagirl 02:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7 Article does nothing to support the significance of the subject. --CA387 02:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete not notable and notability not asserted. fails WP:BAND. also fails WP:NOT#SOAP, WP:CRYSTAL, Ohconfucius 06:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but Emma Maree Urquhart seems to be notable. I had heard of her prior to this AFD debate.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete — Non-notable band per WP:MUSIC. The only sources are myspace and the "official site", so the article needs independant sources which I couldn't find. *Cremepuff 222* 21:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7 Delete No assertation of notability other than founder member being a published author (and even her page isn't properly reference). However since founder member is not famous as a musician whatever notability she has is not transferable to a band. A1octopus 22:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Wafulz 03:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Music in Project Gotham Racing 3[edit]

Delete - there do not appear to be independent reliable sources either confiming this list of songs appears in the game or attesting to the notability of the songs' inclusion in the game. The article does not assert the importance of the songs. This is similar to the various articles listing off the songs heard on various TV shows, which have been deleted in number. Otto4711 02:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - well, it's true, but this is a list of loosely related songs. --Haemo 06:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 10:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Székesfehérvár Ice Hall[edit]

Non notable Ice Rink, not nessacary for a Wikipedia article Rackabello 02:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Home arena of an ice hockey team that plays in it's nations top level competition. Resolute 02:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking at Category:Indoor ice hockey venues, it appears that this one belongs. Capmango 02:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if it's the top league, it qualifies.--Svetovid 09:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd love to see a source to prove the team is in fact noteworthy, but as it stands the nominator's claim clearly isn't true. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I couldn't find anything on the team. If you can find valid sources that substantiate the claim that the team is noteworthy, then I withdraw the AFD Rackabello 13:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. According to the article it is the home of Alba Volán Székesfehérvár, which in turn is apparently a "team that will join in the Austrian Erste Bank Hockey League in the near future." No sources to verify notability for either the team or the arena. Claims that this is a "top league" stadium are baseless. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there are paper sources, Hungarians are the people who can find them. Let's get some input from locals. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here is a schedule for the team in last year's season. They were a Continental Cup finalist. Looks legit to me. —David Eppstein 02:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Team that plays out of the arena is in the nations top level league. --Djsasso 05:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect. Probably not expandable in the near future, a redirect would suit best. Sr 13 03:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blair Martin[edit]

This information is listed on the main Temptation page therefore a second page is not needed. Sstephens 01:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this living person asserts no notability other than winning a game show. (→zel zany - uses a new sig) 01:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to main Temptation page. Capmango 02:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect Article subject is not notable outside of the individual game show, and I doubt that enough reliable sources let alone notable actions, works, or others that would exist to even consider an article getting close to meeting WP:BIO. As noted by nom and ors, the information is already in the main article regarding the game show, so keep it there. Thewinchester ^(talk) 03:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Delete He is a game show contestant and not notable for anything outside winning at Temptation. There isn't even content worth merging to the main Temptation article. As I asked at another AfD, how is this different from including the winning family on Bert's Family Feud or for that matter winning the lottery? -- Mattinbgn/^talk 03:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:N, person with similar notability was speedily deleted (Yolanda Stopar)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 03:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:BIO. Orderinchaos 06:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Recurring dreams 09:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. He might not be notable outside the show, but his name is still a valid search entry, which means a redirect is a sensible idea according to policy. When the title redirects, there's no longer a particular need to delete the material (if we delete often enough before placing a redirect, it is gonna strain the servers). Besides, if the material is taken from this page in the first place, we need the redirect to comply with the GFDL. We need to know which came first before deletion is even legal. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect, per Mgm. Jacek Kendysz 23:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect it helps prevent re-creation. BTW - on Wikipedia you can't both Delete AND redirect (well, I guess the delete might clear out the history from the redirect but why bother)...Ga rr ie 01:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Google News Archive comes up with nothing on him but he is notable in terms of the show. Capitalistroadster 03:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete and redirect; Google News does have results, but essentially they are two pieces, a focus piece and a minor mention; a before and after on the TV show ratings. However, he is the sixth to do it, so unless there is another claim to notability, I dont see the lasting value in having a bio. John Vandenberg 05:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: the article cannot be expanded further, other than his time in Temptation. But at least the article can be redirected to the main article as his win is definitely notable. Don't delete the page. RaNdOm26 08:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources cited, therefore not notable WP:N. Assize 13:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to TV programme article, as above. Lankiveil 11:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result wasDelete issues with WP:N WP:CORP obvious WP:COI Gnan garra 04:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Certification Laboratory of Australia[edit]

Procedural nomination for deletion as WP:VSCA, and also requesting the article be salted. Article has been previously speedied four times as copyvio, G12, and 2x G4's as recreation of deleted material. Article in all iterations has consistently failed WP:CORP and despite repeatedly being tagged for clean-up never has been. The core contributing user to all versions only edits in a very small scope of articles relating to Diamonds, and these edits are all for the sole purpose of adding information relating to Diamond Certification Laboratory of Australia and links back to this article. The user is an obvious single-issue editor with the sole purpose of promoting the company in question, and the article in all forms has been blatant spam. Also breaches the spirit of WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. Thewinchester ^(talk) 01:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Thewinchester ^(talk) 01:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The users own talk page confirms that the user has a significant conflict of interest in both this article and the subject matter, being the Director of company that is the articles subject (diffs). A quick phone call to the company can also confirm this information. Thewinchester ^(talk) 01:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ delete This has been deleted before with no deletion review to restore it ~~(WP:CSD#G4)~~. Optionally protect this page from recreation if it is deleted. (→zel zany - uses a new sig) 01:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As Eastmain said below, it was an incorrect use of G4 before and this should have been taken to AfD a few deletions ago. And yes, this article does need to be salted if consensus leans delete (noted in my nom). Thewinchester ^(talk) 01:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will concur with both of you. (→zel zany - uses a new sig) 01:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. G4 does not apply in this case. It only applies if the article has been deleted as a result of an AfD. --Eastmain 01:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Comment Not convinced it meets WP:N, and the COI issues are a problem. Orderinchaos 01:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC) Have rescinded my vote pending advice from the relevant WikiProject - may be notable per Eastmain, and may be able to be expanded by someone other than the article's subject. Orderinchaos 06:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment. I would expect that a grading and classification service like this one or the others mentioned in this article would be mentioned often enough in jewelry industry publications to establish notability. The World Federation of Diamond Bourses http://www.worldfed.com/newsletter/old/WFDB%20Newsletter%20No%206.doc lists DCLA as one of five "gemological laboratories worldwide that apply the IDC Rule Book." I think this might be a case where the article topic is notable, despite the obvious problems with the current version of the article. Because I don't know much about this field, I posted a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry about this AfD. Perhaps some of the participants in the Gemology and Jewelry WiikiProject will be able to offer some insights into the notability of gemological laboratories such as this one. --Eastmain 01:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good call on notifying the Gemology and Jewelry WiikiProject, didn't even think about other relevant projects which might be able to throw some light on the subject. Thewinchester ^(talk) 02:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They may also know how to improve the article. Orderinchaos 02:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I will ~~refer~~ refrain from making a recommendation pending advice from the Wikiproject. Google News Archive [52] has some coverage although it is mainly incidental in being quoted in news stories. Capitalistroadster 03:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 23:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mega Man Zero characters[edit]

