< November 10 November 12 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The US World Cup Team is a highest level of amateur sports.-- Balloonman (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Annie O'Shea[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Annie O'Shea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A very short article which was originally autobiographical, and which contravenes WP:Crystal. The only references given are to her personal blog. Paul20070 23:32, 11 November 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 g1, patent nonsense, WP:BOLLOCKS, why is it that all of these hoax bios have someone getting injured in an unlikely kind of accident? It's no longer funny (if it ever was). NawlinWiki 23:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark batey[edit]

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

Suspected hoax: No singles called "These Faces Are A Changing", "Poodle Walk Blues" or "Molehill Riots"; no band called "The Iron Masons" — BillC talk 20:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedily deleted by User:Bjelleklang. NawlinWiki 23:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biodemometer[edit]

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

Apparent promotional of a device the article's creator has invented himself, and which "ha[s] not been validated" (i.e. it has never been shown that it actually works) [1]. Speedily deleted twice; the last revision may not be that blatant spam, but still delete. - Mike Rosoft 22:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. I think this would have been closed sooner if the creator of the page wasn't as vocal as he was. But even so, this is a clear case of something to be deleted. -- Balloonman (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SS Conte Rosso Sinking[edit]

SS Conte Rosso Sinking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Page created exclusively to place the editor's father's account of the sinking (not WP:RS) into wiki after it had been removed from the main article Mayalld 22:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think using a computer program to monitor and edit this is fair or even handed ----

Please explain your qualification to edit this page, what evidence do you have to say this is not accurate or sourced correctly?

My qualification is that I have read and understood Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and reliable sources, and can see that this does not comply. Mayalld 07:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are biased and don't care for the truth. Since when is personal testimony not a valid resource and reference? I think you are against the spirit of Wiki by applying technical consideriations over truth and human experience. You promote the impression that you insult the memory of the men and women who gave their lives in war time. And this is Rememberance Day, or veterans day. It seems edit for the sake of editing and deleting content that you don't know anything about. Do you have any experience about the SS Conte Rosso? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gianniconterosso (talk • contribs) 22:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. Wikipedia has a very firm policy that unverifiable material doesn't belong in Wikipedia. That isn't to insult your father, it is just saying that Wikipedia must only contain material that anybody can verify. If your father's account was recorded (for example in the transcript of a board of enquiry), then you could cite the board of inquiry, and introduce the material, but otherwise, it is just hearsay.Mayalld 07:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


You are arrogantly saying it is hearsay. Where is the actual text where that says this policy? show me please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gianniconterosso (talk • contribs) 23:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hearsay is evidence based on the reports of others rather than on personal knowledge; normally inadmissible because not made under oath. Hope this explains. Shoessss |  Chat  23:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


But I have verifiable and reliable sources. Is that not OK? What is your definition of Reliable Source and Verification?



None of you have answered my specific and exact questions. You are are only responding with a cultural view of values. Policy based on interpretation. Where is the exact line of text that defines Verification, Sourcing?

Here you go talk • contribs just follow the link [2]. Shoessss |  Chat  23:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


In answer to booby1011, Yes I have previously published materials. People can verify it. However it's not online at this moment. If you wikibots want to check maybe you'll have to wait. Is that enough to stay the execution of the delete page order? Or how long do it need to be placed online before the automatic wikibot rush to deletion? What if I put in some references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.101.243 (talk) 23:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It need not be online. You can cite news, books, encyclopaedias, etc. but give us sources to pass WP:V. Bobby1011 23:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How's the list of references now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gianniconterosso (talk • contribs) 23:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


