The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Repost. Wikipedia is not for things made up in your back garden yesterday. -- RHaworth 14:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC) The notability of this article is non-existant. Furthermore it seems like some joke between a few buddies, there are one or two citations but they appear to not be from credible sources and are most likely from the creators of this "game" and page. I nominate to delete. Vaniac 10:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. The single external link appears to be the work of the game's inventors. And when "the comprehensive site" (emphasis in original) lists a mere three players, I don't think we're dealing with a notable sport. EALacey 10:48, 28 March 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. Article is blank now anyway. W.marsh 18:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow kiss[edit]

Original research, not notable slang term Alex Bakharev 00:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Maybe see Rainbow Party for context? Abeg92contribs 00:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not a notable term for sexual activity; per WP:NEO --Haemo 00:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Do not redirect to Rainbow Party, only the second definition fits this and it's even less notable. --Dhartung | Talk 00:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable, probable OR, and as per WP:NEO. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 00:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable Mukadderat 02:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 04:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Don't redirect to rainbow party. Thats come nasty shit.--M8v2 05:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If it belongs anywhere, it belongs in a dictionary of slang. DoorsAjar 06:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per nom.--Phill ^{talk Edits} 09:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom., WP:NEO, WP:N. Scienter 16:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Maybe add WP:CFSD to the above list. If I would have been on NP at the time, I would have just put a db-nonsense on it. BlackBear 17:15, 28 March 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. Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Location of Osama bin Laden[edit]

Location of Osama bin Laden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Is an article stating that no one knows where Osama is. Doesn't seem to merit its own page. Would support a merge with Osama bin Laden Kntrabssi 12:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete / merge - This article has little to no proof to the whereabouts of osama bin laden, if anyone had a clue where he was it would be the government. besides, with how easy it is to edit and defame and or deface an article these days, this page is just asking for vandalism or worse, propagandization. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.7.175.116 (talk) 08:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• keep worthy of an article based on text, SYSS Mouse 12:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the topic is without a doubt notable as it is often the topic of news items. Also, the article appears to be well-sourced. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - "The whereabouts of Osama bin Laden are unknown" pretty much says it all. If an article consists mostly of "rumor has it" and "according to sources" then it's a news article, not an encyclopedia article. Otto4711 13:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is just a collection of rumours and conjectures. What is of value - if anything - should be merged with Osama bin Laden. BTLizard 13:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - This is one of the biggest issues in the world right now... If we have articles for a bunch of random stuff most people have never heard of, we should definitely have an article for this. BlackBear 13:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is rarely if ever a good reason for keeping an article. Articles stand or fall on their own merits, not because there are other articles on stuff that you consider "random." Otto4711 14:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I still feel the article is worthy of the article. BlackBear 22:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Osama bin Laden after taking out unsourced rumors and OR. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 14:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it is full of speculation and OR. Feels a lot like crystalballery, just in a geographical sense. A redirect to Osama bin Laden would be an acceptable compromise. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Where's Waldo? Christopher Jost 15:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An awful article based on blogs and other unreliable sources. if there's any legit info to salvage, put it on the main Osama page. Tarc 16:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge any sourced information to Osama bin Laden. -- Whpq 16:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Osama bin Laden per Whpq and Darthgriz⁹⁸ . Scienter 16:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I was going to say "merge", but every "fact" in the article regarding location turned out to be nothing more than a rumor, and several factoids don't even pertain to his location. I don't see how a collection of rumors would enhance the Bin Laden article. It should suffice to say that there have been many false reports of his death and unsubstantiated reports of his location. Djcastel 17:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Al-Bargit (talk • contribs) 18:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep verifiable information - merge if it ends up too short to stand alone (I don't have time now to follow-up but maybe I'll get back to it later today). A re-write is also in order: a heading like "Sightings" makes it sound like we're talking about Bigfoot. Jakerforever 19:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepImportant topic, seems well covered. Robinson weijman 19:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Most of these sources are not reliable (in this case). Reliable sources do not base their reports on "rumors" and "our sources". Sure, the rumors are verifiable. But that is not enough. Remove the worst stuff and merge the rest to the main article. You can keep the "rumors" that are actually based on something, but if the source gives no information at all about their original source, get rid of it. --- RockMFR 21:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as conjecture and OR. If there's any useful information (I see none here) beyond that, one can merge it into the article on Osama Bin Laden. --Dennisthe2 21:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Who needs this? Redirect to Osama bin Laden. Bigtop 22:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd support a delete and redirect, for what it's worth. IMO, we don't need that in the history. --Dennisthe2 22:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge anything noteworthy into the OBL page, then delete the rest. Realkyhick 01:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, please note that merge and delete is not a valid option. --- RockMFR 01:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Pointless since no one really knows where he is. The article is speculation and basically a list of sightings.--Bryson 02:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Reliably-sourced quotes to main article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the main Osama bin Laden entry. MrMacMan 06:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Redirect to Osama bin Laden.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 12:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Osama bin Laden cs 19:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Osama bin Laden. After all the speculation is cleaned up, it seems that what remains would fit inside the section Osama_bin_laden#Current_whereabouts. --JianLi 20:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the main Osama bin Laden article already covers this. Zerbey 20:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is identified as a sub-article in the main one on Osama bin Laden, but it needs work as the contnet of the current main article ought to reappear here. Alternatively, this should be retitled Alleged sightings of Osama bin Laden and be cross-referred with 'see also' at the end of the Location section of the main article. Even the rumours are noteworthy, bearing in mind his notability. Peterkingiron 20:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You raise good points, Peter, but to be perfectly honest, this is in my opinion an article that probably would work better merged to the main article (per my !vote above), if even that. Whatever I can say here at this point is already discussed herein, so I'll leave it at that. --Dennisthe2 16:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep DXRAW 03:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...care to explain? Please see WP:JUSTAVOTE.
• Merge/Redirect to main article Mystache 15:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge only content supported by reliable sources, not speculation. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 21:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article does not cite any reliable sources, except for a single BBC URL, so there is nothing worth merging. Every merged fact would have to be independently checked, so you might as well forget what's here now and start from scratch. EdJohnston 02:01, 4 April 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. Rlevse 23:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeller H Advanced Sniper Rifle[edit]

Zeller H Advanced Sniper Rifle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Irrelevant weapon, poorly constructed article.

Vixwald 00:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a video game guide. On a side note: "poorly constructed article" is not a reason for deletion. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not a notable weapons, and WP:NOT a game guide. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Haemo (talk • contribs) 00:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete, one game weapon which isn't even unique or unusual certainly isn't sufficiently notable for an article. -- Mithent 01:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikiepdia is not a game guide, if there was a list or article for the game redirect to that, if not then delete. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 14:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. and WP:NOT. Scienter 16:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Battlefield 2142. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep DXRAW 03:49, 1 April 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 14:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Eulenspiegel Society[edit]

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

Given the lack of any third-party, reliable sources, I don't believe that a claimed membership of 800 is enough to meet the notability criteria of WP:ORG. RJASE1 ^Talk 00:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:ORG, WP:ATT, and contains weasel words. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup per [[User:Reinoutr|Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr's)] link below. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 22:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Potential keep, needs sources. Google News Archive results such as this show it has an international profile. (How is the number of members relevant to notability, anyway?) Within this societal niche they seem to have a lot of credibility. --Dhartung | Talk 00:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep since it is sourced--somewhat to my surprise. I never heard that weasel words was a reason to delete an article. It may be the only way to stay within the limits of V. DGG 01:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mentioned weasel words only to list some of the multiple things wrong with it. It still doesn't have any sources besides the group's homepage. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 04:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is an important organization in the history of sexual minorities. Sources should be findable. In fact, I know someone who might know just where to find those sources, so I'd urge you not to delete the article right now. DoorsAjar 06:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, is covered a lot in a variety of books dealing with BDSM: [3]. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Cpt. Morgan. I added a minor source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Noroton (talk • contribs) 01:38, 29 March 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. Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logitech MX revolution[edit]