This article has consistently (for three years) failed to use any kind of independent or out-of-universe sourcing, has an ONLY in-universe style, and all sources that could be used for verification in the article have been rejected as inappropriate by all but one editor. To exacerbate the problem, the multiple articles that were recently merged into the article had what sourcing they did have (in- and out- of universe) removed.
Finally, the article seems to consist of only cruft, OR, or redundant info - anything that does seem correct is either a reiteration of the plot or what else is said on the game's page itself, or is such minutiae that it wouldn't even be of interest (or noticeable) to those who played the game itself - info such as the voice actors, what ancestors a character had according to a stand-along audio file, What exactly one character said to motivate another, and so on. In fact, by its very nature (according to agreement between some of the editors), it is a repository for information that is non-notable, and putting it all on a list was an attempt to stall the eventual calls for deletion.KrytenKoro 01:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This list is unlikely to be well-sourced, but it is useful as a tool to first merge the equally-bad standalone articles, then merge those articles to the respective game articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, could someone take a copy of it to their sandbox/user space, and we cull the work from there? I don't know how to do it myself, but if anyone told me how, I would do it.KrytenKoro 03:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just create a user subpage, like User:KrytenKoro/List of Mega Man Zero characters, and copy and paste the list content into it. Homestarmy 03:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really in favor of that, because I'm not entirely sure that they can't be sourced in list form, and merging then remerging is at the heart of the WP:FICT compromise. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But if the article isn't acceptable in it's current form, and is only useful as a place to work on the info until we move it to the appropriate place...Isn't that what user space is for? If they can be sourced, though (and if I am understanding what the problems with the suggested sources were, correctly), then it shouldn't be taking three years - the only development since then, really, has been the Official Complete Works book, and none of us seem to have access to it (I'll but it the second I see it in stores, and I'll try to e-mail fan-community members, but...). I'm going to go ahead and create the suggested page - I won't remove the original list itself, but at least something will have been done.KrytenKoro 04:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't acceptable in its current form, but may be useful as part of a merge project or may be redeemed. We'll want the history in articlespace, then.

The reason I'm still keeping to weak delete is because this article is going to contribute very little if it's merged, and sets a good precedent for eliminating superfluous plot summary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, could it be moved to my user space in a way that keeps the history? Then the history can be removed back if it is needed when/if the info is merged.KrytenKoro 07:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In case this article is deleted, I'd be happy to userfy it with history for anyone who wants to work on it, but I'd also be happy to delete it from there if there's no visible work done for 6 months. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Making spin-off articles to protect main articles from bad content is not a good idea. Deleting the bad content is much more effective. Jay32183 05:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It really has no chance of improvement. TTN 12:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blind With Rain[edit]

Non-notable band. My speedy tag was removed with a claim that the link to the magazine is a claim of notability, although I strongly disagree with that. However, other than that, there are no reliable sources. I can find nothing about them in the archives at the magazine's website at http://www.industrialnation.com/, but then, they seem to be having server problems. Can't tell how far back the cited issue was. Google search returns 150 hits. They have an entry at allmusic.com, but it's virtually blank, and contains nothing about any releases. They have a page at artistdirect.com which lists their sole release and provides no further information. This band does not meet WP:BAND. Corvus cornix 01:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator's web search, this article cannot assert notability. There are also only primary sources to assert that notability, which does not help. (→zel zany - uses a new sig) 01:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. I add that the article is the creation of Colour escape, a single user account. Victoriagirl 02:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, not passing WP:BAND. tomasz. 13:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The magazine citation is technically a claim to notability, making it ineligible for speedy deletion (in my opinion). Whether it is a good enough claim to notability to avoid deletion will be decided in this discussion. --Ginkgo100^talk 23:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as WP:SNOW. KrakatoaKatie 08:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atheist prayer[edit]

Apologies if this article might meet the speedy deletion criteria, but i'm having trouble placing it in a speedy deletion category, so i'm making an AfD. This article's entire content is derived from a single blog entry by a person of undiscernable (and apparently non-existant) notability, and the link itself has been placed in several articles like Theism together with mention of "Atheist prayer", and despite explanations by myself and now at least one other person on the talk page of the person using the link, this article itself has now been created. Homestarmy 00:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, if "only known publication" is a blog entry, by definition it fails to have reliable sources and cannot be notable. Asserts unnotability. --Dhartung | Talk 00:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Completely devoid of WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 01:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe it should have been A7ed, but what be the harm in letting it sit long enough for either a Snowstorm consensus to build (which IMHO should be more than 4 opinions,) or for somebody to come up with further sources if remotely possible? Given there's nothing in my library to support the concept, but you never know what philosophers and/or theologians might have further references. LaughingVulcan 02:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have found that the most common "atheist's prayer" goes something like: "Oh, shhiiitttt!!!!" --Evb-wiki 02:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that may be a multi-faith prayer --h2g2bob (talk) 03:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The author, Mrdmidbar (talk · contribs), has only ever edited to introduce the Atheist's prayer (with link) into related pages, and has been warned for spamming this. --h2g2bob (talk) 03:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This atheist prays this gets Deleted Nick mallory 03:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oxymoron Delete. Atheists with deeper religious experiences?! Clarityfiend 03:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DAFT as spam and OR. Morgan Wick 03:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pure neologism, with no notability. --Haemo 06:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is just advocacy for a point of view espoused in only one blog. --Metropolitan90 06:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ObjectDock[edit]