You can check them if you do the research. Just go to the naval history department in the Arsenal in Venice Italy, or look at the pension or discharge papers the next time you visit Napoli. However I've done some "fact" checking already. I've got some documents but scanning and uploading will take some time. Previous question still applies.. how long till autowikibots rule and delete this world without online references? (Every time I open this page this browser logs me out- stupid safari and windows xp... Gianni 00:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't scan and upload images as references. That is not how an article is referenced. You have to find published sources and tell us where to find them. The sources that you have listed as references need to be given in a proper fashion. That means including all of the details we would need to check them. The article is also begining to look like a coatrack for your fathers biography. If he is really as notable as you say he is (mainly being knighted), then perhaps you should consider creating an article about him. Papers that are in his possession (or yours or any of his suriving relatives) are not available for users to check them. In any case any such papaers are considered questionable sources because discharge papers and pension papers are not known for their strick fact checking. Also, there is no reason to list pending sources. Bobby1011 00:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've skipped over the statements above, but my first glance skim-through is that it's highly unsourced and apparent original research. If it is found that it should be kept (or that any portions thereof should be maintained), it should either be renamed as something along the lines of "The sinking of the SS Conte Rosso" or be merged into the main SS Conte Rosso article. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 01:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia non è il posto adatto per pubblicare ricerche originali (come, ad esempio, teorie ed idee formulate ex novo, o punti di vista/fatti sostenuti da una minoranza limitata o estremamente piccola), Wikipedia, infatti, non è una fonte primaria." Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research, for example, new theories and ideas, or viewpoints or factual statements supported by, or known by, an extremely small number of people. Wikipedia is not a primary source. With all respect to the memory of Mr. Raineri and his service in the military, the details that he recounted to you cannot be published for the first time on Wikipedia if they have not been published somewhere else. Mandsford 02:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Neutral'-In fact, i felt that the incident should be merged with a page with the ship's name or merge altogether but i knew that that would roar into another battle and i suggests that more formatting should be done to make the page more professional if the result was to BE KEEP.However, more references and eyewitness accounts should be placed into references and they must be verifiable.--Quek157 06:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not anglo-american court rules I am quoting. Rather it is a Definition taken word for word from Wikitionary[4]. Hope this helps. Shoessss |  Chat  21:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now you say you have quoted the (law) meaning, and then you appear to have quoted an anglo-american court rule, retrieved thru Wictionary. So it unfortunately shows you bring an anglo-american court rule with the "normally inadmissible because not made under oath" . I hope you know other countries may not have this rule. I also hope you noticed my !vote was for deletion. My point was just the seven words I quoted above was a strange element in the thread. Greswik 22:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa Greswik, first of all easy does it, you are taking this way to serious. Second, the reason I placed the definition of the word heresy under my original deletion comments was because Gianniconterossotalk questioned my use of the word heresy. I was just pointing out the statements that were made,in the article, needed to be verifiable. The use of this English word, in this context, has nothing to do with law or any court system. It is just ONE word that sums up, “….you need verification!.”. Nothing more and nothing less. Hope this clears up the matter. Shoessss |  Chat  11:46, 16 November 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. -- Balloonman (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nod technology of Command & Conquer[edit]

Nod technology of Command & Conquer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete for same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allied technology of Command & Conquer and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soviet technology of Command & Conquer. Pagrashtak 22:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reasoning in the other nominations. I should note that any applicable cleanup tags should be added to all of them, and further note that if a proper merge can't be found for the stuff, the next time it's up for AfD, I'll go with delete. Jtrainor 08:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge - Same reasoning as in the relevant GDI AfD. The articles are rubbish but are heavily relied upon by the parent works, so the content should be preserved in some form (that merge proposal wasn't a bad idea). MalikCarr 08:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Unless you forgot the Command & Conquer: Tiberium Wars (novel), developer blogs, interviews, offical sites (http://www.ea.com/cncx360/units.jsp?ncc=1), game development articles (like http://pc.ign.com/articles/725/725322p1.html) , I think there are more than enough secondary sources. --Eldarone 03:26, 15 November 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. Catchy phrase, but nn.-- Balloonman (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I was your age, Pluto was a Planet[edit]

When I was your age, Pluto was a Planet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Seriously, are we going to catalogue every internet meme now? AlistairMcMillan 22:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One dead link, one journalist's blog post and one PBS article. Hardly "significant media coverage". AlistairMcMillan 02:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least two working links to articles concerning this subject in different reliable sources. Media coverage is no less significant because it is characterized as a "journalist's blog post" (the article is concededly written by a journalist, not by a blogger), or because it appears on PBS. John254 02:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I just fixed the broken link. That gives us articles concerning this subject in three different reliable sources, certainly sufficient to establish a presumption of notability pursuant to the general notability guideline. John254 02:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, but an article in a college newspaper that briefly mentions the Facebook group (and seems to misunderstand the effort required to create said group), and quickly moves on... I'm still seeing how any of these links constitute "significant media coverage". AlistairMcMillan 03:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
College newspapers can be reliable sources. I contend that all three articles, taken as a whole, constitute "significant coverage", even if none of them individually would. With regard to the claim that an article "seems to misunderstand the effort required to create said group", I note that per Wikipedia:Verifiability, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." If third party reliable sources treat a topic as notable by providing significant coverage of it, we should not be second-guessing that determination. John254 04:50, 16 November 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. — Scientizzle 22:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Off The Record (satirical newspaper at Wheaton College, IL)[edit]

Off The Record (satirical newspaper at Wheaton College, IL) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nonnotable college newspaper, no independent sources. NawlinWiki 22:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above.Shoessss |  Chat  22:22, 11 November 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. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 11:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Top 100 NHL Players of All-Time[edit]