Logitech MX revolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

((prod)) was removed without comment by User:149.28.228.106. After several edits by that user, the article remains without any claim to notability for this computer mouse product. Mikeblas 00:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion Maybe we should merge this discussion page with the one for the VX revolution. Then it would be eaiser to comment on them. Plus, if one gets deleted and the other is kept, it wouldn't make sense, so it's either keep both or delete both. KjtheDj 19:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:SPAM. RJASE1 ^Talk 00:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as it is 100%, unadulterated spam Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup - this is a relatively significant product release by a major electronics company; how is it not notable? Yes, it needs to sound less like an ad. In a few seconds I found reviews at CNET ([4]) and Anandtech ([5]), both of which I would consider reliable secondary sources. I'm sure it was also reviewed in dead-tree-format computer magazines. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer. It's not notable per the above. It's just another mouse. It'll be discontinued in a couple of years and replaced by something else. -- Mikeblas 02:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Virtually any computer product will be "discontinued in a couple of years and replaced by something else." Should we not have an article on, say, the Pentium III? That fits the above description too. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 23:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I think you already know the answer to your own question, but I'll indulge you anyway. The Pentium III is notable because it's a far more complicated product with far more innovations. The development history is documented in books, its architecture is studied in textbooks, and there are a variety of interesting aspects of its history, performance, implementation, and application. (That's not true of all processors, by the way.) And it's true of very, very few mouses. On the contrary, should we have an article about every single product ever reviewed at a couple of websites or in a printed magazine or two? I hope not; that is, I hope the people using reviews and "references == notability" arguments understand that opens the door to hundreds of thousands of articles on all sorts of run-of-the-mill products, from stereo gear to knitting needles. That's pretty obviously not what Wikipedia needs, and I guess I mistakenly believed that everyone could see that. -- Mikeblas 00:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Its just another processor. It'll be replaced by something better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KjtheDj (talk • contribs) 23:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
          • Arrrrrrgh! Have you ever even touched this mouse? It sounds like you don't know anything about it, except that it is a mouse. As far as I can tell, there aren't even over ten mice that would even be notable enough for anyone to think of puting them in Wikipedia, so this doesn't "open the door" to all kinds of junk. Its just making an article of a product that I own that I like. KjtheDj 21:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC) KjtheDj 20:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment. Please remember that "I like it" is an argument to be avoided in AfDs. -- Mikeblas 02:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reply to above If it is true of very few mouses, this is one of them. The only other mouse I can find in recent history to receive this depth of coverage is Apple's first multi-button USB mouse, the Apple Mighty Mouse, notable as representing a shift in thinking for the historically single-button Mac community. Irene Ringworm 02:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Another reply Maybe if this was some low rate 15 dollar mouse you would have an argument. However, this mouse has plenty of good sources, as already stated, has many cool features, and other stuff. I mean, there are plenty of other articles on mice, such as the Logitech G5 and the Apple Mighty Mouse. Why not delete those to if you want to delete this article? KjtheDj 19:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment. Its price doesn't make it notable. The "delete those too" argument is completely inappropriate; it should be obvious that I can read, evaluate, and edit only one article at a time. A such, there will always be some other article that should also be deleted. We're not talking about the Mighty Mouse or the G5 here; we're discussing the MX. -- Mikeblas 02:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep and cleanup as above - this mouse was quite widely reviewed as the range does have a unique feature in its unusual scroll wheel. An article should probably focus on that. -- Mithent 01:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep and cleanup, it's a product by a major consumer electronics company, and as Crotalus has proved above reliable secondary sources exist confirming its notability. Krimpet (talk/review) 06:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Just another mouse. SYSS Mouse 12:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Funny how you say "just another mouse" when you name is Syss Mouse —The preceding KjtheDj 00:02, 29 March 2007
• Delete per WP:N and maybe WP:SPAM. I think many of us can sympathize that can be tough to see your article erased for failing Notability, but the author should have been aware of Wikipedia policy and should never remove a prod. Scienter 16:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - No, that's not Wikipedia policy - anyone can remove a prod from an article for any reason bar blatant vandalism. Please see WP:PROD. exolon 23:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I was incorrect and KjtheDj was proper in removing the prod. Thank you for the correction. Scienter 23:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup per Krimpet. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep sources seem thttp://news.google.com/archivesearch?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=%22Logitech+MX+revolution%22o exist... so meets notability standards, even if AfD voters apparently don't like the product or at least don't care about it. It's not spam just because it's about a commercial product. See also the related AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logitech VX revolution. --W.marsh 18:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. It takes more than sources to meet notability standard. Please see WP:N for the additional criteria. -- Mikeblas 00:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How trite... I've been involved in discussing and promoting WP:N for months. I think I've seen it. --W.marsh 01:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Then I'm surprised that you forgot to indicate you considered the quality and depth of the references, per WP:N, in your decision. -- Mikeblas 01:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are 125 results for this product on Google News [6] including publications like the Seattle Times. Perhaps there's not enough to write a featured article on this mouse, but the level of useful information we could get from the existing sources satisfies WP:N. The level of scrutiny you'd like us to apply is really out of step with what is done at AfD... most topics are kept once a few reliable sources can be found, let alone dozens. You may not think it's enough, but most people would. --W.marsh 02:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry that I don't fit in with the status quo. But that's the only way to move things forward, isn't it? WP:N offers nothing to suggest that it isn't meant to be interpreted in precisely the way it was written. Many of the hits you've found in Google are posts in forums and on blogs, which aren't meaningful references -- unless it turns out that WP:R is also not meant to be interpreted the way it is written when it talks about dubious references. I indicate above why I think it's necessary to take a hard line when determining the -- Mikeblas 02:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're throwing out 125 results on the basis that some are blogs... I think you've already made up your mind here. --W.marsh 02:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Nope; I've only pointed out that many of the hits you're relying on are not all viable. In fact, very few of them are. Of course I've already made up my mind; I wouldn't have opened the AfD if I hadn't. I can be easily moved by a persuasive argument, though. Or, by an explanation of why our notability policy means that Wikipedia should be a historical catalog of all products ever produced, in all categories, which happen to have been reviewed by a website or magazine or two. -- Mikeblas 02:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • CommentPersonally, when I came to Wikipedia, I thought, "Cool, this has the potential to be an encyclopedia about every thing. People could be able to find everything from pencils to continents." But I guess I was wrong after I had found WP:N. Plus, like I have already said, if this was an article about a 15 dollar mouse, things would be different, but it is not about some 15 dollar mouse. Plus, I started this article because it stood out, to me, as a mouse that wasn't just "some other mouse." I guess that kind of sounds like I'm trying to get you to buy it, but that, honestly, is the truth. KjtheDj 20:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • So a few of the sources are viable... but that's still not enough for you. That's my point... you have decided the kinds of articles that get written about computer mice are never going to be enough here. WP:N was actually written so Wikipedia could include a vast number of articles on topics like this... so long as they could be appropriately referenced. The point of WP:N was never to dramatically restrict what we could write articles on to topics with dozens of journal-quality articles as sources. So if that means we can have hundreds of articles on computer mice, that's what it means... maybe you want something more restrictive than WP:N. Such things have been proposed, but never went anywhere really. --W.marsh 03:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I'm really amused at how you're happy to tell me what it is or isn't that I'm doing. Your oh-fer at it, so far--but keep trying! I think I'm not asking for something more restrictive than WP:N; I think I'm just interpreting it at face value. I haven't decided anything about the kinds of articles that get written. WP:N tells us that, and it says that the references need to be substantial and meaningful. There are plenty of mice products which are notable: the first mouse itself, the first optical mouse, the first wheel mouse, and so on. I think there's a history of doing deep stories on products that are truly revolutionary or notable--stories, not reviews. Look at all the stories on the Macintosh, or the Corvettes, or the Pentium, and so on. This mouse is not in that class of product; I'll be happy to consider it so if there are books like Corvette: Fifty Years (ISBN 0760311803), The Pentium Chronicles: The People, Passion, and Politics Behind Intel's Landmark Chips (ISBN 0471736171), or Insanely Great: The Life and Times of Macintosh, the Computer That Changed Everything (ISBN 0140291776) about it; but right now there aren't. -- Mikeblas 02:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, cleanup, and merge with Logitech VX revolution, an identical product for laptops. External coverage is pretty much limited to product reviews but the depth of coverage (Anandtech writes over ten thousand words), suggests that this is more than "just another mouse". That being said, the current article reads like marketing material. Agree with Mithent that the new article should focus on the unique features. Irene Ringworm 19:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Indeed; since the references for this subject are mostly reviews, how can they be used as references in writing anything other than a review? -- Mikeblas 00:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. Most new product introductions do not receive the depth of coverage that this one has received. Anandtech, Cnet, and their print cousins typically give little more than a passing mention to new peripherals in a buyer's guide. Anandtech gives this particular peripheral a nearly ten thousand word article describing major competitors, the history of logitech mice, and closing with "We found the overall design, ergonomics, and quality of materials to be the best of any mouse we have used to date. While the Revolution has several new features from both a hardware and software viewpoint, we found the new scroll wheel to be the most important technology introduced on this mouse." Certainly not every mouse on the market needs a wikipedia article but the MX and its VX sibling represent a significant offering from a major company that has achieved a level of attention and depth of coverage far beyond the norm. Irene Ringworm 02:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Question. How would you go about substantiating your "depth of coverage" claim? If you can find a way to do so, maybe it would be a good addition to WP:N. Until then, these reviews are just that -- reviews. I've explained here (or in the VX AfD, maybe) about how essentially all products get reviewed--even crappy ones. We can't possibly consider reviews a sign of notability, as review subjects are chosen indiscriminately. Truly notable products have hundreds of thousands or millions of words written about them: textbooks about computer architecture cover the Pentium's internal design, while the manuals for the product alone are more than 5000 pages, plus the books about the team and the way they worked. -- Mikeblas 02:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply By direct comparison with other comparable products. Most new mouse releases and other peripherals (game pads) don't garner ten thousand words from Anandtech - they usually don't even get their own article. A simple product refresh to the G7 series, for example, might get a passing mention in a weekly buyer's guide or - maybe - a three or four hundred word article. The same goes for coverage in other print magazines - not extensive in the way that a processor or new car release might be covered, but extensive compared to other comparable products.

By your standards, no mouse would be notable. If this is your position, then please simply state such (as DGG did above and leave it be. If your position is "some mice might be notable but this one isn't", you're going to have a tougher fight with that one. Maybe take the battle to the Logitech 'G' series page and start there? Irene Ringworm 05:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. I think I've made my position pretty clear, so I'm surprised to see you misinterpret and/or overstate it. I don't think this mouse is notable enough for an article. The article doesn't make the case for it, either. The mouse hasn't won any interesting awards; its development story wasn't notable; its feature set isn't notable. There are notable mouses--they do win awards, they do get coverage beyond just product reviews, and so on. Few mouses are notable -- and that only makes sense. If all or many was notable, how would they be notable? -- Mikeblas 18:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, cleanup I am sorry I deleted that prod. I wasn't logged in and I was using a different computer than usual. I am not used to Wikipedia policies, as I am new. However, now I know. I do say that it needs cleanup, as the author. I also accidentally cleared the talk page for the article. See it for what happened. Whoever was posting, please put it back so I can see what it says. I did put a comment, on the talk page. Thats were you are supossed to put it, right? I have deleted that comment because now I feel it was rude. At first I thought it should be merged, but after looking at the changes I think that if we successfully edit Logitech VX revolution we can have ourselves two okay articles. KjtheDj 23:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please see my comment on Scienter's contribution above - you are allowed to remove a prod for any reason, so you didn't break any policy. See WP:PROD for guidance. exolon 23:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please see above. Scienter 23:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Commment WP:PROD explains that you should leave an explanation of why the article shouldn't be deleted when removing the PROD. I noted what happened in the nomination for context, not because of any problem. -- Mikeblas 00:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per above. Realkyhick 01:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak merge I don't think that you are going to be able to cleanup this entry well enough. MrMacMan 06:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I took a crack at an NPOV article to replace the marketing sludge in the original article. I tried to avoid the Logitech buzzwords and stick to the specs and notable features, in line with existing articles on computer peripherals. Irene Ringworm 17:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. it is a lot better. See, if everyone tried to fix the articles instead of deleting them, we wouldn't be having this discussion. KjtheDj 20:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note I added a "Main Complaints" section and added the Amazon Product review as a source. KjtheDj 20:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This may qualify as original research, in that you are inferring information from product reviews rather than citing a verifiable source. I'm not sure it adds much to the article. Irene Ringworm 20:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • You're right, but people may want to use it, if the article survives the deletion process. KjtheDj 21:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Killed the section after appropriate comment by Mikeblas. Probably better to add links to a few notable product reviews (Cnet?) rather than User comments at amazon (which also constitutes a commerical link) Irene Ringworm 16:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Right; the user reviews at Amazon are self-publishing, and unsuitable for use as references at Wikipedia. -- Mikeblas 02:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. One way that other classes of subjects establish notability is with awards. Celebrities, music, books, and so on, all can win awards. So can products; a car might be voted "compact light truck of the year" by a magazine, or win the Caldicott medal, and so on. A mouse, it seems, would be up for an IDEA award, or a "Best in show" or "innovative product" award at a trade show.[7] Has this mouse won anything beyond an "editors choice" award in a comparative review? -- Mikeblas 02:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has won a couple of design awards but the only external sources for this are Logitech press releases. There are dozens of awards which exist for the sole purpose of advertising, so I've tried to avoid including them (even though they may establish notability). Irene Ringworm 05:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and try to merge more Logitech products together. I understand that from marketing point of view the more pages the better but that's no justification to turn WP into an online catalog. Pavel Vozenilek 09:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. So is this a vote to delete or to merge? There are already articles on MX series mice that could be merged into a single article. A vote to delete removes all existing content. Irene Ringworm 14:51, 31 March 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. WjBscribe 23:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FlashcardExchange[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEB Chocolatepizza 00:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7 (no assertion of notability) Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as unremarkable webcontent. So tagged. MER-C 13:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per nom. Scienter 16:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per everyone else. Acalamari 21:59, 28 March 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. Nothing in article or sources (mostly blogs and myspace) to suggest there is anything notable about this individual. WjBscribe 21:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Betka Schpitz[edit]