This article reads like an advertisement. I don't see anything encyclopedic about this unnoteworthy product. User:RandomHumanoid^(talk) 00:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Application lacks notability, and if it is notable this has not been covered within the article. I seriously doubt that it has been the subject of significant reviews that would provide relevant

reliable sources being such a minor application. Thewinchester[User_talk:Thewinchester|^(talk)]] 03:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Object Desktop, the notable suite which it is a part of. the wub "?!" 09:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's specifically not a part of the Object Desktop package. Maybe to Stardock#WinCustomize? GreenReaper 03:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. It makes sense to discuss this in context rather than on a page of its own. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. And yeah, I was a WP nublet when I wrote this. :P Cctoide 12:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. —Over My Head 02:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep ObjectDock was the first MacOS-X Dock simulator for Windows developed, has appeared in major print magazines more than once, and has over 3.5 million downloads to date (sources available for all claims) ; I certainly think it qualifies as a noteworthy product! :) As listed on ObjectDock's page, there is a list of reviews, articles and historial references available. While I do agree that the wiki entry lacks mention of this notability and should be improved, I would recommend taking a look before declairing it an unnoteworthy/mergeworthy topic. http://www.stardock.com/products/objectdock/reviews.html LateNight with JB 19:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At the end of the day, this is $20 software, comparable in notability to a letter opener or a foot stool. However, the real purpose of this article is to provide a spammy link to the webpage of the vendor, which qualifies this article for Speedy Deletion.--Gavin Collins 15:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The program is freeware. It is one of the top 5 most popular desktop enhancements of all time according to CNET (see http://www.download.com/ObjectDock/3000-2341_4-10614600.html?tag=list). It was the very first dock program for Windows. It has a huge following. Arguing that a program with over 3.5 million downloads on Download.com alone isn't noteworthy makes no sense. Should we be deleting WinZip too? Also, why hasn't random humanoid also nominated much less known and newer dock programs that also have Wiki pages for deletion then too? TheWinchester - there was a review TODAY on ZDNet (http://content.zdnet.com/2346-9595_22-88148.html?tag=gald). It's definitely notable. Unbelieveable. Dragniol 16:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ObjectDock has two version one free and one not free the only difference between the two version: more options. The free version is really useful, and without time remaining. OD Free get the same support than the "Plus" version. It was the first dock tools for windows. It's one of the best Dock tools. and not only in one country but all around the world. Why deleted it? A free soft, with many features, good support, funny and useful. Would you like deleted "Microsoft Windows" it's not a freeware, isn't it? Quentin94 18:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ObjectDock is one of, if not the most popular dock programs out there today. As others have said here, ObjectDock has gained plenty of media coverage and has had featured downloads on many, many sites. The argument that this page is spam is quite ridiculous.IslandDog 18:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when I created it was mostly spam. It remained that way for a while, and it's still rather spammy and ugly. It could definitely be improved. Cctoide 23:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say the quality of the article is as good as it could be. But anyone arguing that ObjectDock isn't a notable software program really has no business participating in a discussion on PC software. We're talking about one of the most popular programs on the Internet (more popular than Yahoo Widgets in terms of weekly downloads according to CNET, ZDNET, etc. and you don't see people suggesting that Yahoo Widgets isn't 'notable'). If someone isn't willing to make a legitimate stand alone article of ObjectDock then by all means, delete the entry. My objection is when some guy comes on and says it's a 'unnoteworthy' product which displays a total lack of knowledge on the topic. Draginol 23:50 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep. It's notable, the article just needs a complete rewrite. --Android Mouse 04:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the measures of notability is whether the subject has gotten significant independent coverage. The ZDNet review is a full-bore photo walkthrough.[53] I'm going to add the link to the article—albeit as an external link, it's still referenced. Notability demonstrated. —C.Fred (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 18:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ...under my general reasoning that most software apps should be Wikified regardless of notability so that NPOV Wiki comparison lists (i.e., Bittorrent client) can aide readers otherwise stuck going to other places with, usually, hidden agendas. Chop spam out where present, but otherwise leave them alone.--Mike18xx 05:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. 128.158.145.51 17:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep doesnt read like an advertisement to me, and I went back to the revision as flagged for afd. Passes our software inclusion criteria, and WP isnt paper... ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per C.Fred, there is ample evidence that this software product is notable. Yamaguchi先生 04:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Having big numbers or liking a game are not reasons to keep an article. A lack of reliable sources to prove notability are reasons to delete.--Wafulz 03:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lords of Legend[edit]

Web content (it calls itself a MMORPG, but it is web based) that does not demonstrate notability with the use of independent sources. No citations other than the Lords of Legend website. It falls right on the borderline of where I'd speedily delete it under criterion A7, so this nomination is a strong delete nomination. —C.Fred (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly would you expect a Massive Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game not to be web based? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the commercial ones use proprietary servers and clients and not the http protocol, such as World of Warcraft. I'm not saying that makes it any less inherently notable, but I am saying that web content is eligible for speedy deletion, and that definitionally, this game is web content. —C.Fred (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Some of the statistics for it look slightly signifigant and it is listed as "one of the top RP games".

P.S. Regardless of what happens to the article thank you for nominating this for deleting fred, It looks fun! :) Cheers. -Ĭ₠ŴΣĐĝё 04:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is. If you look at the site carefully, you'll see that people can add their own game to the list and the rating is done by the players (so you can easily manipulate those by asking your players to vote and give it the highest rating to offset any criticism). The site shows no editorial control or expert judgement from someone not related to the game. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It - Unless you plan on deleting every single page for ever other MMORPG page. - Nintendo|^(talk) June 15th 8:11 PM PST
Delete I can find no information in independent sources discussing this game. To the above commenter, there are plenty of MMORPG games (even web-based ones!) which easily pass our current criteria. I don't see a "if you delete this, you must also delete Everquest and World of Warcraft" slippery slope here. JavaTenor 22:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect.--Wafulz 03:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Artists of the 20th Century[edit]

Orphan, and probably better covered at List of Greeks. Astrovega 00:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems like a reasonable search term. Besides, the other list is getting very long and might benefit from splitting. Also, I'd leave a note at the other list talk page so interested parties can use the current version to check if any of them need to merging. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
redirect, else delete. This seems ideal as a category. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basilisk Linux[edit]

Dead non-notable Linux distribution. I never red about Basilisk Linux except on Wikipedia, but checked Google hits anyway. Warning: Basilisk Linux returns many hits, but most are not about Basilisk Linux. "Basilisk Linux" gets under 500 preliminary hits. Chealer 00:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As not meeting WP:N and WP:V, also WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE issues. It's been said in AfD before that WP is not linux.org and it's not worth every minor linux distro being documented here, serves no benefit or purpose. Thewinchester ^(talk) 03:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Turn into stone. Last update on the project website was in 2004. There's no evidence this was ever a notable distribution, and it's very unlikely that it ever will be at this rate. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Grudgingly, Delete. There are hundreds of Linux distributions, most of which are specialised or dead. I don't think this one merits an article of its own, certainly not when places like DistroWatch can do a much better job than we can because they specialise in it. Anakin 12:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Root beer in popular culture[edit]