The Top 100 NHL Players of All-Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

subjective POV list cruft ccwaters 21:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any type of list, even somehow sourced, would still be a POV violation. It is not like this is a listing of the top 100 goal scorers of all-time that would be based on fact. I do not think it would be possible for this type of article to ever survive an afd. I could be wrong though. -Pparazorback 22:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: just for the record, based on one of this editor's other recent edits, this list comes from a book published by The Hockey News. This just not change the fact that the list does not belong on Wikipedia, of course. Skudrafan1 23:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, I guess I should have looked more closely before I assumed the edits were related. I guess the editor just thought anything that said "Top 100 NHL Players of All-Time" should be linked to this page. Skudrafan1 01:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably so. I looked at the link you provided Skud, and Howe and Lemieux were flip flopped from this guy's article. I predict this article won't be around for more than another day if it takes that long .. WP:SNOW. Pparazorback 02:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirected to Cheez-It. NawlinWiki 22:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheez-Itz[edit]

Cheez-Itz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability not asserted Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 21:28, 11 November 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 per WP:BIO failiure for sports people --JForget 00:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: [5] He made his first appereance with Crewe Alexandra F.C. on November 16, 2007. With its first official appereance in a professionnal league game, he now meets WP:BIO and therefore I've reversed the deletion. --JForget 14:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cedric Baseya[edit]

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

Cotested speedy and prod. Non notable footballer, so far he has not played a competitive, professional match. The sole reference is to a youth team game over two years ago. Nuttah68 20:55, 11 November 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. -- Balloonman (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copper Ridge School[edit]

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

non-notable. stub article that has been flagged without references for 10 months - seems unlikely to have notability be established or to be improved. Arthur 20:42, 11 November 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. -- Balloonman (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St Leonards (Hastings postcode area)[edit]

St Leonards (Hastings postcode area) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article title does not correspond to the content of the article, and in any case the area referred to is not a Postcode area. The subject-matter mainly duplicates information in the Hastings article, and no useful purpose is served by making it a separate article. --rossb 20:51, 11 November 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. -- Balloonman (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allied technology of Command & Conquer[edit]

Allied technology of Command & Conquer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I tagged this for merging on 25 October, in case someone was interested, but this entire article is filled with in-universe or game guide information and there isn't really much worth saving. Delete or transwiki, if someone is willing. Pagrashtak 19:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the games, game manuals, the developer blogs, offical website, and what not? --Eldarone 02:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no the CNC Wikia dosn't. The EVA Databasse is totally In-universe, and does not provide any factual context. We assumed Wikipedia was a better source for contextual information. --Eldarone 02:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Provides important context to the game's universe. It's no more different than disciribin gthe fictional sciences of Star Trek, or providing some info on characters. --Eldarone 02:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not just game manuals, but also offical websites, game guides, game previews, interviews, etc. etc. --Eldarone 03:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Official" sources don't count for establishing notability as they are not independent of the subject. Blogs and gameguides are also not suitable as they are not reliable. Miremare 15:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does provide vitial information on the setting. --Eldarone 02:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Unluess you forgot to mention the Official Website (http://www.ea.com/official/cc/redalert2/english/gameinfo.jsp), various game guides, IGN's own articles on the topic, etc. etc. --Eldarone 03:14, 15 November 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. -- Balloonman (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet technology of Command & Conquer[edit]

Soviet technology of Command & Conquer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I tagged this for merging on 25 October, in case someone was interested, but this entire article is filled with in-universe or game guide information and there isn't really much worth saving. Delete or transwiki, if someone is willing. Pagrashtak 19:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete same as the other one--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 19:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See response same response on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allied technology of Command & Conquer --Eldarone 03:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you forgot to mention the Official Website (http://www.ea.com/official/cc/redalert2/english/gameinfo.jsp), various game guides, IGN's own articles on the topic, etc. etc. --Eldarone 03:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. The stubby content is unsourced and mostly makes little sense, as do the first and last "keep" opinions below. Creating redirect to Criticisms of anarchism. Sandstein (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-anarchism[edit]