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

Notability not established or sourced per WP:BIO. RJASE1 ^Talk 00:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Several mentions or articles in a number large or even small circulation magazines, as well as a popular topical blog might meet WP:BIO. I was limited to what I could look at while I'm at school, but I'm not very confident that this AfD nomination should be granted. (No claim of bad faith by the nom. implied whatsoever). Scienter 17:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not enough to prove notability. Realkyhick 01:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources to back up notability claims. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, says the inclusionist, knowing no one cares. I have added a link to a review of her blog on DirtySpoke.com, which argues for notability. I'm inclined to keep pages like this where there's some sense of a larger media awareness of the figure (rather than merely an ignored vanity site). The exposure from her blog, the modeling, & her formation of Just Suck It Already.com add up to a notable subcultural figure. She's odd, she's offensive, she's covered elsewhere (she's googlable, she has myspace to hype her), & she's still in our bailiwick. I'd much rather have stubs on people like this than more pages on individual TV episodes. Ventifax 04:51, 2 April 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. WjBscribe 21:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Perfect cube[edit]

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

Vanity. I suspect non-notability because google does not lead me to any third party reiviews of the scupture. Whosasking 00:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep I'm not convinced that this article should be deleted, although I can understand the non-notability claim.--Phill ^{talk Edits} 09:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - appears to have OR problems as well as the COI noted in the nom. -- BPMullins | Talk 13:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Does have problems with OR and has absolutely zero sources, reliable or otherwise. Also is written in a self-promotional tone and may well be a vanity page. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep: Would like to keep but only if WP:A since this certainly is WP:OR. If fleshed out, great. If not, trash. Christopher Jost 17:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Individual works of art should get articles only if there are truly sources. I suppose the images could go to wikiCommons. DGG 23:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Interesting, but unfortunately, no indications of notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Matt Hope Merge this with Horn Massive, let the guy have a stub with a link to his own site. Ventifax 04:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete absolutely no citations. This is a vanity page (see the history) and has all of the pitfalls that come with it. --JianLi 21:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can we add Horn Massive to this AfD? It's also a vanity page by the same author. --JianLi 21:45, 2 April 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. IF anyoen wants to BJAODN it I'll provide the info. I might do it myself.--Wizardman 12:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beuche[edit]

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

I suspect this article is a hoax, judging from the content and lack of Google hits. Sable232 00:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Suspect hoax as well... a reliable source, even an obscure book, would make me happy. The article has only had one susbstantial edit (besides the cheese paragraph), and that was by the original, unregistered user. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 03:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unsourced, and unsourceable. No relevant google hits for somthing that is supposedly part of folklore. -- Whpq 16:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was thinking this could possibly be a legit folklore item until the "...have been dangerously drunk" line. This is a prank. Scienter 17:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Bollocks. Realkyhick 01:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think Realkyhick has summed it up perfectly. Suriel1981 00:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Turf it Strongly suspect Complete Bollocks. Could be welcome on humourous wiki. Ventifax 05:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

could be good for WP:BJAODN Suriel1981 05:56, 2 April 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 14:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jaynan[edit]

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

I found this article interesting, but rules are rules. It's about a nonnotable player of a marginally notable game. YechielMan 00:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article seems to be misinformation. The links I've checked point to the Leeroy Jenkins thing, and don't seem to reference this. Leeroy Jenkins video is from World of Warcraft, not Gears of War, nor an XBox 360, unless I am horribly mistaken. Hoax, even. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 03:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Check some of the links, this is clearly a prank. Scienter 17:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete maybe BJAODN, but not sufficiently verified.-- danntm ^T _C 19:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everyone else. Interesting, but should be deleted. Acalamari 22:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, plus I think it's a joke. Realkyhick 02:01, 29 March 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 04:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of deaths in the Friday the 13th series[edit]

List of deaths in the Friday the 13th series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a real bad case of listcruft. While the article itself isn't TOO bad (and if it survives this nomination, I'd be willing to go through and clean it up), I fail to see the necessity of having so much duplicate information on another article, where the movie articles have enough information in them as it is. Because I've completely botched the listing, this is the first nomination. Mo0[talk] 01:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support deletion - While I believe in the notability of "Friday the 13th deaths", I don't think we need a list telling us every single death in the franchise. The films have been reemed for their use of gore and obligatory death scenes, and I think that should be noted in a prose section on the film series page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Merge into List of films by gory death scene MetsFan76 14:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mean merge the entire list? A lot of those deaths are repetative.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I will reiterate my voice in the first AfD and say Delete this article. Nothing in it has changed - it is still a laundry list of people who died in a horror film of all things. It's what horror films are about, so isn't a list of deaths in a horror film superfluous? Lists should not be an indiscriminate collection of facts, and what could be more indiscriminate than deaths in a horror flick? Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per WP:FICT. This is what amounts to a list of characters for the film series. Character lists are perfectly appropriate for Wikipedia as evidenced by Category:Lists of fictional characters by series. The list should be moved to List of deaths in the Friday the 13th film series to distinguish it from the TV series of the same name. Whatever happens, do not merge to List of films by gory death scene. Otto4711 17:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first step is not to create a page for minor characters, but see if they can be listed on the film's article itself. Seeing as no 1 film has a list of minor characters that is too long to be on the page, I don't see why they need their own page. Second, being fictional, when writing about fiction you don't just write the fictional part and leave it. This is an encyclopedia, and I see hardly any evidence of encyclopedic content in this article. The encyclopedic content of this article is something that this article symbolizes, not what this article literally shows. What I mean is, this article symbolizes what F13 is famous for, gory, graphic deaths. Some of the deaths are noted on certain "top scary moment"-esque shows. Kevin Bacon's death is a very recognized scene, the death of Brenda...not so much. As I said before, it's something that should be written in prose, with reliable sources, discussing the nature of the deaths, the reaction by critics and the MPAA by the graphicness of them, and that's it. A list of every stupid little death is not important. Part 5 had what, 3 people killed by their eyes cut out. This is encyclopedic how? It's redundant deaths. The one about the girl being killed because she got caught in the blast of the shotgun in Jason Goes to Hell? That's not even "related" to the main character of the series. We might as well have a "List of deaths in Die Hard" page. Or, "List of deaths in Harry Potter".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Regardless of whether one should or shouldn't create a list article for minor characters (and there is nothing that I can find that indicates one shouldn't; as noted, WP:FICT actively encourages creating them rather than stubby articles for each one), this list exists. It does not appear to violate any Wikipedia policy or guideline and frankly the attitude expressed toward it by some of the people in this AFD indicate a strong willingness to ignore policy and guidelines in favor of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Calling the content "stupd little deaths" is rather telling. As for making similar articles for Die Hard or Harry Potter, I have no problem with that. It's just one more way of organizing the information on the characters. Which remains the point, that this is a character list which happens to consist of characters who are killed. If the list were called List of Friday the 13th film characters I doubt anyone who's declaiming against it would care. Otto4711 22:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:FICT states that it should only be its own page when it doesn't fit in the article. I don't know about you, but last time I checked not a single F13 film article was bordering on excessive length. Secondly, having a "list of deaths" is like have a "list of every scene in this film" page. It's one thing to have a list of characters page where you can talk about the character, give some actor insight into the character, etc. A list of deaths is nothing more than a list of plot points, a list of scenes from a film. Where is the notability in listing 189 deaths in detail? None. You'll vote to delete a "list of magazine covers" but not a list of deaths? Fictional deaths at that. Wikipedia is not a repository for Friday the 13th deaths. This list bypasses the "list of characters" information and just wants to include fancruft. Also, don't try and pass judgement. I love the series, I own them all, but I know pointless fancruft when I see it. Again, the notability behind the theme of death is one thing, listing every single death in a film is another. Remember, "Wikipedia is not a substitution for watching the film," and a list of deaths is providing that substitution.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The exact wording of WP:FICT is Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless it becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice. This article covers the entire film series. The article on the film series, Friday the 13th (film series) would be overwhelmed if this list were included in it. I did not suggest that you don't like the films. I suggest that you don't like the list and your dislike of the list is leading you to endorse deletion when no valid deletion criterion has been offered. "Fancruft" is a lazy argument and it is not a valid deletion criterion. As to how I vote on any other article, that's irrelevant. Each article is supposed to be judged on its own merits and you've said nothing that demonstrates the need to delete this article. Otto4711 23:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say it's fancruft, then it is to me. That's my opinion, and I don't believe that my vote said anything about cruft in it. I dont't think calling any argument "lazy" follows that civility policy you were flashing around at RGTraynor. Regardless, the "list" is broken up by films, thus the "minor characters" would be on each respective films page. This list is nothing more than the cast from the film articles. Listing deaths is not notable, you might as well list every scene in a film. "Deaths" are nothing more than scenes, and thus this list is nothing more than an ill contrived substitution for watching the movies, which is something that Wikipedia is not. As for your "valid deletion criterion offered", I think what's really going on here is that 6 other people believe there is valid deletion criterion here, and 1 person doesn't.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are certainly free to believe that it's cruft, as long as you understand that "cruft" is not a criterion for deletion. Sorry if you think that calling an argument lazy is being uncivil.

Now, if your contention is now that the article is a "cast list," well, we have those too. See Category:Actors by film series. In fact, cast lists are now the preferred manner of keeping that information on Wikipedia, in place of the categories we previously had and which are all in the process of being listified and deleted.

As for the idea that these are nothing but plot summaries, I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. All we know from the list is the name of the character and the implement of his or her death. We do not know any other details of the scenes nor do we know any details of the scenes in which a death did not occur. They are not substitutes for the plots of the films and people reading the article will not know the plots.