WP:NOT#IINFO. "In popular culture" articles are often indiscriminate information, but this is a particularly bad example. In a film once somebody asked for a root beer... Richie Cunningham ordered a root beer occasionally, etc. Masaruemoto 00:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & merge into main root beer article under a section for references to popular culture. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 00:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge some, delete the rest. The more notable references like that Tappen video game can be poured into the main root beer article; the remainder is just suds. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not merge, no reliable sources, OR, violates WP:TRIVIA. Corvus cornix 01:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no merge - trivia, cruft, nonsense, whatever your favorite word to describe stuff that shouldn't be here. Indiscriminate list, grouping of otherwise unassociated topics on the basis of the inclusion of a soft drink. Otto4711 01:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no merge - Per Otto. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 01:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't merge - Violates WP:TRIVIA; reads as cruft; non-notable; pick your reason. --tennis man 01:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Nothing with reliable sources. Please keep in mind that merging and deletion is not an option due to the GFDL. If content is merged this will need to become a redirect to wherever it is merged to. JoshuaZ 02:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I underlined this particular bit to draw attention to a very important fragment. Good job for reminding people Joshua. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pour it down the plughole Just asking because I don't know. Is root beer in America the same as 'ginger beer' in England? Nick mallory 03:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's also known as Sarsaparilla Ohconfucius 06:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only decent material here could easily be merged back. --Haemo 06:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Root beer which allows for merging of the viable material without violating the GFDL and discourages recreation (at least one example is crucial to the plot of the episode discussed and thus more than a passing trivial mention). - Mgm|^(talk) 12:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research, unreferenced and trivia.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the article is trivia-based, listing unconnected appearances of a beverage with no cited real-world context. If root beer has had some kind of influence on society, then such impact should be written in prose and cited on the main article, root beer. This branch-off article, without any real-world context, serves as a vehicle for abuse. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. IP198 20:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#INFO, an article like this is potentially unmanageable and fails to assert the unique cultural significance of root beer as opposed to any other beverage. The only thing linking together these bits of trivia is that it happens to involve root beer. Any other drink could be substituted in its place. --Kyoko 22:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bakotopia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

delete small social networking website not getting any second or third party coverage. —Gaff ^ταλκ 00:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: Article was quickly voted for deletion at AfD 2 years ago. Does not appear much has changed. Also...closing admin...please tag or delete the non-free images used on the page if deleting. —Gaff ^ταλκ 00:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet criteria.--Svetovid 00:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:WEB. Constitutes WP:SPAM. --Evb-wiki 04:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no real improvement since the last AfD. --Haemo 06:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'shnancore/ Revival Metal[edit]

No references. It's probably something very local and insignificant. Svetovid 00:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Any thing that claims to be a 2000s music genre would certainly have something on Google, but this gets a donut. —Gaff ^ταλκ 00:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a founding member of the 'shnancore/ reival metal scene i am deeply offened by your casual branding of my scene as "insignifigent", just because you have never heard of it and most likley do not respect it does not give you the right to pass judgment of a whole scene filled with musicans who are passionate about their music and deserve to respected as equals in the music community and not as "insignifigent". and is your life honestly so pathetic that you google everything you find. Wikipedia is about sharing knowledge and this scene is real by deleting the article your just denying the truth, censoring our speech, and as an artist that disgusts me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rattlehead924 (talk • contribs)

There is really no need to take offense. Your article simply falls well short of the criteria needed to be included in the encyclopdia. This does not mean that your not passionate about your music. Once there is some media coverage to comment on in an encyclopedia, an article will be written. Until then, just keep on rocking. —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:%27shnancore/_Revival_Metal"

Delete per nom. Perhaps not insignificant, but definitely WP:NN and no WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 05:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also the 'Origins' sec. is hoaxy and sounds like it was made up in school one day. --Evb-wiki 05:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not worthy of interest to you but since when were you in charge of deciding things like that. The 'shnancore/ revival metal scene is not a big scene and it should not be suprising that there are few resources refering to it. However firsthand resources are the best and as a founding member of this scene i can tell the information is accurate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.189.40 (talk • contribs)

- Yeah, and there seems to be some issues re WP:COI and WP:OR. --Evb-wiki 19:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no conflict of interest in this article. It is strictly unbiased and does not do more than state the facts about the scene. The rules on Original reashearch is to stop people from posting crazy theories and such. This is not a theory and could not in any way be interpeted as one.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.189.40 (talk • contribs)

Delete unless there are firsthand (or anyhand) sources able to be provided. Simply saying "I'm a member of this scene" doesn't wash. The claims of Original Research are in fact (as nearly as I can work out) being made because of the lack of sources - ergo, what's being written here is original, rather than being based on otherwise-available information. If the scene is as vibrant as all that, it'll become notable soon enough and then be a good subject for an article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete — Non-notable per WP:MUSIC (I had no search engine hits), and it has no references (WP:OR). *Cremepuff 222* 21:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For all of you people saying that this is irrelevant you have never been ot the place where the scene is most active. the scene is mainly active in the annandale/ fairfax city region of fairfax county

Again, nobody's saying it's "irrelevant". What's being said is that there are no reliable sources that anyone can find on this. Provision of these will be a considerable boost in any attempts to keep the article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 'shnancore band Tranquil in Fire has video clips of a performance in which the audience is chanting 'shnancore. would that be a resource?