Anti-anarchism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article seems to have no notable subject. A Google Scholar search for "anti-anarchism" yields three unimpressive results, one of which is fictional, the other two which concern imperialism and Yugoslavian history. The content of this article - if it can be cleaned up, verified and so on - belongs in the Anarchism, First International, Spanish Revolution and histories of fascism articles, if at all. Skomorokh incite 13:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 18:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My Google Scholar search is linked in the nomination. Here it is if you can't see it.
How about these...:::Here [6] and [7]. Hope this helps. Shoessss |  Chat  00:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you mention which part of the article you think deserves inclusion in the well-referenced Anarchism article? Regards, Skomorokh incite 00:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keepI think the ide of redirecting ot to Anarchism may seem ridiculous to anyone who has tangled with the anarcho-authoritarians who have turned that page into a paen of their chosen ideology. If it should be merged with any page, perhaps criticisms of anarchismmight be more appropriate. The page clearly needs more work encompassing everything from the International Conference of Rome for the Social Defense Against Anarchists to the International Communist Current. As long aseverything is referenced I find it hard to understand why people should be worried about original research.-- 86.143.155.222 (talk) 17:10, 16 November 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woodland Hills Camera & Telescope[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Woodland Hills Camera & Telescope (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable corporation, as far as I can make out. made in good faith, however! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 18:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I tried that but I guess somebody removed it. Wierd. - Rjd0060 05:55, 12 November 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. Mr.Z-man 21:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

===Parodies on South Park===xcgxcgvvnmhgf

Parodies on South Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - indiscriminate collection of trivia as well as being a mass of original research. A list of every single thing that's ever been parodied in an episode of South Park, or everything that in the unsourced and unsubstantiated opinion of whatever random editor is parodied on South Park, is not encyclopedic. Otto4711 17:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. (Non admin closure). Qst 17:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Bruder[edit]

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

does not meet WP:BIO LeyteWolfer 17:06, 11 November 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. W.marsh 21:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starkey International Institute for Household Management[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Starkey International Institute for Household Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starkey International Institute for Household Management with very little discussion; consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 8 was to relist. Neutral nomination. Chick Bowen 16:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedily deleted as nn-club. Stifle (talk) 18:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freehold Football Club[edit]

Freehold Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Absolutely non-notable, even the league they play in is a redlink. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 16:48, 11 November 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 --JForget 00:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Rizzotti[edit]

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

Minor league baseball player who has not made it past the single-A level yet. Gsearch doesn't show evidence of notability. Speedy was denied, so I assume a prod will be contested. Fabrictramp 16:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Keep, nomination withdrawn. Davewild 17:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everette Harp[edit]

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

I'm not sure if this meets WP:MUSIC. Could we have some input from editors who have plenty of experience with the policy? The article was speedied before as a copyvio (it isn't one anymore), and the author keeps removing the 'notability' tag I've applied to it. I'm assuming that he'll also remove any PROD tags, so I'm bringing it here - a good-faith deletion discussion, if you will. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 16:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 03:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Wald[edit]

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

does not meet WP:BIO LeyteWolfer 16:35, 11 November 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. -Splash - tk 20:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darin Goldberg[edit]

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

does not meet WP:BIO LeyteWolfer 16:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reasoning for the AfD is that the article was ghostwritten by User:Wilhelmina Will for an unregistered editor who hasn't established notability and, frankly, refuses to. When asked to improve the article, the original author instead chose to harass the various participants (including Wilhelmina Will) to the point of being IP-blocked for 72 hours.
I see no reason to speedily delete, but my doubts arise from concerns that the other ghost-written articles all revolve around other Hollywood writers whom previously have not established notability. The cynic in me is concerned that these might be second-person vanity articles, due to the timing with the current writer's strike in the US. Needless to say, I am not emotionally invested in it, so will not fight for a pro-deletion consensus, if the intent is clear to keep it. Thank you.--LeyteWolfer 16:05, 11 November 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 A7. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 16:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zachar tolmachev[edit]

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

I believe that this article is not notable. Per WP:BIO a person can't be notable because they have a relationship to someone notable. This person doesn't seem to be anything other than an aspiring entrepreneur. Icestorm815 15:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete this is speedy criteria, i was even suprised you put this here as i was going to speedy it for non notable person. Really if there born in the 90's its usaly speedy worthy. Eskater11 16:03, 11 November 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 --JForget 00:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who See?[edit]

Who See? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable musical group with no third-party, reliable sources. There's not even an assertion of notability, so I tagged it for deletion for meeting criterion A7 of the WP:CSD, but an administrator declined it. I say delete. Agüeybaná 15:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Do they have a hit single? no 2. Do they have a hit album? no 3. Are they known outside their hometown? no 4. Have they at least opened up for anyone who's well known? no This seems to be better suited on the Wikipedia of the language the group speaks rather than english Wikipedia Doc Strange 14:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted. ELIMINATORJR 18:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Moncton Cycles[edit]

Greater Moncton Cycles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Exactly zero Google hits. grubber 15:53, 11 November 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, WP:SNOW, Wikipedia is not for words made up yesterday, WP:NEO. NawlinWiki 22:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditchconnect[edit]