As for the numbers game, Wikipedia isn't a democracy and AFD is not a vote. Otto4711 04:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to try and dismantle my discussion, at least try and quote me right. I said it's nothing but plot points, not a summary, that is completely different. As for the "cast list being preferred", why don't you look at what a cast list entails, and then compare that to this article...not the same.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 10:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per WP:NOT#IINFO. I'm not seeing any assertion of encyclopedic importance here. Not every random fact pop-culture-wise is of encyclopedic importance, and surely this is redundant info: we must have this information elsewhere in the articles about the films? Wikipedia is not a collection of plot summaries, either. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 18:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Anyone who's followed my AFDs knows how I love citing WP:NOT#IINFO but I don't see how a list of characters which is tightly bounded in scope and complete (pending another sequel) can be considered indiscriminate. If this were "list of deaths in horror films" then yes, and I firmly believe that List of films by gory death scene should have been deleted ages ago for being indiscriminate, but character lists are allowed and are indeed encouraged over individual minor character articles. This article is not a plot summary or collection of plot summaries either, as they provide little or no information about the plots of the films, just the character names and manners of death. Otto4711 18:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. While restraining my disgust over what someone must be thinking to lovingly create such a list, it's just an indiscriminate collection of info, and I can't imagine what possible encyclopedic use it might have. (No, I'll think you're a liar if you try to tell me that you really had a burning desire to know who was killed in F13 movies and how.) RGTraynor 18:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please express your opinion in a civil fashion. Otto4711 18:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which I did. How's that assuming good faith working for you? (And one wonders if you'd have said anything were you not strongly supporting this article, but I should assume good faith my own self.) RGTraynor 23:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith is working just fine for me. I believe, in good faith, that pre-emptively calling people "liar" is an act of bad faith. Otto4711 04:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is not even comparable to the various list of characters from certain franchises because the characters have at least one sentence's worth of description about themselves. This list in question is about how the characters died and nothing more, which makes it a trivia article. I don't believe that I would be opposed to a list of characters from the series. A possible compromise would be to re-title this article to a similar list title and provide actual description of the characters besides how they died. If this is not possible, I stand by my vote. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes however a good amount of friday the 13th characters wind up having very little screentime so placing a quick description of them wouldnt be very helpful. Also adding more detail would break rules of WP:LIST as being too exessive. Jamesbuc

• Merge back into each individual Friday the 13th article if such a list isn't already there. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 00:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which article? The "film series" article, or the individual film articles?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The individual film articles. Since these are horror films, a "List of deaths" section within each such article seems appropriate. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 00:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a "list of deaths" in the individual articles is appropriate as the information is nothing more than spoiler info, that has nothing to do with the article. I think the list should be turned into List of Friday the 13th characters, and real character informatio be added. I don't even think that needs its own page, because it isn't like each film is populated with tons of people. The films already have a cast section with all these characters. They should just be expanded upon to include character information. We have to remember that Wiki is an encyclopedia first, and death scenes are hardly notable as a whole.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that the article should be a character list, then you should !vote to Keep and Move the article to List of characters from the Friday the 13th film series. Otto4711 12:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're misinterpreting what I say. I don't want to keep this information, the information, as it's listed, is not notable, important, or hard to find (I already provided a link to the list on another site). I think a REAL character list should be created, one that follows other character lists. You keep citing the writing about fiction for minor characters, but that doesn't apply here, because this list isn't a list of minor characters it's a list of EVERY DEATH in the series, whether by a minor or major character. Not the same. A real list of characters would have information that is congruent to a "CAST" section in a film article, more specifically a film article that has reached FA status. It would look like this, this, or this. The difference would be that the "list" would be longer.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Otto4711. Epbr123 00:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please read WP:PERNOM. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the pertinent parts of the list (linked actors) back to their original films, deleting the rest. Despite their (rather uncivil) belittlementof the genre, another editor has made the point that WP:NOT#IINFO. That said, some of the info has apparent value, as it has been wikilinked (contrary to List of films by gory death scene, which seems to be rather significantly crufty). Arcayne 02:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fancruft. Not encyclopaedic in nature.--Bryson 02:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Listcruft, fancruft, Crufty the Clown, take your pick. Realkyhick 03:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• My pick would be cruft in any form is not a valid argument for deletion. Otto4711 04:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG KEEPDelete This is a list that is not available anywhere else. As such, it may be very valuable to someone out there who wants to use it as a reference of some sort. Just because you don't find it useful doesn't mean someone else doesn't.--Ng.j 05:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since this list already exists on a more appropriate fansite, I think it should be deleted.--Ng.j 15:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This list is available in other places, Here's one copy. Fridaythe13thfilms.com is not only a popular site, but a source for some of these F13 articles. Look what else is on the site, I'm thinking that each film should have a link to this website. If you think "death scenes" are important then link it to the appropriate film's section on "body counts".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 10:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Please read WP:USEFUL. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 11:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment {nods} Besides which while the "someone might find it useful" line is endemic to AfD discussions, I really have a hard time imagining who, exactly, would find a list of how precisely some random gumbys got hacked in some slasher flick useful, divorced from the individual movies themselves. I note, weirdly enough, that the individual movie articles don't have this laundry list, and you'd think that's the first place someone wanting this info would look. RGTraynor 12:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I only found it because of the footer that's on the bottom of most of the movie articles, the template. I never saw it get mentioned in any of the movie articles. I do agree with you that I'd be more likely to look at the movie article rather than an exhaustive list, just pointing out that there's really no reference to this list in the movie articles. Mo0[talk] 16:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and WP:NOT#IINFO. Chevinki 17:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please read WP:PERNOM and WP:JUSTAPOLICY. It's preferred that a more substantial argument be made with deletion discussions per WP:AFD#How to discuss an AfD/Wikietiquette. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Makgraf 06:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please read WP:PERNOM. Deletion debates are not a voting process, and your vote should be backed with as independent of an argument as possible. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 11:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: WP:PERNOM and WP:JUSTAPOLICY are just elements of the same essay, purely the opinion of a handful of editors with zero weight as either policy or guideline. In point of fact, there is nothing in WP:AFD#How_to_discuss_an_AfD.2FWikietiquette requiring expansive editor's comments in an AfD. The degree to which a closing admin pays attention to "Delete per nom" is one thing, but haranguing people to come up with longwinded arguments needs a better reason than your personal preference. RGTraynor 14:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "Haranguing" is a strong word. I've requested people who have voted both ways to substantiate their claims. The guide to discussing AfD says, "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." It also says, "Do not base your recommendation solely on the information supplied by the nominator," which Makgraf did. The essay basically expands on what arguments are appropriate and are not appropriate. Even if we don't abide by it, the user is essentially making this a voting process by saying "Delete per nom." So yes, per the guideline, arguments should be made. It has nothing to do with personal preference and everything to do how an AfD should be carried out, to seek a consensus. Three words' worth of a recommendation does not meet the need for "arguments" to be presented by the editor. At the end of the section, it even says, "You don't have to make a recommendation on every nomination; consider not participating if you agree with the consensus that has already been formed." Otherwise, the person's recommendation is merely a throwaway, insubstantial vote. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There has been many attempts as far as deleting this page is, the reason it should stay is that it does keep to WP:LIST as it keeps all details short and quick without too much fancrufty detail. Also it makes an easy and simple look up of deaths from one series into an easy to read and consise page. This is much simpler than having to trawl through 11 different pages to find out your infomation. As a third reason is that it contains simple details complete with cast listings that also apply with WP:FILM easily. I am aware of another site (fridaythe13thfilms.com) containing this infomation however unlike this page users must still look through about 11 different pages and another 11 for cast links. It is just a lot more simpler to have them placed in one pageUser:Jamesbuc

• Comment - Tell me, other than following the guidelines for "List" (which I could do by setting up a "List of movies where people pick their nose" (that would be concise and short)), exactly what is the importance, notability, or even reason for keep the list? Everyone on here that says "keep" is just saying "it fits these guidelines", and the guidelines being how it's formatted. But no one has come up with a reason that rebuts the reason everyone else say they are not notably important, or encyclopedic. 10:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment According to Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Appropriate topics for lists, "Lists that are too specific are... a problem. The 'list of one-eyed horse thieves from Montana' will be of little interest to anyone (except the person making the list)." You seem to be saying that "It's useful," which is an argument based on subjectivity, a judgment that should not apply to deletion debates. Maybe fridaythe13thfilms.com should be advised to reformat their lists so there's a singular list, but just because Wikipedia has that list available does not seem to be the most intact reasoning per the arguments that I've made in my own vote and this comment. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 11:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes thats true but considering that the main site is for the singular films mainly I doubt that they will merge all the pages together, secondly there are also links to the actors that people could want but considering the legnth of the series it is easier placing them in various pages (ive had many occourances where somebody's been confused about which film they were actually in). In any case ill repeat what I said again, it IS notable due to the nature of the films and it fully keeps withing WP:LIST guidelines. Jamesbuc

(Sorry for this being so long)...Every horror film deals with death. Friday is notable in the fact that its death are rather graphic and they are one of the reason it's panned by critics all the time. As I said before, the "theme" of death is notable, but not a list of every death that occured. You're only listing plot points from a movie, with no real world context in the entire list. Remember, this is an encyclopedia, and being so you have to have real world context. That is why film articles are not supposed to be just "plots" and why "plots" are not supposed to be overly long with minute details about every minor thing (e.g. like the death of a hitch hiker in The Final Chapter). This is a list someone created because they couldn't put every single death into the plot, it's a circumvent of plot guidelines. All the "featured lists" have real world context, that is why the are featured, and the point of every page should be to get to that status. I stated before, I think the "theme of deaths" should be noted (with reliable sources from crew and critics) on the "film series" page, but not a detailed list of every joe schmo in the film, that probably didn't even have any lines, who was killed. People have cited the "minor characters" guideline, but this isn't a list of minor characters, it's a list of deaths for EVERY character, even ones that were not major or minor in the films. To be accepted, you cannot simply say "it meets this requirement" if it fails several others. Would you vote to make the guideline for film plots any length the editor wants? Do you think that film articles should be based solely on the plots, and that we should tell the reader every little thing that happens? That is what this list does. It doesn't even attempt to turn a list into anything encyclopedic. A "theme of death" can be encyclopedic, because the series is well known for it's obligatory death scenes, but where is the value in listing every single death scene? Should we create a list of everyone that wore white after labor day? I'm sure someone wants to know that information, it's taboo.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for reason given in original nom --Orange Mike 23:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this article contains only trivia info.Dimts 06:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a crappy Geocities page built by a 14 year old. The plot information should be incorporated within the plot summaries of the individual film articles. This sort of stuff is pathetically immature. The JPS^{talk to me} 22:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep noteworthy list of an important plot element. In line with WP:LIST. Unless we decide that the Friday 13th series as such is unencyclopedic, we should keep the list. -- User:Docu
• Comment to quote janejellyroll: "As an above argument for deletion stated, this list serves no purpose other than to create a quick reference of deaths in a particular series of horror films. However, this particular series of horror films is seminal, very popular, spans over two decades, and has been the focus of scholarly works ("Games of Terror" by Vera Dika is one that comes to mind). The list itself avoids common pitfalls we've seen on other horror movie death lists (pointless pictures, lengthy plot recapitulations, unnecessarily gory details) and meets the guidelines at WP:LIST. Would it really be a better solution for readers to have to go to eleven different articles to see, for example, how many people have been killed with a machete in the Friday the 13th series? (Okay, I know some of you can't imagine anybody wanting to know that information ever . . . but anyway)" (from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths in the Friday the 13th series). -- User:Docu