I'll assume you are not joking and tell you that nobody doubts that it exists; that's not the point at all here. WP:MUSIC is, however.--Svetovid 18:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Traditions Magazine[edit]

Magazine existed for only 1 year and the article does not assert its notability. Zero references. The talk page shows that the person who started it thinks it should be deleted. Pig^man 00:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom as not meeting WP:N, WP:V. Thewinchester ^(talk) 03:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The closing admin shouldn't forget about the talk page discussion, some merges may need undoing if this is deleted. If "The intentions of the original article(s) were to provide information on the magazine and contributors - most of which are notable authors and known persons." Having notable authors attached makes a magazine noteworthy (at least in my eyes - just like books). We generally don't cut an article just because it ceased publication. That said: this google search is quite telling. With no mention of former listings in the common magazine databases, I'd suggest that the claim was exagerated and that this mag never came off the ground. Delete - Mgm|^(talk) 11:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless notability is satisfied: ex. a reliable publisher, reviews, impact... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 15:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep All of the delete !votes were based on WP:CRYSTAL and/or a lack of sources. Given the team has been formally announced, both problems have been resolved. As a result, and given that the AFD has been open for ten days now, I'm going to assume that there would be no controversy in my closing this. Hope you don't mind. Non-admin closure. Resolute 02:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Ironmen[edit]

Name and logo do not appear to actually have been announced, looking at MISL web site. Only source is a blog. This appears to technically be speculation. Just because it probably will be announced any minute now doesn't mean we shouldn't delete it until it actually is. Morgan Wick 02:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Per WP:CRYSTAL. Thewinchester ^(talk) 03:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, but not per WP:CRYSTAL - simply per CSD A7 (db-club). Crystalballery, sure, but they're otherwise not notable and the only information is in Blogspot - a blog, by its own name! So tagged for speedy. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not accepting any NN arguments because that opens a can of worms for potentially deleting all MISL teams, not to mention teams for other minor leagues. WP:CRYSTAL is not a speedy criterion. Removing speedy tag. Morgan Wick 03:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Point taken. We'll let it set latent for now then. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete for now until the team is officially announced. I'm a huge fan and follower of the league and seeing the team name was news to me. Wildthing61476 14:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)Speedy Keep per below comment by Michael Greiner. Wildthing61476 14:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep or Move~~ The team is announced by the league but the name wasn't. The team's current website ([54]) lists the Ironmen as a possibility for the name. While it isn't a great source, a design company, the F.A.I Design Group also has the info (linked in the blog post, [55]) The team does exist so the article should not be deleted, perhaps moved to a holding page like MISL Newark, but not deleted. Michael Greiner 20:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was this design group designing logos for all the possible team name/logos perhaps, and this was the first completed? Wildthing61476 20:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea, but the name possibilities were announced in January/February. Michael Greiner 02:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP Team name was been announced in today's Newark Star-Ledger as the New Jersey Ironmen. [56] Official announcement is tomorrow at Newark city hall. WP:Crystal is not a valid argument now. Michael Greiner 14:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep~~Weak Keep or Move~~ There is absolutely no WP:CRYSTAL issue that the MISL has granted a Newark franchise. The franchise website shows that it does exists, but lists "Ironmen" merely as one of several possible choices for a name. The WP:CRYSTAL issue is that neither name nor logo have been finalized. Rename the article and remove references to "Ironmen" until a name is chosen. Alansohn 16:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC) Now that the name has been finalized as Ironmen and the arena deal has been finalized, any WP:CRYSTAL issues are no longer relevant. Alansohn 18:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Be that as it may, why keep? I mean, I'm in agreement here - if the team is announced and unnamed, why do we have a proposed name, and why even think of keeping it? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we were to create an MISL Newark article we should also create an MISL Monterrey article. Morgan Wick 20:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. Currently the new Monterrey team has a section at the Monterrey La Raza as the speculation of that name being used. This would be a reincarnation of the team, which originally existed in the old WISL. Michael Greiner 20:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I think we should mere this info onto the MISL page. Bernstein2291 01:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move it somewhere so editors can still work on the topic, if needed be. WP:CRYSTAL on name, but not the franchise itself. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 14:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NewsFlash I have two sources from the Newark Star-Ledger saying the team name will be the Ironmen. Indoor soccer team headed to Newark Indoor soccer team set to play in Prudential Center. Read them and you will see the name has been verified. So, my vote would be Keep as well. Tom Danson 18:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also noted in my last comment seen above. --Michael Greiner 18:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could somebody close this debate please? The team was officially announced by the MISL today. Official Team Website. (Plus it features the logo). The consensus says Keep, plus there is a source now, so it would be utterly illogical to delete this. Tom Danson 16:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Hypothetical planets. Several users suggested merging to this or a similar article; this looks like the best bet, since other ones like Fifth planet (hypothetical) are under discussion to be merged themselves. Though this is crankery it does seem to have some amount of impact and ought to be covered, but since the relevant information is there already, a redirect will suffice. Cúchullain ^t/c 05:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tiamat (hypothetical planet)[edit]