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

Seems to be a made-up neologism. Can't find any reference to this term anywhere. Both Google[9] and Yahoo[10] return no matches. ARendedWinter 15:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Deleted as A7 - no assertion of notability, no references, wikilinks go nowhere, orphaned... etc. ELIMINATORJR 18:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Four (Forgotten Realms)[edit]

The Four (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fictional group. Nothing in the way of secondary sources or third-party analysis. ((prod)) endorsed by User:Gavin.collins, then removed by User:LtPowers with the comment "valid stub". Mikeblas 15:37, 11 November 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. Dhartung makes a very good point; however consensus is not reached in this debate and I suspect that there is Wikipedic mileage in this article. -Splash - tk 20:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Mississippi license plates[edit]

Historical Mississippi license plates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Original research. No verifiable sources that any of these license plates are historic. Nv8200p talk 15:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that these are not meant to be interpreted as "historic" plates (as in "historic" sites, i.e. with some importance), but simply the prior plates ("historical"). This is the proper use of the term "historical". See wikt:historic for a usage note. --Dhartung | Talk 23:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP, but observe the dire referencing state of the article. -Splash - tk 20:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spinsters of San Francisco[edit]

Spinsters of San Francisco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Queryable speedy-delete-tagging for "not notable". They seem fairly notable to me. Anthony Appleyard 15:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted by Anthony Appleyard (G12). Non-admin closure. Deor 15:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temperature sensors[edit]

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

(1) Page Temperature sensor already exists. (2) Appears to be copied from commercial project page (3) promotional rather than encyclopedic Chemical Engineer 14:49, 11 November 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. I will add the merge tags so experienced editors on this topic can do the merge properly. W.marsh 21:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talismans (Sailor Moon)[edit]

Talismans (Sailor Moon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Plot device from manga series. No explanation at notability, no references, written in-universe and is basically a plot summary. May be possible to merge a summary to a parent article? ELIMINATORJR 14:39, 11 November 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 in both AFDs (Shadow Realm (Yu-Gi-Oh!) and Shadow Game (game)), although a merge seems reasonable.. W.marsh 21:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Realm (Yu-Gi-Oh!)[edit]

Shadow Realm (Yu-Gi-Oh!) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A location in a game. Might possibly be notable, but impossible to tell without sourcing or references. Also written completely in-universe and is basically a plot summary. Prod removed without explanation other than "notable". ELIMINATORJR 14:27, 11 November 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 JForget 00:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltar Associates[edit]

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

Speedy contested by original author of the article. A non notable PR firm established this year. Nothing to indicate, and no apparent sources of, how the firm meets WP:ORG. Nuttah68 13:42, 11 November 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 --JForget 00:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fotkipus[edit]

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

This is a non notable carton image - it even failed the contest that was its basis for being - not that winning would not have led to notability. Anyway, the author took off speedy, and took off the redirect to Fotki, so bringing here to get consensus. Obina 13:38, 11 November 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.

Christian Fuchs (sociologist)[edit]

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page..
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Splash - tk 19:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Germaine Haye[edit]