Wikipedia is not a substitution for watching the film. If they are going from article to article in search of who gets killed and how, then they are looking for a substitution for watching the film. This is why film articles contain more information than just plots and cast list. This is why they contain info about production, releases, critical reception, because articles are not based around the plot or plot points of a film. How many people died of the same death in Part V? I can think of 3 right now, without looking at the page, that died just from eyes being cut out. Gee, let's have an article that lists the same thing over again. This article is the equivalent to have a list of scores for every football game in 2006. The relevance being? Of course, football is about scoring, it's been around for decades, so that means we need a list that tells us how many points a team score in every game of ever season. It's called "prose". You are taking a plot and breaking it down into a scene by scene list, only excluding everything that doesn't involve a death.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per Docu's reasoning above. Rklawton 21:27, 4 April 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 14:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds WAMS Scheme[edit]

Leeds WAMS Scheme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable academic assistance scheme. Only Google results are from Wikipedia and mirrors, trivial short write-ups, and the school's own websites. [8] Resurgent insurgent 01:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Interestingly enough, one of my best friends is the long-time deputy in the Student Office at the University of Leeds, and she hasn't even heard of this program. It can't be as notable as all of that. RGTraynor 18:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seems rather promotional. Most universities have some sort of "widening participation" scheme in place for one thing or another, none of which are especially notable. A one-sentence mention of the scheme in the University of Leeds article is the most it deserves, if that. --RFBailey 20:18, 28 March 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 15:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tefillin Date[edit]

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

I've never heard of such a thing. I suspect this phrase is rarely used if at all. Eliyak T·C 01:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Well I don't think you should nominate this because you never heard of it, seems notable. Lakers 01:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- Eliyak T·C 01:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have heard of it, and I can say with 100% certainty that the term has no place in Wikipedia for a host of reasons, most directly per WP:NEO.--DLand^TALK 01:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep But it would be nice to see some sources Ron Ritzman 01:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I tried to find similars like "shack pack" since that's what sorority girls call the kit they bring along on overnights to parties. Don't get me wrong, I like it, it's cute, but it fails WP:N.Christopher Jost 02:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We have One-night stand, and while I haven't heard of this, I suppose it's probably in the same "bin." Point being, if somebody heard this and came to look it up, it'd make sense to be here, just as I can see somebody looking up "One Night Stand." Adequate sourcing may be another issue, but that's not the nom, and I don't care to try and open that can of worm at the moment... --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 03:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Article needs reliable sources, an assertion of notability, and compliance with WP:NEO in order to be kept. Currently none. Without these, deletion request is within policy. The issue is not whether or not the topic is controversial, it's whether or not it's encyclopedic. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. 39 ghits per this search, including the Wikipedia article and references to it. Mostly blogs, forums, private web sites and the like. Note that this source isn't usable -- the term appears in a non-peer-reviewed reader's comment. Of the 39, only this appeared to be even an arguable WP:RS, and it mentions the term only in passing -- just not enough mention to support an encyclopedia article. The term may be the sort that gets mentioned in print but not on the internet. But I doubt it, given the kind of neologism it is. Open to reconsideration if sources are found, however. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shira, you know as well as anyone does that this phenomenon is old and widespread (and is quite encyclopedic), especially among the MO youth who are not so eloquent and won't get it "published" in journals and at the same time their parents (and sadly even their teachers and rabbis) run in shame from these kind of discussions or deliberately ignore this topic with determined blinkers even though it's been been around for a veeeery long time (or perhaps because they did the same thing themselves when they were that age...?) The only reason it's not discussed more often in a "scholarly way" is that this is a very shameful and embarrassing subject. Thus, there is no reason to run to delete and censor it under the guise of all sorts of Wikipedia rules which cannot hide an important sociological phenomenon (actually it's a failing!) No use acting like pro-Chabad editors who swing into action to delete comments about the Meshichistim or the Rebbe when it's not to their liking. Time to grow up and face the facts. IZAK 06:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what this last sentence is supposed to mean. Please review WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:AGF. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • What it means, unfortunately, is that I've noted few instances of Shirahadasha weighing in on a Judaic-related AfD without IZAK making retaliatory claims of bias. RGTraynor 18:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think it is at attack on Shira. I think it is an attack on PinchasC. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 18:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, it's not an attack on anybody. This is just by way of observation: That editors are human and they have their obvious pet topics they not only protect but also promote (when they actually get down to some serious creative writing) so that we have some on the "cutting edge" of Modern Orthodoxy promoting neologisms such as the new-fangled Partnership minyan or voting to keep derogatory articles about Haredi non-entities such as Shlomo Helbrans, but in this instance voting to delete a topic ("Tefillin Date") that casts Modern Orthodoxy in a negative light, which is much like some obviously pro-Chabad editors, I wasn't even thinking of anyone specific, who will try to eradicate or "chop down" topics that cast Chabad in a negative light such as the Barry Gurary or the Yechi articles so that, unfortunately, the whole truth and nothing but the truth never gets to see the light of day. Now that's not so complicated or nasty is it? IZAK 08:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources provided and no evidence to suggest that this is anything other than a WP:NEO violation. Alansohn 04:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because this expression, and the phenomonon, has been around for a loooooong time. It's most definitely NOT a nelogism. IZAK 05:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• No sources, delete. Vizjim 09:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not seem notable enough for an article on wikipedia. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Whether or not the phenomenon is recent or ancient is not the issue. There are no sources for this and never will be that is the definition of WP:OR. The real curiosity of this phenomenon is that the people are very strict with a relatively minor law (tefillin) and ignore a major law (premarital sex - especially if she was a nida). I would support the inclusion of this general idea in Off the derech as this is not uncommon with those people at the fringes of orthodox Judaism. Jon513 13:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. An article about an expression? or a phenomenon? without multiple non-trivial published sources about it in any event. Whether or not the phrase is used by anyone is of no consequence - NYC JD (interrogatories) 13:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 15:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable and emblematic concept. Widely known and notable. Havn't you ever been on one? David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 17:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC) I mean delete, per Shira. Sorry IZAK - but cummon there are only 29 ghits, I don't think that people are covering up for MO failings here in the same way as some users try to for Chabad's dirty laundry. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 18:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - maybe a neologism, maybe not, doesn't matter. There's no assertion of encyclopedic notability here, or indeed of notability full stop. No reliable sources, no article. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 18:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Hold on a minute On third thoughts there do apear to be some good sources for the idea of a "tefillin date" here, here and one from Luke Ford: [9]. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 18:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is essentially a dicdef and/or unencyclopedaic. Of the three sources listed by David Spart above, the first two are the same article. Out. Brianyoumans 20:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • no no, there are three sources - but the first is a link to a google news archive search that gives two sources. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 20:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first two sources are ones I cited above -- the Jerusalem post one is a one-sentence comment left by a reader (not from the newspaper itself), and the Los Angeles Jewish Journal has a single sentence in an article on a different topic that mentions the term once (as does the Luke Ford article). We're starting to get somewhere, but not sure this is enough coverage to support an article on the topic or establish that it's in common written use. Unfortunately the policies result in some perfectly good topics not being written enough about to support an article. This may be one. I've heard of the term myself, and if we had come up with more sources, my vote would have been Keep. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okey dokey. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 20:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • So Shira, if, as you say: you've "heard of the term myself, and if we had come up with more sources, my vote would have been Keep" so then improve the darn article instead of pedalling backwards to contradict yourself. Wikipedia respects human intelligence and will allow a topic to grow if enough intelligent editors insist that the topic is part of the real world it is part of. Myabe you know of a few professors of Jewish studies... IZAK 08:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I couldn't find any reliable references on Google Epbr123 00:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, there are enough sources to show it's indeed a real term, taking into account the fact that internet sources might not be the best measure in this case considering the circles in which the term is used. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 03:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, doesn't deserve an article even if there are sources. Recury 14:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Valueless information Chesdovi 16:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Non-Jew with a view This feels like an urbandictionary entry to me (but it's not on UD, should I add it?). As a Gentile who doesn't immediately recognize the term tefillin, I find it interesting, & think it should be somewhere. I think some of us need to start our own sites with info that may run afoul of cries of "NN" (or has done). In the end, I don't know enough about the subculture to know if it's a widespread term, but it's probably mostly harmless, so I lean toward Keep. Ventifax 05:25, 2 April 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. Shimeru 05:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rhudiprrt: Prince of Fur[edit]

Rhudiprrt: Prince of Fur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Furry comic published by what looks like a non-notable publisher, and has indeed been tagged as not asserting notability for a few months now. Doesn't cite sources, may as well be OR. Delete, per WP:ATT, WP:V and WP:N-K@ngie^meep! 01:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Article is nothing more than a summary of a comic with no assertion of WP:N, no reliable sources to satisfy WP:ATT. No reason to have this article. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Only 71 Google hits [10], almost all of them from the Wiki article and its mirrors, Wood's own website and a handful of commercial hawking sites. Even by the standards of the furry community this is scarcely a blip. RGTraynor 18:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rewrite. Desperately needs dates of publication, & I think a different tone. I am not that concerned with presence of this page, specifically. I am however horrified to realise that Teri Sue Wood does not have a page either here or on WikiFur. I'll have to fix that. Ventifax 06:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've actually heard of this one. And Google hits are a *very* poor way to discover notability of something primarily published during pre-WWW years. Ken Arromdee 18:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Not particularly. For instance, my own most recent publication credit (I've done a number of RPG books) was in 1991, well before the Web, and a directed search for my surname and that particular publisher alone turns up 580 hits [11]. I certainly don't claim to be a notable author under WP:BIO. Heck, let's not even go with major underground comix/strips like Cheech Wizard (which turns up 170,000 hits, thirty years after the creator's death) or the Freaks (43,000 hits, 15 years after the last issue). I remember an obscure one called Insect Fear that was published sporadically in the 1970s, and it has 1500 hits. RGTraynor 19:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC) [12][reply]

Anecdotal evidence that doesn't change the point. Google is a poor measure of anything. Ventifax 02:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plainly it is a sound measure of relative notability in this case, but if you've reliable, published sources (as WP:ATT, after all, requires) for the subject's notability, we'd all be glad to see them. RGTraynor 04:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails the attribution policy. Also fails to prove notability with reliable sources per nom. NeoFreak 06:59, 3 April 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. Shimeru 05:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gnuff[edit]

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

Non notable furry comic. There's an interview with the creator of the comic listed as an external link, but that's about it. No reliable sources, no assertion of the notability of the comic, so delete per WP:ATT, WP:V and WP:N-K@ngie^meep! 01:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep.A series published internationally, by a respected and famous Danish cartoonist. Published over several years by Fantagraphics, one of the top comics publishers.