I'm unable to find a single reliable source that discusses this at all. There are a few mentions in passing but that's it. The best I can come up with is the Skepdic entry. I had prodded this but the prod was removed with the justification that "it is referenced in Michael Tsarion's work, and also linked in the Michael Tsarion Wikipedia entry" Being mentioned by a fringe occultist is not a good reason to keep an article. JoshuaZ 02:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fringe scientific theory has an annoying habit of being unreliable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utter bollocks. There are interesting discussions to be had about the asteroid belt, the formation of the moon and possible lost planets in the early solar system, this however isn't any of them. Nick mallory 03:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to write acceptable articles about bullocks and hoaxes. Don't just vote delete because the subject might not be true. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Zechariah Sitchin's work, in particular The Twelfth Planet, presents a very extensive version of this theory, which has quite a wide following (added: not among scientists, of course). This is something that Wikipedia should cover, although with a clear emphasis on the fringiness of it. By the way -- contrary to the rather odd classification in this article -- Sitchin's work is not literary, although its status as "nonfiction" might be questioned. ;-) -- Visviva 04:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added: I've done some very rough cleanup; lacking any actual sources (even of the pseudoscientific kind), there's not much more I can do. -- Visviva 04:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Completely ridiculous theory, but Zecharia Sitchin is a reliable source and the fact it has been used in fiction shows it's worth writing about. Might be mergeable into the "fifth planet" article. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that Nibiru (hypothetical planet) was redirected to Zecharia Sitchin. Uncle G 12:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Um, depends what you mean by 'reliable source' I suppose. After reading his article I wouldn't trust Zecharia Sitchin with my neighbour's cat for the afternoon. "He attributes the creation of the ancient Sumerian culture to the Annunaki (or Nephilim) from a hypothetical planet named Nibiru in the solar system." I mean, really...Nick mallory 12:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Phaeton (hypothetical planet) and Fifth planet (hypothetical). These are apparently just different terms for the essentially "same" hypothetical planet, with some variations in theories about it. Between them I think they have enough sources for an article. PrimeHunter 16:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The Zechariah Sitchin article is all that's necessary for this. Giving separate pages for every little bad idea he had violates WP:NPOV policy by giving it WP:UNDUE weight. At best it's a redirect, but based upon the clumsiness of the name nobody would be typing it in like that, so no redirect is even necessary, except possible for old links elsewhere (which should be changed instead). DreamGuy 18:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The theory is shared by more people than just Sitchin. Redirecting it to his biography means it would lack weight it actually deserves. It's not just a fringe theory, there's been multiple writings published on the idea by more people than just Sitchin, which means it falls within the verifiability policy. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- unless you know Stichin's theory, you're unlikely to look on his page, whereas if you've heard of "planet Tiamat" that will be what you look for. Plus, leaving it within Stichin means other scientists' theories on Tiamat-type planets can't be added, whereas linking theories from Stichin would let Wiki composite all theories under their common subejcts. -- SockpuppetSamuelson
Delete and update Tiamat (disambiguation) to refer readers to the Zechariah Sitchin article. DreamGuy's analysis pretty much says it all. This article cannot be merged with fifth planet (hypothetical) since this is a totally different and non-mainstream theory whose inclusion in that article would violate WP:NPOV#Undue weight. --EMS | Talk 03:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wrong or right it looks like a real theory. Discussion to merge as per PrimeHunter should be opened. Nabla 23:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zecharia Sitchin, mention at fifth planet and Tiamat dab page. 132.205.44.134 02:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment quite a bit of the article talks about an asteroid progenitor planet, but which is not Tiamat, so should not be in this article in the first place, and the fictional planet around the black hole has nothing to do with the fifth planet. The Phaeton (hypothetical planet) article expounds a similar theory, so perhaps it would be better to have a asteroid belt progenitor planet article instead, with everything merged there. 132.205.44.134 02:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into Phaeton (hypothetical planet) - The article generally lacks good references and so should be considered unverifiable. Hence, the material itself should probably be deleted. However, a redirect (or the addition of some referenced material) to Phaeton (hypothetical planet) may be appropriate given that the two topics are very similar. Dr. Submillimeter 09:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Phaeton (hypothetical planet) and Fifth planet (hypothetical), because the essential concepts seem to overlap, and between the three of them, perhaps enough sources could be found to support one developed article rather than three separate articles about what sounds like variations on the same idea. --Kyoko 17:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment if that were done, what would be the appropriate title? (surely not 5th planet? (ie normally considered Jupiter) 70.55.90.138 04:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - How about Hypothetical planets, with sections about Tiamat, Phaeton, etc.? Wait, it seems that there is already an article there. Maybe the content could be incorporated into that article instead. --Kyoko 18:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wait, that wouldn't work because the parent article would get much longer if it incorporated everything that is included about Tiamat and Nibiru. Perhaps an article about Hypothetical planets (Sitchin theory) might work for Tiamat and Nibiru, because they seem to be closely linked in Sitchin's conception of the solar system. Personally I don't believe in the theory, but it does seem to have had some cultural impact, if you read the article about Burak Eldem. I'm also fairly certain that it was mentioned on a History Channel show about hypothetical threats to the Earth. --Kyoko 19:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because this is fringe science or pseudoscience is not a good reason to delete this page, also the concept of this hypothetical planet Tiamat as proposed by Sitchin is conciderably different from that of Phaeton or Planet V or any conventional hypothetical destroyed Fifth planet theory, to mention one reason for this Sitchin also mentions it was populated by highly intelligent aliens. Also subjects which are highly controversial should not be deleted because of this, nonetheless there should also be mention of criticism and skepticism to explain why this would be unacceptable or highly unlikely to main stream scientists. On the page their might best also be mention of a more scientific view of this hypothesis. But still, because the page lacks some information is no good reason to delete the whole page.
In case it is decided to remove this page: Redirect to Zecharia Sitchin, Do not delete the history of this page
80.201.101.74 12:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The problem is that no references can be found for this article. At least for other pseudoscience concepts, it is possible to find articles that discuss the subjects. (And why is it so important to keep the history?) Dr. Submillimeter 18:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Very, VERY useless article. Un sourcable. Per nom. G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 05:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolis (news music)[edit]

I'm unsure of this proposed deletion, and the decision here could affect a large number of articles, so I'm sending to AfD for discussion. Are music packages for news programs notable? Are there reliable sources that talk about news music packages?

The decision here may affect 33 other articles in Category:Television news music packages. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was the one who prodded it. It's essentially just a list of stations that use this particular music package, and seems, well, crufty, if there are really fans of television news music packages (and I guess there are because someone bothered to make this). I don't see why it's more notable than a list of stations with blonde news anchors, or blue logos. I looked at the category when prodding, and at least a few of the articles did seem to have some more background information that made more of a case for notability. Propaniac 14:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Propaniac. The JPS ^{talk to me} 11:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go for Delete as it's little more than saying package X was composed by Y and used by stations Z, I personally think this sort of thing comes under Wikipedia not being an directory, or more generally the general indescriminate information stuff. There's nothing to really say why this specific set of jingles is important. I'm not sure about the wider implications the creator of the AFD talks about, this particular article does seem quite bad compared to others in the TV news packages catagory, but I personally don't really see them as that notable anyway. FredOrAlive 00:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Categories cover the same information adequately; the list is too difficult to maintain.Cúchullain ^t/c 05:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of living philosophers and academics of philosophy[edit]