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

Assertion of notability is that she was old, which is not a criterion in WP:BIO. The article contains no reliable sources, and the two that are there are not indpendent (one is to a yahoogroup run by the article's creator and main editor, and the other is to his employer), so there is no evidence that the subject has substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. - It should be noted that RichyBoy is one of those who has been canvassed by Ryoung122. - Galloglass 16:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I can't help that somebody wrote some stuff on my talk page, not that it was to do with this AfD anyway. I was perhaps reasonably likely to come across this AfD anyway, as I do from time-to-time comment on some quite diverse AfD's. I admit though that in this instance I came across this by reading BrownHairGirls talk page. In any event I don't see why it matters how I come across it; in case you've forgotten a AfD isn't a vote - either the point raised is a good one or a bad one and it's appraised qualitatively not quantitatively. RichyBoy 17:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the compliment, but I have to admit I did the easy work, with Google searching (and translation!); I don't think there is that much more available on the web. There is probably more available in print, she was an author after all, and I don't doubt that between than and her age she was one of the more notable citizens of her town, so there are probably local articles, but you probably have to be in France, probably even in Normandy, in order to find them. So, while I do think she is notable enough for our purposes, I doubt we can expect much more to show up during the few days this AFD has left to run, and shouldn't base the decision of the AFD on whether or not it does. --AnonEMouse (squeak) —Preceding comment was added at 17:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we should renominate if nothing happens in a week. I just meant, even with just the sources you provided, certainly this article can be improved based off of that and more so within a few months. I think this is going to end up in no consensus personally (and probably rightly so), so I should have emphasized that the above is my suggestion to avoid another deletion debate in a few months down the road. Certainly a potential for expansion has been provided. Cheers, CP 17:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: CP, I disagree with what you say. I improve stubs all the time of my own volition, but my opinion about notability does not compel me to do so in any specific case. I respect the depth of BHG's experience as well, but it is not a "blank check" for her to determine what should or shouldn't be deleted; she still has to build a compelling case like anyone else (and she has done a good job of that.) Expressing an opinions here is not a commitment to volunteer time; that is often the result, but due to the choice of individual editors, not out of obligation. -Pete 18:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pete, I agree with two of your points. First, that none of us has a blank check, which is a v important point; the issue, as you say, is which arguments are more compelling wrt policy and guidelines. Secondly, you're absolutely right than opinion is not a commitment to fix, and should not be taken as such (I've had that one thrown at me by people who object to an article being tagged as unreferenced, and it's a v bad route to down). However, I have often at XfD seen an editor commit to fixing a problem, and in that case I am usually inclined to say go ahead, take the time to fix it (unless the article or category would be bad news no matter how much impoved). But if there isn't that commitment then we have to weigh what we have now against the likelihood of an article being improved, which is a judgement call, and I think it's great that thanks to your effort in improving this article, that judgement less of an open-and-shut case. For me the the remaining question, though, is whether merger would impede improvement, and I don't see that it would. If the list entry expands, then it can be split out again just easily as it was merged. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused about your suggestion re: merging. Moving the 3 paragraphs or so of text to the list would make it Haye the only one of the 100 people listed to have specific text on that page; it would go against the page's nature as a list. Can you clarify? -Pete 23:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh! And this is why I don't usually comment on serious topics first thing in the morning. What actually came out was not what I meant to say. Rather than try to backpedal, I'll admit my mistake, strike the comment and perhaps think of a better way to rephrase what I'm trying to say. Cheers, CP 23:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I didn't know other people had to worry about that morning self-censoring thing. No worries Paul! -Pete 00:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Is Wikipedia running out of Webspace or why someone want to deleted a lot of articels? Only because some admin don't interessted in this theme says that it is unimportened. A lot of people are interessted in supercentarions.
Statistician 15:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I don't think so, n/a. Your 2nd half question in your 1st sentence doesn't make sense, so I don't know how to answer it. Anyways, as far as I know, 1 does not have to be an 'admin' to nominate an article for deletion. Robert Young once nominated the 2nd oldest person in the world for deletion and he's not an admin. And your last sentence is irrelevant to whether an article passes the Wikipedia policies or not. Neal 16:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Arbitary break[edit]

Comment. I wish there was a way to put a group of articles under a common category for deletion, rather than just 1. Category: the oldest woman in France. See table below:

In other words, why add 1 particular article for deletion and not all? (Assuming these oldest women are only notable for their longevity and nothing else.) If you only add this article to deletion and not the others, then obviously I'm not inclined to vote just this 1 for deletion and not the others. So it should be asked whether all these articles should be deleted and not just 1 of the bucket.

My point? (Or in other words, my fallacy?) That if this junk must be deleted so should others. It could very well be that the plan is to afd each article 1 by 1 rather than all at once. But I don't know that.

And I can extend this idea of categorical deletion that: Florrie Baldwin, what about the oldest woman in England? She's only 111, and her article is not nominated for deletion.

It could very well be that I'm giving more ideas for more articles for deletion, and that will be fine as spoken. Neal 17:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • Comment Neal, you are absolutely right and as far as I am concerned most or all of those articles should be merged into one list. Note that the fact that other such non-notable articles exist is not a reason to keep an article nominated for AfD (there's a Wikipedia policy for this, but I cannot locate it right now). --Crusio 18:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS - Kittybrewster ☎ 18:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WAX. Ah crap, someone got to it before me. It's also important to note that overloading AfD with mass nominations is not really helpful to anyone. Also, if this is kept and the precedent can be applied to all those others, then it might make others consider not nominating those articles. Cheers, CP 18:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Okay, OtherCrapExists and WAX are about why this article should not be deleted because others aren't. I was reversing it, that if this article must be deleted, so should others. But that's nothing to do with this article.

Suppose we have the category: the oldest gender by country. Example: the oldest woman in France.

And hypothetically, every individual is about the oldest for about a year, from 200-2007. And everyone has their own article. But let's say that sometime, in like 2004, we have 1 woman, whom was only oldest about a week. And not much is known about her, she was never photographed, no media attention, nothing, so simply, she's just a first and last name, with date of birth and date of death. Therefore, she's noted exlusively for her longevity. Obviously, some admin may tag that for deletion.

Which brings to new articles for idea: the oldest gender by country, where in that article, there's a huge table, with the name, date of birth, death of death, an image, and possibly a short paragraph of biography. This idea results from the fact that not every oldest person by country is equally notable, so not all of them will fail AfD, especially when you go back down the decades.