The article should be expanded and improved,true, but this anti-furry crusade is getting out of hand-- especiazlly as this is not a furry title. Rhinoracer 15:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Article is nothing more than a summary of a comic with no assertion of WP:N, no reliable sources to satisfy WP:ATT. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, internationally published, the creator is well known. 96T 16:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, is there some new WP:FURRY policy urging a purge that I don't know about? Artw 18:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: if the assertion that the strip is widely published in Sunday newspapers is true, then it meets notability standards. However, reliable sources still need to be added to confirm this. Krimpet (talk/review) 01:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:Here's Freddy Milton's bio on Lambieck: http://www.lambiek.net/artists/m/milton_f.htm The artist is obviously notable.

Information about Gnuff, from Allexperts:

http://en.allexperts.com/e/g/gn/gnuff.htm

...which site clearly states that Milton was interviewed, in print, in Amazing Heroesno 129; this is an authoritative source.

'Gnuff' also appeared in other comics, such as the Usagi Yojimbo color special:

http://www.usagiyojimbo.com/other/comics/uy-cs1.html

Clearly, a professionallly produced and distributed comic, the creation of a notable cartoonist.Rhinoracer 18:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • All Experts is a wikipedia mirror, so not really a great reference. Lambiek is a pretty well respected source of information though. And the Usagi Yojimbo link should definately help establish notability, and should probably be added to the article right now. Artw 18:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (absolute, no kidding) Deleting Gnuff is like deleting Peanuts or Carl Barks. "Non-notable"? I'm sick to death of this anti-funny-animal crusade (by people who don't know critically acclaimed work in pop culture media from the fringe costume fetishists that "Furry" is being used to evoke.) This isn't even funny. Ventifax 06:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Artw 05:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as totally failing WP:ATT. Article also fails to prove notability with reliable sources. There is no crusade against furries, just inappropriate articles. This belongs at WikiFur. NeoFreak 06:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? At an ostensible furry fansite that after 20 months still has no pages for Carl Barks or Freddy Milton? WikiFur is fannish & fringe, & tends toward vanity pages by Anglophone furries. Gnuff is not part of that subculture, & it deserves to be on a page that will actually be read by people who aren't "furries". Ventifax 06:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well wether or not this material is suited to a Wiki dedicated to English speaking anthropomorphism fans is not really the issue. The issue is this article meets the deletion criteria for wikipedia. NeoFreak 06:45, 3 April 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; WP:SNOW comes into play here. Picaroon 18:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flocabulary[edit]

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

This appears to be simply an advertisment with slight WP:A or WP:N a work in progress. Christopher Jost 01:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that I've not yet completed writing the article and, as such, more citations and a few more sections are coming. However, if the article appears to be an advertisement, then I welcome anyone to trim out any POV. I'm not sure where you're seeing WP:A problems. Your claims of a WP:N violation are understandable, but I think that notability is established by the amount of publicity the project has recieved. Thanks, --Brandt Luke Zorn 03:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems an encyclopedic topic (just about) - Keep and tag for improvement. Vizjim 09:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, encyclopedic topic. --DorisHノート 17:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well written, enough coverage to show notability, and better referenced than the vast majority of existing content. -- Mikeblas 18:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly notable per the sources linked (as well as the coverage referenced on the site's press page). Could use a little copy-editing in spots, but I don't see this as "simply an advertisement". JavaTenor 21:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well attributed, but spammy - clean it up. --Dennisthe2 23:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Would this article be appropriate for inclusion into the Hip-hop and/or Eduction WikiProjects? I think it could be improved with help from others, though I am not a member of either of those two WikiProjects and so won't slap the WikiProject templates on the talk page without advise. --Brandt Luke Zorn 01:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's still a bit spammy, but attribs are enough. Realkyhick 03:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notability proven with citations. - Freechild 07:12, 30 March 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. Cúchullain ^t/c 04:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aspects of Pluto[edit]

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

sister articles prod'ed: WP:OR, inherently unencyclopedic content. Would perhaps belong in an almanac. Potatoswatter 01:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This concerns astrology, not astronomy. Some of these numbers are useful when making predictions... (in which case WP:CRYSTAL still applies?) But knowing how bright Pluto is some day 10 years from now is really, really, unimportant. If you want to observe on a given day you can consult a calculator; these numbers aren't for "today". I didn't stress that at first. Potatoswatter 09:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not CRYSTAL - astronomical motion is regular & predictable. Ventifax 06:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was being sarcastic about astrology. Potatoswatter 07:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment THIS INFORMATION IS REALLY TRIVIAL. Try Googling ephemeris calculator or even aspects of Mars - there are lots of links to choose from. Or ephemeris#External links. This is spurring lots of WP:NOT related legal discussion. WP:NOT is NOT the issue, and I apologize for bringing up the almanac thing. I thought it was clear that an almanac is by definition an indiscriminate collection of information... anyway, consider WP:NN. Wikipedia is not an almanac and indiscriminate information is discouraged because it is NN. I don't know why people want ephemeris tables like these specifically from Wikipedia, but look at that list of calculators! You can get any data you want, very easily. The original author ignored the prod on the other articles. Could someone weigh in on how these articles are actually useful, or advantages over the calculators and tables linked from ephemeris?
  • Before I post... I suppose lots of Google hits would defeat the NN argument. But also consider that many of those sites are also more informative on astrology as well, not to mention having much more data. What we need is more information in ephemeris so interested people can learn... not an independent handbook for astrologers who happen to like Wikipedia. Potatoswatter 21:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following closely related pages:

Aspects of Uranus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Aspects of Neptune (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Aspects of Mars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Not really WP material, but looks informative enough that it should be transwikied sometwhere (Wikisource, perhaps?). Grutness...wha? 03:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering that the original author copied the tables out of his astronomy software, it might be borderline copyvio. I'm not sure... see the link from the deletion log on Aspects of Saturn. Either way, people who know enough to use this info should have a source already or a way of generating it. Potatoswatter 04:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW, data generated by an ephemeris programme is not copyrightable. If it is generated correctly, it will lack originality, and originality is one of the requirements for copyright. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and comment Wikipedia is full of almanac information. Almanac facts are not copyrightable, only commentary is. I just find the name confusing. --68.186.42.46 07:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree... almanac info is inherently NN and therefore rare on Wikipedia. Do you have examples? You are right on the copyright side, although I still don't like the idea that he just copied and pasted from his calculator to generate several articles. (He didn't contest the prods, either.) This looks authoritative because there are lots of numbers, but again, anyone with a use for them already knows where to look. This info is readily available in eg Sky and Telescope magazine. The article doesn't even link to ephemeris (and I'm too clueless on astrology to be able to usefully fix that). Potatoswatter 08:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Generic info such as this could more appropriately be merged into a generic article like ephemeris. It would still be cumbersome, NN, and lack context though. Potatoswatter 08:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - pointless and listcrufty (and crystalbally) Vizjim 09:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I recently helped take the Mars article to featured article status Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Mars :) and at least two of the reviewers asked for me to include information that is in this table - so since the aspects of Mars page already existed, I just pointed them at it and they were satisfied. So, delete this page and I will just have to include the info in the Mars page? This info isn't just for astrology - that's just a pointless comment. Yes the info is taken from a program but I provided a ref for one column of it and it checks out. Kind regards, sbandrews (t) 10:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, with some reluctance. Wikipedia is not an ephemeris. If this data was, in fact, generated by software, those who want it should get and run a comparable program. The data presented is both constrained in time to a few years before and after the present; this will require perennial updating, and there is a point after which old data will become much less interesting. Frankly, I expected this to be about aspects of Pluto and their significance in astrology: that is an article I would cheerfully keep. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you, I agree that this is the criteria that WP:NOT is the criteria we should be looking at - but I don't see it written that wikipedia is not an ephemeris on the WP:NOT page - so could you narrow it down to the specific part of WP:NOT that you think this page contravenes? Regards, sbandrews (t) 14:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT, and especially the sections that might arguably be relevant, are very problematic right now for just this reason. There are those who would call this "indiscriminate" information, when it isn't really; however, it is essentially raw data, not really subject to editing, only to reformatting. Perhaps a transwiki to Wikisource might be the best solution to preserve ephemeris data. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read the WP:NOT talk page and came to the same conclustion. It's as easy to edit this page as any other on wikipedia - I suspect that the main argument against this page is that it is numerical, and people just don't like numbers. Incidently there is a WP:NOT clause that argues in favour of the page, WP is not paper. I notice that on talk:Ephemeris there is someone complaining that ephemeris data is missing on wikisource, if the info is moved there who will safegaurd it from being deleted from there? Is this just a case of NIMBY, or NNIMBY (No Numbers!), regards sbandrews (t) 15:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the point of transwikiing it to Wikisource would be to preserve the data; and the Wikisource page could be linked from the main Pluto page by a simple template. Besides, everybody knows that numbers higher than three are mythical, don't really mean anything, and were invented by city slickers only to confuse us. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just went over to wikisource to take a look round, never been there before - it's kinda small still, 50k pages in the English one. Anyway, this[13] page seems fairly catagorical that this page will not find a happy home there - and honestly, who said anything about going as high as three? sbandrews (t) 16:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never really looked at the criteria for Wikisource, either. There probably ought to be some kind of coordination between there and here. Unless another home is suggested that will surely take and keep this sort of data, I'm changing my opinion to keep. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Wikisource apparently does not want to include data tables, as is relevant to the LC Classification discussion also. there might well be a need for a WikiAlmanac, though I'm not about to propose it here and now. There are other articles that are mainly collections of data. I suggest that the article could be improved by a discussion of the intended use of the information. DGG 23:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki — An ephemeris doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. If not wikisource, then a wikibook in an astrology and/or astronomy section might serve. I wouldn't think an astronomer would be using this information to plan an observing session. More likely [s]he'd want concurrent data, and there are online sites that provide such tables. — RJH (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I am a little doubtful about basing decisions on what may be available elsewhere: For almost all non-historical subjects, there is material readily available elsewhere on the web. Where WP differs is selectivity and organization. Athletic results, for example, are available on the web, and in greater detail than shown here. Worldcat includes millions of books, but WP has a selection of the notable ones. etc. I thing convenient summaries like this are appropriate for WP. Possibly we can develop a more specialized location, but then it could be argued that election results should go there, while in fact they are included in articles about most politicians. there's immense amounts of data in W. This is not going to distort the balance. DGG 22:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but this doesn't appear to be a particularly selectively interesting bit of information. There is no claim to notability or context. Potatoswatter 22:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unsourced unorganized data-dump of a trivial nature, without explainations. 132.205.44.134 23:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, do not transwiki - "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." These articles are comprised entirely of indiscriminate information; they merely lists some arbitrary statistics on various planets. It is not clear as to whether the information is relevant to either astronomers or astrologers (or even who the intended audience was). The information is unreferenced and presented in a confusing manner; for example, it is unclear as to whether the distances and diameters correspond to the dates on which the planets are stationary, the dates on which the planets are in conjunction, or the planets are in opposition. Hence, copying these data to wikisource or wikibook is not even worthwhile. I therefore recommend straightforward deletion. Dr. Submillimeter 06:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Change/Expand/Replace The suggestion above of a page explaining the significance of aspects of Pluto in astrology is a good idea & could be integrated into this. As it is, it's pretty unclear & looks incomplete. Ventifax 05:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment shouldn't they all be merged into a single ephemeris in the Solar System article then, following your line of reasoning? 132.205.44.134 22:37, 4 April 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. Natalie 02:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Lee (businessman)[edit]