Delete. The inclusion criteria for this list are impossibly broad (extending far beyond the criteria at WP:BIO#Lists_of_people and WP:PROF), so it can never be remotely complete. It is defined as list of "Living philosophers and academics of philosophy (and others important in the history of philosophy)", which means that it could legitimately include (as an extreme example) someone who was once a part-time philosophy lecturer at an obscure non-university college.
The inclusion of obscure and minor academics means that editors can legitimately add many entries which fit the list's definitions, but which will be difficult or impossible to verify or to check whether the people are still alive. KSchutte (the list's creator) has recently removed some of the less notable entries, but this does not resolve the fundamental problem of the list's purpose being too broadly defined (and the deleted entries apparently met the list's stated inclusion criteria). This article was deleted in May by a ((prod)) which was subsequently contested, leading to undeletion; however the resumed discussion at Talk:List of living philosophers and academics of philosophy#Accuracy and maintainability of this list does not persuade me that the fundamental problems arising from the over-wide inclusion criteria can be resolved.
I can see the attraction of a list such as this, but a "list of living philosophers" woukd need to be defined more tightly to meet the criteria at WP:BIO#Lists_of_people and WP:PROF, and I would still have concerns about whether the "living" aspect could be adequately maintained. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The list is not well maintained: as I pointed out on the talk page, a very quick scan found that it included one figure who has been dead since 1994; the criteria for inclusion are vague at best, so that the list includes a Scottish politician. And moreover, I'm not entirely sure what the point of such a list would be even if it were accurate and well-defined. Should we then have lists of living anthropologists, historians, lawyers, surgeons, and every other professional category? I think not. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 09:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Impossible to maintain. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of philosophers born in the 20th century, as the distinction between the living and dead is an unnecessary complication, and impose some reasonable inclusion criteria (at least sufficient to verify that everyone on the list would meet WP:N). -- Visviva 12:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with y'all. Use categories, and list by century of birth as is being done. Trying to maintain a list of living philosophers is more trouble than it's worth. YechielMan 14:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Visviva Bulldog123 16:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons I go into in more detail on the talk page. "Philosopher" is an almost impossible term to define and I'd lay money a lot of people on the list wouldn't consider themselves such; it's unmaintainably long; it sets a precedent for numerous other "lists of" by occupation; it's never going to be accurate enough to get any kind of WP:USEFUL (which I do sometimes think is a valid "keep" reason) exemption — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete A category seems equally good and easier to maintain. But, I am not strongly opposed to the idea of this list. If someone presents a compelling reason why the list would be better than a category, I would be happy to reconsider. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The list is usually well-maintained. That I've been away from wikipedia for a couple of months is what led this to be deleted once already. The list is useful insofar as it is the natural extension of the other lists I've created: List of philosophers born in the centuries BC, List of philosophers born in the first through tenth centuries, List of philosophers born in the eleventh through fourteenth centuries, List of philosophers born in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, List of philosophers born in the seventeenth century, List of philosophers born in the eighteenth century, List of philosophers born in the nineteenth century, and List of philosophers born in the twentieth century. While the title of the page might indicate otherwise, of course the list is not intended to (nor could it) include everyone who meets that condition. The title was chosen as a diplomatic means to avoid debates over whether or not so-and-so is truly a philosopher (such debates abound on other philosophy pages, which suggests that the likelihood of pretenders remaining on the list for very long is significantly overstated--even when they do remain, I'm usually aware of them but not in a mood to engage in deletion debate). Anyone who has thought of a better title would do well to suggest it rather than simply delete this useful list because one has a problem with the scope of its title. Merging the two lists would be awkward, as having the lists between living and dead separate allows for more useful information to be presented on the page (life span dates for dead philosophers, affiliated institutions and research areas on the living philosophers page). I don't object to a more stringent criteria being added to the page, but previous attempts to establish such a thing on other philosophy pages haven't gone well. There are many distinct traditions in philosophy, and there are always individuals who argue that wikipedia coverage of their favored tradition is shallow. KSchutte 02:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Kevin, can you say what you think is useful about this list that cannot be achieved by a category? The only thing I see is that it can list affiliated institutions next to the name, where a category would require looking at the individual article. I'm not sure why this is useful. Can you say what you think the benefit is? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply I think it is useful because it makes fairly obvious individuals who have Ayn Rand Syndrome (i.e., lots of people call them philosophers, but the people who call them philosophers aren't themselves philosophers. When you see "Affiliation Unknown" next to a name, or see that a person's study is in transhumanism, at least for you and me, it's a pretty simple way of avoiding that page. Also, such names are more obvious to those who, unlike myself, do have the patience and vitriol for deletion debate. - KSchutte 02:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ill-defined membership criteria, covering a mishmash of unrelated specialties. Nonetheless, it was fun to browse through. One question, what does it matter whether they are living or not? (Yes, it might indeed matter to them, but why is it worthy of an article?) --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 19:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One reason it might matter is because many of us are particularly concerned with contemporary philosophy, which is only contributed to by the living. Postmodern Beatnik 19:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmnnn, as far as I'm concerned, Montaigne is more alive than half the people I know. :) --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 19:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No no, you find his opinions to be live options (as per William James). You certainly wouldn't find him to be very alive were you to attend a party with his remains. ;) Postmodern Beatnik 19:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More seriously, I'm not sure that Richard Rorty's importance to contemporary philosophy is that much less important today than it was a week or so ago. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 19:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an awful lot to read into a list membership. Nothing about the shift seems to suggest a decrease in importance—except, of course, for those specifically interested in contemporary philosophy (to whom Rorty stopped being interesting the second he stopped writing). Postmodern Beatnik 16:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nothing above suggests that any putative problems with the list are insurmountable. The qualifications for inclusion can be tightened (a possibility BHG seems to just assume is a non-starter, a highly dubious contention to be sure). As for maintaining the article, the brief hiatus of an article's main contributor is hardly a reason to delete it. Indeed, it seems the logical step to take is to recruit other editors to help with the project. Postmodern Beatnik 19:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Huh? I didn't say that tightening the qualifications for inclusion was a non-starter, rather the opposite; but I did say that I didn't see any way of surmounting the problems with the "living" aspect. However, we are not debating a list with other inclusion criteria, we are debating this one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response - My apologies for misunderstanding you regarding tightening of qualifications. However, the argument that we are debating this list and not another one is a red herring. Changing the list's inclusion criteria does not fundamentally change the identity of the list in any relevant way. It would not necessarily change the title, for instance. And even if it did, that was a possibility raised on the original talk page. The core identity of the article remains through these superficial changes (see perdurantism or the ship of Theseus problem, for example). Postmodern Beatnik 16:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arguable Delete - 'Delete', because I can't see any point to this list, and cannot imagine such a thing appearing in any other encyclopedia. But, 'arguable' because I may be missing something here. (I am not impressed by people making comments that suggest that part-time philosophers in lesser universities are not suitable for a 'living philosophers'page, but I am probably biased.) Anarchia 21:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply See WP:PROF. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Visviva above - since the idea is not in itself a bad one, although BrownHairedGirl's point that it can never be completed as it stands is correct. Dast 23:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A POV trap, as with all such lists Banno 13:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then shouldn't you be bringing this up elsewhere as a complaint about lists in general? So long as lists stay, I don't see what's wrong with this one. Postmodern Beatnik 16:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I should note that the reason for keeping the list of living and dead people separate--to show the affiliated institutions of the individuals in question--has been very effective at singling out (making visible) individuals whose qualifications are suspect. Any merging of the list would eliminate that benefit. - KSchutte 02:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request. In the event that this list is deleted, I kindly ask whoever closes the deletion debate to move the content to my userspace. At least I find this page useful. - KSchutte 01:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, together with all persons' lists that are superlarge and impossible to maintain. -- Futurano 10:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless I get to be on it.--Mike18xx 06:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Make it a category, or create IndexPedia to store such non-encyclopedic lists. Until(1 == 2) 13:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my response to Banno above. Postmodern Beatnik 16:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The scope of the list is not overly broad, as evident by its reasonable size. The list is maintainable and is maintained. Lists can coexist with categories. The living status of philosophers is relevant, and more specific inclusion criteria (notability as a philosopher) can be determined by consensus on the talk page. –Pomte 20:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Please! Per nom G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 05:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nas songs[edit]