I'm not Robert Young, so whether each oldest-person-by-country gets their own article or not won't make much difference to me, especially since I'm my own webmaster; I could easily make my own biographical pages. But I'd rather decide each person as a category then on the individual level. I'd be okay if every person had their own little article or were all listed in 1 article. So I would rather have all of them deleted, then to have 1 of them deleted. Vice versa. Neal 18:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

More comments, continued It should be noted that mass deletion of articles has been possible on Wikipedia. Some of you may know that recently, each and every pokémon has their own article. All 493 of them. Well, now they don't, they been broken up into a list of pokémon with each of them their own paragraph, rather than their own article. Did a Wikipedia admin go to each and every article, all 493 of them, and nominate them for merge or deletion? I hope not.

So an article like this will be satisfactory for me:

The oldest gender of country:

First name last name (born-died)

Paragraph, blah blah, photo.

Next person (born-died)

Etc.

Me and Robert debated whether the 10th oldest person in the world should get their own article, or the 5th oldest person in the world and above should get their own article. Then, someone noted arbitrary cut-off points are irrelevant. In reality, 3 skinny paragraphs in their own article can be merged into a fat paragraph. The problem is, within the next 25 years, we'll have too many articles, and most of them won't be long and in-depth. And Robert (whom I know will be reading this), you must admit you have each supercentenarian on watch. I know this because everytime I edit 1, he'll be there to point out my mistakes, and he told me so. So would it be easier if you had 1 list-article on watch, as opposed to each and every individual oldest man/woman by country? After we get this settled, we'll worry about the 2nd/3rd oldest person in country if they're in the top 100 later. Neal 19:02, 13 November 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 (closed by non-admin) I'll probably get a clip round the ear for closing this, but as a neutral it seems to me to be an unambiguous case of no consensus. I've read and followed this afd with interest and despite all the changes to the article since nomination the keepers and deleters seem unable to come to an agreement. There seem to be misunderstandings, either deliberate or otherwise, on both sides of the argument. To delete would clearly be against consensus as would to label this afd a keep. No consensus may be an unsatisfactory outcome, but it does reflect the actuality of this afd. (If an admin wants to reopen this afd it really should be one NOT involved in the debate}-- RMHED (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Coles[edit]

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

No evidence or assertion of notability, does not meet WP:PROF. The subject is an academic researcher, but there are no refs from independent reliable sources, and the article's main claim of Coles's significance appears to be as a co-founder of the Gerontology Research Group. The article was created by a member of the Gerontology Research Group, Robert Young (longevity claims researcher)/User:Ryoung122. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Coles is not a professor at UCLA. At least not according to the UCLA directory lists a him as a visiting scholar in the computer science department. Pete.Hurd 08:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

L. Stephen Coles, M.D., Ph.D., is the Director of the Gerontology Research Group (GRG) and maintains lists of supercentenarians on the GRG website (www.grg.org; http://biomed.gerontologyjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/59/6/B579 ). The GRG has become a recognized authority on validated supercentenarians due to the work of Dr. Coles and the careful research of Robert Douglas Young and Louis Epstein. In order to be certain of the legitimacy of claims to extreme age Young and Epstein require at least three documents that support the claim. These documents may include a birth certificate, a baptismal certificate, census records, and a marriage certificate to show a woman’s name change. I am personally acquainted with Dr. Coles, Robert Young, and Louis Epstein, and I can vouch for their dedication to present accurate data on supercentenarians. Many news stories cite the GRG as a reliable source of information about supercentenarians (e.g. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3071036; the Wall Street Journal of Feb. 25, 2005, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB110929999480364081.html; http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-12-11-oldest-person_x.htm; http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20031006/ai_n14564771, citing an AP story in the Oakland Tribune of Oct. 6, 2003; http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1970532,00.html; http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-minagawa14aug14,1,4586720.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-california ).

In addition to providing a reliable source of data on supercentenarians, Dr. Coles has participated in the autopsies of four supercentenarians (http://www.grg.org/resources/GJohnsonAutopsy_files/frame.htm; http://www.grg.org/resources/Palermo_files/frame.htm ) and one quasi-supercentenarian (www.grg.org/resources/SENS3HTML.htm ). In three of these autopsies the cause of death was determined to be senile systemic amyloidosis, a remarkable finding if additional autopsies prove it to be statistically significant.