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

Not notable Epbr123 02:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. His company bio says even less, so question need for disambiguation. Christopher Jost 02:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Article doesn't even assert any notability for him, so CSD A7. So tagged. Mwelch 02:41, 28 March 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

Finheaven[edit]

The result was Speedy deleted db-web. Mak (talk) 22:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable fansite, fails WP:WEB. Michael Greiner 02:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nomination. --RFBailey 20:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Easily fails WP:WEB. Realkyhick 03:08, 29 March 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. WjBscribe 00:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Wagner[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:BIO Mwelch 02:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOMINATION WITHDRAWN per discussion below. Mwelch 20:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Subject's only notability is being elected to a partial two-year term on the New Orleans city council in 1980. Article's only cited sources are original research. Mwelch 02:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mwelch. Obvious lack of notability, proximity to Louisiana ... Why, yes, it is indeed another by Billy Hathorn (talk · contribs). Whom I'm not being hard on, as he's still creating them as fast as we can put them on AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 05:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep apparently got a lot of media coverage in the 1980s, including by the New York Times [14] so that satisfies WP:A / WP:BIO. --W.marsh 14:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Wizardman 12:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donald M. Rawson[edit]

Donald M. Rawson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject is non-notable per WP:PROF Mwelch 03:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A non-notable professor. Entire content of article is original research: the article author's personal interview with the subject, the author's former professor. Mwelch 03:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 03:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Accomplishment is not notability. --Dhartung | Talk 05:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Not notable as an academic researcher, possibly asa teacher, but how can we judge?DGG 07:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Mwelch and Dhartung said it well. DoorsAjar 07:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. I've come to the conclusion that if you've ever spent more than ten minutes with this author, he'll write an article about you. He has a history of writing about non-notable or barely notable subjects. It probably taints my view of articles he's authored, but so be it. Realkyhick 03:12, 29 March 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 AfD withdrawn by nominator Newyorkbrad 01:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Malcolm Duhé, Jr.[edit]

Subject is not notable per WP:BIO Mwelch 03:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOMINATION WITHDRAWN per discussion below. Mwelch 20:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Retired judge of no note. Mwelch 03:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mwelch. --Dhartung | Talk 05:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per discussion. --Dhartung | Talk 19:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A majority of the circuit judges have Wikipedia bios. Why is Duhe being singled out? Because he recently retired? That doesn't make sense. Chicken Wing 08:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Check out this talk page. It seems there is an effort to delete every biographical article that user is involved with. Perhaps this effort was a little overzealous as at least one legitimate article has been caught in the crossfire. Chicken Wing 08:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I cannot speak for Mwelch, but that Talk page shows that Billy Hathorn (talk · contribs) has a record of creating biographical articles of questionable notability. Some of them have been kept, others have been deleted (both via AFD and CSD). I certainly have no intent of nominating "every biographical article that user is involved with", only the ones where notability is lacking or questionable. Hathorn does have skill as an editor and has applied that to articles that are obvious keeps, such as Lieutenant Governors or members of the state legislature. --Dhartung | Talk 10:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, that was my point of directing to his talk page. He seems to create questionable bios, and so there has been an effort to delete them. What I'm saying is that this article got caught up in all of that, but it doesn't belong. Almost all the fifth circuit judges have bios. This one shouldn't be singled out simply because Billy Hathorn has edited it. Chicken Wing 11:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Let me just say that it certainly wasn't any attempt to "single out" Judge Duhe. I simply didn't see any indication in WP:BIO that notability is inherent, that's all. If there is such a strong consensus (and obviously, it is) that they are, I have no problem backing down on it and offering my apologies. I suspect I did err due to haste in the research though. I went to newslibrary.com yet now I see results where before I did not. I suspect now that I misspelled his name on my first attempt, and I just did not slow down enough to notice the error. Mwelch 20:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above, and at least 1 published article was written about this guy [15], probably more since it's a bit hard to track down articles from the 1980s. Papers do tend to write about judges. --W.marsh 14:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as circuit judges, regardless of tenure or impact, have all authored notable decisions. He is referenced on pages about the 5th circuit and his appointment to the bench was itself a notable event. --sortaSean 16:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. The United States Courts of Appeals are the level of federal courts one level below the Supreme Court of the United States. Judges past and present on these courts are inherently notable (at least I certainly hope they are, as I have created about 25 of their biographies). Newyorkbrad 17:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. I'm a little surprised at this nomination to be honest. A U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals judge? These people are inherently notable, even if they are not famous. Retired yes, but this person held a tremendous amount of power during his career as a judge- definitely not a small potato. If the page needs sources, let's source it. I'll try to help out with this one. Thanks, Scienter 17:34, 28 March 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 this isn't precedent setting, those arguing for it being kept have demonstarted(inc 5 secondary sources) its not an indiscriminate collection of information. Gnangarra 05:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Seven Network slogans[edit]

List of Seven Network slogans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An unreferenced indiscriminate collection of information. Originally ((prod))ded [16], and subsequently removed [17] w/o comment. Full disclosure: I am the editor who originally ((prod))ded the article; along with Ed g2s (talk · contribs), I have also repeatedly removed a gallery of fair-use images from the article. [18] & [19]

• Delete. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support removal of fair-use gallery from article, and deletion of images if not used elsewhere. Weak delete on article, unless some context about the slogans can be provided. -- saberwyn 06:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with more information added and Remove Images - Mike Beckham 06:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as indiscriminate collection of information. I can foresee list of NBC slogans (American), list of TV Mobile slogans (Singaporean), list of TV3 slogans (Malaysia), or list of TVB slogans (Hong Kong) if this is kept. Oh wait... there's NBC slogans ripe for the picking. Resurgent insurgent 07:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• List of NBC slogans is up for AfD as well. Resurgent insurgent 08:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 09:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - this was split from the main article, where it made more sense. Don't just delete it because it was split off - this is happening far too frequently and has got to stop. The gallery of logos was kept from a previous AfD and should not be deleted. JRG 09:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title of the page indicates this is a list of slogans. Even if we suppose such a list is encyclopedic, I do not see how a gallery of logos is relevant on a page meant for slogans. The slogans are definitely not "critical commentary" on the logos by any interpretation of the term! Resurgent insurgent 10:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as clearly being indiscriminate collection of information. While it may be true and verifyable from reliable sources the subject is not encyclopediac. Even if this were part of another, keepable, article I would advocate removing it as a pointless list - Peripitus (Talk) 09:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The advertising/namebranding of a major company is a reasonable subject to cover. It could be merged into Seven Network, but as some of the links I provided show, this kind of marketing is quite notable. FrozenPurpleCube 16:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, could somebody explain to me how this is indiscriminate information? It's not a FAQ, travel guide, memorial or any of the other entries described at WP:NOT#IINFO, but rather the actions of a major company, something that is the subject of regular coverage in the media. FrozenPurpleCube 19:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That list in WP:NOT is not intended to be all encompassing. It is meant to provide examples of what is indiscriminate. The seven network does many many many things, much of which is reported on as they are a media company. You could easily make a referenced list of many other things at the network just due to this fact. A list like this clearly fails the notability requirements in that noone outside the seven network or associated companies cares enough to write substantially about it. - Peripitus (Talk) 21:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that the list at that location is all-encompassing, but the problem is lacking any connection to the criteria on that list, leaves the statement that any particular information qualifies as indiscriminate without substance. Thus I ask people to explain why they believe it is indiscriminate information, not to just declare it such. Without that articulation, it's not exactly much to go on. However, since you do mention outside people writing about it, well, guess what, they do. I already provided links which show that the namebranding/identity building of networks is something that is covered in the news. Not being an Australian, I don't know where to look for sources from that country which would be more likely to cover this company directly, but I accept that in principle such could exist for what seems to be one of the larger Australian broadcasting organizations. FrozenPurpleCube 23:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not encyclopaedic in nature and un-referenced.--Bryson 02:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as lacking reference and fails to meet my criterion on use as providing a summary of notable people or things we have or should have articles on or useful list. Notable slogans should be noted in the article on the Seven Network although it seems to be the case that Seven changes its slogan every year. Capitalistroadster 03:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because it's information already included in the various TV station articles. timgraham 07:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a non-encyclopædic collection of tidbits of information. Lankiveil 11:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• keep at this stage. This list is an impressive collection of slogans used by a very notable company in Australia. I agree it wouldnt be considered encyclopedic if it was going to be printed on paper, but the lack of sources does not mean that the slogans are disputed, and the list format means it is not OR. Give the contributors time to develop this interesting article that demonstrates branding in practise. In the back of my mind is the fact that this is a prominent piece of a companies branding that is shoved down our throats daily (if we watch that is), and I cant help but think that there is an encyclopaedic piece on the brand that will come of this if we let it be. The outcome could be very similar to our articles on flags of each nation. Note that it would be very easy to add video evidence of these slogans, except that doing so it not as easy as jotting down the details of each slogan, hence the evidence being missing. In a way, the date range provided for each slogan is a citation. The article says go to an archive of the TV programs of this period and you will find that slogan. Also, these slogans are often mentioned in commentaries by other media networks in a derogatory way, and the more notable the slogan, the more often they appear in comedy and in satire. John Vandenberg 11:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as listcruft or include their most recent slogan in the network articles page--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nobody has demonstrated that these slogans been written about by anybody who is independent of the Seven network. Adding video evidence is insufficient because that is not independent coverage - it is OK to validate each individual element with primary source material, but there needs to be secondary source material to show that the whole topic is notable.Garrie 23:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Allow me to be the first to demonstrate that: "The One to Watch": [20] "Love You Brisbane" [21]. Misc discussion about slogans [22], [23], [24]. Slogans are part of our culture. This is no different to the Swoosh having an article. John Vandenberg 05:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge slogans back to Seven Network article, on the condition that some information be added. As for the images, they are an interesting and notable part of the network, and should be kept, though this article is not the place. JRG 08:24, 30 March 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. If you guys want to recreate it as a redirect that's fine.--Wizardman 12:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gears of War (film)[edit]