Completely unnecessary to have an article listing every song of an artist. Song lists should simply be kept in their appropriate album pages. Spellcast 08:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Nas discography. Otto4711 13:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think every song has to be merged into a discography. Song lists belong in their appropriate albums. Spellcast 07:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nas discography is just that--a discography. I don't think it makes sense to merge this list there. From the discography page (or the Nas page for that matter) it's easy to track down any Nas song one wants. This is not All Music Guide or similar web sites.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 22:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 21:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The table is now formatted as a "sortable prettytable"; that is, each column can be sorted alphabetically. Though I feel that this substantially increases its utility, I have no opinion as to its ultimate fate. Perhaps the fact that the list of songs can now be sorted alphabetically and by album partially addresses the opposition to merging it. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notwithstanding the recent prettifying by Black Falcon, I don't see any policy reason to keep this page. That said, I don't see any reason to delete it either. Especially since we already have [several lists of Beatles songs (though a paucity of lists for other artists). I'm not sure where to draw the line, so I have difficulty forming an opinion.--Chaser - T 03:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Prettifying? That makes it sound like I added pink bows and white flowers. :-) -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry if it came across as stupid. I think the sortable table is a big improvement. Well done.--Chaser - T 20:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh no, not at all. I actually found it quite funny. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vassyana 10:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nas discography. A discography is, by definition, a list of songs, so there's no reason to have separate articles on redundant topics. A good discography will have all this information, and simply have it well-organized. More use of sortable tables on discography pages (and tables everywhere) is definitely a good thing. --JayHenry 20:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per JayHenry. GassyGuy 10:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, this content should be covered within the discography/album articles. I have no problem with the content being merged to such prior to deletion, but this page should not stand as is. -MrFizyx 17:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete useless-who wasted their time doing this?Cosprings 17:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. —^Jack_Lumber^/tɔk/ 22:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge as per MrFizyx. -- Futurano 10:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per JayHenry. There's nothing inherently wrong with a "list of songs by" article, though it may be better suited to the discography article. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete, G11 ^demon^{[omg plz]} 22:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adpics[edit]

A web design/hosting company. http://adpics.com/ Unconvincingly makes some claims to notability. Can anyone confirm their claims to meet Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria? 650l2520 20:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC) I agree:Completely un-notable; other than the fact that they were the first online banking community. That's not a very good claim-to-fame! Meldshal42 20:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 20:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Holy mystery meat, Batman! Speedy Delete G11 (spam)! The article clearly is an advert for the company, and sounds like somebody in the company is tooting their own horn. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC) upon further examination, the result is no consensus, defaulting to keep. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 16:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ALF (programming language)[edit]

No mention of its notability. The only results I can find via google are this page, the answers.com version of this page and the linked author's page. Delete it as non-notable. Localzuk^(talk) 14:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. JJL 17:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, and no sources. *Cremepuff 222* 21:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Notable topic in computer science. Appears in at least eight published papers and in dozens of books. Preponderance of reliable sources is unquestionable. It is currently listed at the CMU Artificial Intelligence Repository. Topic is discussed in the 2002 book, Knowledge Media in Healthcare, ISBN 1930708130, as well as the 1995 publication, Intelligent Agents, ISBN 3540588558, and the 1997 publication by MIT Press, Logic Programming, ISBN 0262631806. Boley calls ALF a "typical current proposal in the field of extended, declarative programming" and describes it a 1999 publication entitled, A Tight, Practical Integration of Relations and Functions, ISBN 3540666443. Also discussed in Thompson, Simon. (1997). Constructive interval temporal logic in Alf. In International Conference on Temporal Logic .Applied Logic. Kluwer, Hanus; also M. and A. Schwab. (1991). The Implementation of the Functional-Logic Language ALF. FB Informatik, Univ. Dortmund. —Viriditas | Talk 01:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've read elsewhere that people have been having trouble finding third-party sources for this. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find any reliable sources showing notability as a real language. There are lots of created languages that get written up in some obscure paper, and the language is never actually used for any real projects. Crum375 02:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - published papers cited above are all by the creator of the language. The books linked all appear to be conference proceedings: probably with reprints of papers by the creator. The other claims are more difficult to verify but at the moment independent sources appear to be missing. -- BPMullins | Talk 02:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google scholar lists ~120 papers related in some way to ALF. Many of these are trivial mentions but Compiling Logic Programs with Equality (one of Hanus' papers) is not and has 71 citations. Another of Hanus' ALF papers, Improving Control of Logic Programs by Using Functional Logic Languages, has an additional 29 citations. These are not amazing cite numbers but they're pretty good; enough, I think, to establish notability. —David Eppstein 07:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is there any reason to believe that these are ALF-related citations? The term 'ALF' doesn't appear in the titles of the papers, so the references to it could be passing. JJL 13:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You mean the two I singled out? Yes, there is a reason, but you have to take the effort to actually look at the papers and not just the titles. Many of the results on the ALF search just include it in lists of logic languages (that's what I meant about trivial mentions) but these two articles are about how certain logic programming issues can be handled in ALF specifically. —David Eppstein 15:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable language for IT/CS geeks. Yes, the article needs references and citations, but that's a re-write issue, not a deletion issue. - NDCompuGeek 15:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the current text is horrible technobabble and much less useful than the other pages about computer languages. Pavel Vozenilek 15:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: ALF is not notable. All 8 references cited above are written by the same person, the language's creator, and they discuss various computer science topics in the context of his pet language. As interesting to the average computer geek as ALF may be (hey I even downloaded it), Wikipedia is not a compendium of every computer language ever thought up. --Jquarry 05:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify that; this list includes 120, and they dont appear to be trivial or all written by the same person. John Vandenberg 05:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 02:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-bigotry[edit]

This appears to be a dictionary definition or neologism, thus failing what Wikipedia is not. Guy (Help!) 18:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The fact that somebody on slate.com creates a neologism, and The Observer cites him, doesn't make a dictionary entry, I should say. --B. Wolterding 19:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And neither an encyclopedia entry - seems I was a bit mentally absent... --B. Wolterding 19:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a neologism coined by someone at Slate.com definitely doesn't make it notable enough. WP:OR *Cremepuff 222* 21:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:18, 13 June 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.