Gears of War (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 03:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Crystal Balling at it's best. Film is not due out until 2009, according to IMDB. The only indications that the movie might possibly be made is the fact that New Line picked up the rights, which is not even close to an indication that the film might actually be made. There is quite literally no information about this film which is available. It could be summed up within the Gears of War article itself with one sentence, that New Line has optioned the rights to the game. Picking up the rights does not equal actually making a film, otherwise John Woo would have made a Metroid movie. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 03:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete In the immortal words of one Jim Jones: BAAAALLIN'!!! ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 05:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete until external verification that the movie is in production with imminent release. As said in nomination, what can be verified can be summed up in a paragraph (at the absolute, utter, ridiculous most), located within the game's article. Possibility of redirection to discourage recreation until the movie is imminent? -- saberwyn 06:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to wikinews or delete. There is nothing in the article beyond an announcement of licensing rights, which might be borderline newsworthy given the success of the game it is based on. It is too early for encyclopedic treatment of the subject. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 06:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ---Haemo 07:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The only verifiable info is that New Line Cinema picked up the license for it. IF the movie gets made (and I stress IF since many video games have had their movie rights picked up and nothing happened afterwards) and solid info is released, it can be recreated. TJ Spyke 08:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As above, though a brief one-sentence mention could be made in the main article. Wickethewok 13:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because acquisition of film rights do not equate actual production of the film. Studios often pick up film rights for various kinds of source material, but don't actually produce everything they have into films. I checked Gears of War, and the sole valid citation under the Film section suffices for now. Once a director, a cast, and a production start date is established, then there would be a stronger case for an actual film article. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete until production officially announced. If I may comment, though, 2009 is only two years away so it shouldn't necessarily trigger the same red flags as 2009 release dates might have in 2006 or earlier. It's quite feasible for an officially announced -- or widely anticipated -- film release to now have an 09 date. Star Trek XI is only 6 days short of being a 2009 release, for example. 23skidoo 18:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment IMDb always assigns some kind of release year to a film, even though none has been announced. This is the same case with Gears of War, so don't let the release years presented by IMDb sway any kind of argument. IMDb even lists Raimi's briefly-announced The Shadow for 2010, as well as Thor (2009) and Sub-Mariner (2008), despite no release date ever suggested for these projects. They even have 300 stuck on 2006 for some reason. The recently deleted Alice has a release year for 2007, which is extremely unlikely with zero production news since 2005. You will never see a (TBA) attached to any of IMDb's films, always a release year. This kind of setup, which I've seen as a major factor in votes to keep articles on future films, should never be relied upon. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect the article to Gears of War to prevent re-creation, as saberwyn suggested. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 22:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, with merge of some info as needed. Realkyhick 03:18, 29 March 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 snow delete—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro T. Quiboloy[edit]

Alejandro T. Quiboloy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability not established. In addition, Wikipedia is not a hagiography or a tribute page. Tito Pao 03:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unencyclopedic tone, no evidence of notable accomplishment, no citations. DoorsAjar 07:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Howard the Duck 09:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable even if it were written in encyclopedic style.DGG 23:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete google search didn't yield any reliable sources. --Lenticel 00:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's a tribute, not an encyclopedic article, and notability is limited at best. Sources are iffy. Realkyhick 03:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I'll append Alejandro Turla Quiboloy to this nomination. --Howard the Duck 13:41, 29 March 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 14:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lieutenant Colonel Robert Strayer[edit]

Lieutenant Colonel Robert Strayer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article does not assert notability of the subject per the guidelines of WP:BIO. Nv8200p talk 03:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, and a number of others at Easy Company (Band of Brothers) need to be looked at closely. They were plucked from obscurity for the book and then movie, but are they individually notable? I do not believe so. --Dhartung | Talk 05:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, with second option to merge into a annotated list. Vague importance established by being member of a group of soldiers dealt with in a book and tv series, but I think most of these articles will be very similar, and a list would reduce the duplication. -- saberwyn 06:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete They should be treated as we would treat the fictional characters, by a merge into the article on the book/movie. DGG 23:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or delete There is nothing in the page that isn't already in Easy Company (Band of Brothers). If there is more information then it would be possible to revert the page and it add it in later.--Ng.j 05:46, 29 March 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 14:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huntingtown, Maryland's Snowstorms 2002-?[edit]

Huntingtown, Maryland's Snowstorms 2002-? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable events. No media coverage cited. Nv8200p talk 03:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After this, can we make an article for "days of light rain?" (forgive my sarcasm, but it makes the point best) --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 04:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I thought the question mark in the title meant the snowstorms had started in 2002 and hadn't stopped since. Plasticbottle 04:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unsourced and indiscriminate information. --Metropolitan90 05:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, individual, wide-scale weather events can be notable, but this is indiscriminate (i.e. snowstorms happen everywhere, why are these notable?). --Dhartung | Talk 05:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. --RFBailey 20:45, 28 March 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 04:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honoré de Balzac in popular culture[edit]

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

An indiscriminate collection of the most fleeting references to the playwright as possible. (Tee-hee, didja notice that "Balzac" sounds like "ball sack?") Krimpet (talk/review) 04:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - totally unreferenced, non-notable trivia. The last couple of sections are particularly aggregious - by no stretch of the imagination can a pun based on his name be considered a notable pop culture reference. --Haemo 07:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Oppose any suggestion to merge any of this to Balzac's article. Otto4711 13:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, per the above, article doesn't make any attempt to address the history of Balzac in popular culture, the impact of Balzac in pop culture, and so on. Just a laundry list. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. At least the double entendres were funny, but it fails WP:IINFO. Realkyhick 03:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete certainly indiscriminate. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought the stupid jokes were funny though. Croxley 05:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if you do not want this information to reappear again in the main article (which would happen on 100%). I had created it for this exact purpose since nobody cared to maintain it and pop-culture references and fights over them constituted major part of recent edits. The proper solution for such articles is someone knowledgeable in anglophone popular culture taking care here.

If deleted preserve the part about Rodin's statue which is definitely notable. Pavel Vozenilek 18:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per Pavel Vozenilek's argument. Textbook case of a "pragmatic keep" (about which I may have to write a WP page) Ventifax 07:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Pragmatic keep" is just another way of saying bettr here than there and it's a terrible argument for keeping an article. If the information is garbage on its own then it would be garbage in the main article. All keeping this article does is shift the responsibility for the garbage from one set of editors to another. Otto4711 05:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If it's totally unreferenced which it 'isn't' at all if you bother noticing some footnotes, who cares? Anyone can simply add a reference there if they find it. This article is a treasure trove of information, information you probably won't be able to find in single area online. And oh, btw, someone didn't put the format for the footnotes which is why you can't see the references at the bottom. I'll add it now. ResurgamII 14:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is indeed a "treasure trove of information", unfortunately that information is completely indiscriminate, of which Wikipedia is not a collection of. Krimpet (talk/review)
• Keep it is apparently partly sourced, and as I noted in the Kim Jong-il nomination, nearly every article including the Hitler and Lincoln ones in the Category:Representations of people in popular culture lack sources, but I would assume that sources could be found which is a big distinction in WP policies apparently: see WP:ATT discussing the difference. If we went ahead and deleted any partially sourced articles for that reason (just take a look at the ones some editors have flagged as unsourced Category:All articles lacking sources would WP be better or worse for these all being deleted?), CSD A4 and the GDFL terms would like prevent any recreation. On a more practical level, I agree with Pavel Vozenilek's view that this stuff will just migrate to the main articles. Carlossuarez46 19:05, 4 April 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 into Christ For The Nations Institute. Arkyan • ^(talk) 21:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Youth For The Nations[edit]

Youth For The Nations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article does not assert notability of the organization per WP:ORG. No reliable independent secondary sources cited. Nv8200p talk 04:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Christ For The Nations Institute. Plenty of room there, no pressing need to disconnect the two topics, better context within parent article. A redirect would be plausible, too. Realkyhick 03:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect - This would improve the Christ For The Nations Institute page, which currently doesn't properly link to Youth For The Nations.--Ng.j 05:53, 29 March 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 14:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Lowell Goller[edit]

Robert Lowell Goller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article does not assert the notability of the subject per the guidelines of WP:BIO. Nv8200p talk 04:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nomination. --RFBailey 20:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable--even though he was the town historian. This and other recent articles point out the inadequacy of our rules for N when dealing with local history. DGG 23:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable, but DGG makes a good point about figures in local history. Realkyhick 03:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This sort of thing is why I'd like to see a WikiWho'sWho. I tend to reserve judgement on these things, but I'm not seeing the notability for Wikipedia as it stands. Ventifax 07:10, 2 April 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 14:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iaido in popular culture[edit]

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

This is a list a videogames with characters that use the technique Iaido. It's not really popular culture, and I think this technique is common in martial arts based videogames so it's not notable enough for its own article. Plasticbottle 04:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 06:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I must disagree, video games are part of popular culture. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. you misunderstand, I didn't say they aren't part of popular culture, I meant the list doesn't represent popular culture, just a small aspect of it, which is videogames. So it's not "popular culture", if it was then it would include films, TV shows, books, etc, etc. Plasticbottle 02:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Unmaintainable list of useless trivia. The introductory part of the article is present in the main Iaido article. That is more than sufficient.Dr bab 12:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as yet another indiscriminate list of meaningless trivia. Otto4711 13:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete:Guys, the only reason I created this article was because it was almost bigger than the main Iaido article itself. (Ok maybe that THAT big but it was big enough). And video-game fans kept adding more on that section rather than on the martial art itself. I wanted to delete the entire section from Iaido, but I didnt dare since I guess someone would have cried havoc so I moved it here. I have no vested interest in this section other than keeping it OUT of the Iaido article. Fred26 20:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. Fg2 01:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Can't possibly maintain this indiscriminate list. Realkyhick 03:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OR. This article reads like they are observations made about sword/katana wielding VG characters with very little knowledge about the maritial art. How is it exactly that Link is practicising Laido? This article really doesn't have much to do with video games and really doesn't help the article on laido either. Its just another worthless "...in popular culutre" list. Mitaphane _?|! 03:46, 31 March 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.