Dr. Coles’ accomplishments warrant retaining the brief article about him. StanPrimmer 00:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC) — StanPrimmer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

User:StanPrimmer has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Ryoung122. - Galloglass 12:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coles LS. Demographics of human supercentenarians and the implications for longevity medicine. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2004 Jun;1019:490-5. Review. PMID 15247072

Coles LS. Demography of human supercentenarians. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2004 Jun;59(6):B579-86. PMID 15215268

de Grey AD, Gavrilov L, Olshansky SJ, Coles LS, Cutler RG, Fossel M, Harman SM. Antiaging technology and pseudoscience. Science. 2002 Apr 26;296(5568):656. PMID 11985356

Now, am I going to be accused of being a sockpuppet? And by the way, you totally screwed up with Stan Primmer, who is a real person. And that's his real name, not Brown Haired Girl. So pot, kettle, black. Give it a rest, you hypocrits. SBHarris 02:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - Stan Primmer is someone else. "Stan Primmer, a long-time member of the GRG and a Co-Founder of the Supercentenarian Research Foundation (SRF)," etc. Neal 05:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Please read WP:SOCK#Meatpuppets. Thanks to NealIRC and Sbharris for confirming that StanPrimmer is a meatpuppet. It's a pity, though, that we now have more than one person involved in the Gerontology Research Group engaged in this disruption, and it can do no good at all to GRG's reputation or credibility. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't YOU read the article, BHG? Let me quote: "As opposed to sock puppets, meatpuppets are actual newbies, and it is important to not bite the newbies. Users who are recruited as meatpuppets have presumably never seen the editing side of Wikipedia before, and some of them may broaden their interests and turn into productive editors. If meat puppets are disrupting a discussion that you are involved in, it is better to disregard them than to get angry at them or call them "meatpuppets" to their face." Don't bite the newbies certainly means don't block them indefinitely for being sockpuppets, which they are not. Stan is indeed a "meatpuppet" for purposes of this argument by the definition referenced, but admitting that means you people who blocked him are how obligated to admit you were wrong and now go unblock him, and also admit that you were wrong in the same space where you did your highhanded work. That's fair.

The question of "meatpuppets," itself by the way, deserves some discussion, but not here. I can only comment that I see no real difference between having your associates and friends come to Wikipedia to support your argument, vs. recruiting associates and friends to echo you, from among people who are already here, and post on your TALK pages. What's the big difference? Today's WP newbie is tomorrow's vet. SBHarris 20:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is Sbharris most all of these puppets are here at the direction of just one person who is trying to exploit this encyclopaedia for his own self promotion. I would have thought you, as a long standing contributor would be as appalled by his actions as the rest of us? - Galloglass 20:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fair question, I can see that it's sometimes difficult to draw the line between somebody's self-promotion and somebody who is promoting a cause by being a spokesperson for it. My sense (since I've known Coles for some years) is that he's more interested in promoting his passion, which is figuring out why the oldest people live so long, and how the rest of us can live longer. So far as I can tell, nobody has yet given him any medals or prizes for doing this thankless job (how would you like to fly around the world to autopsy a 115 year old?) but he's made some remarkable observations (such as the one about systemic amyloidosis perhaps being the ultimate limit to human life span) which I think will make sure his work is remembered. If you want to argue it's premature to do this now, fine. I wouldn't object if his material and that of centenarian tracker Robert Young were folded into the Gerontology Research Group, though I think there's a good chance that if this were done, sure are shooting somebody would suggest it all be split out again as separate bio material.

I suppose my real beef on "self-promotion" is that Wikipedia BLP inclusion criteria are hardly free of it, and most of it is for things which are pretty silly when it comes to importance. One way of promoting yourself is to join some organization whose purpose is to promote its members. That's why baseball Little Leaguers, professional wrestlers, and porn stars give each other endless trophies and awards. And these all qualify them for Wikipedia bios (look and see). Coles hasn't done that, although it would certainly be easy for him, since he's founded several organizations and help found at least one journal.

My other beef, as a Wikipedian, is how all these people have been treated HERE. If they were "famous" porn stars, it would have been better! Instead, we have Robert Young (a long and wide contributor with 7,000 edits) blocked indefinitely as part of the bruhaha. Another newbie, Stan Primmer, was accused of sockpuppetry by the same two admins who nailed Robert Young, and blocked indefinitely also. When it was pointed out that Primmer was a real person, the rejoinder was that, well, he was a meatpuppet. Which means that two administrators were admitting to not only biting, but mauling a newbie, AND doing nothing about correcting it. This stinks to high Heaven. So, as a long time contributor, what "appalls" me? Stuff like this. It's this behavior by administrators who should know better which hurts the encyclopedia, not a BIO of Steve Coles, for Godsake. Hope I've made myself clear now.

Sbharris, you refer to "recruiting associates and friends to echo you". Can you point to any example of where I or any editors other than Ryoung122 (talk · contribs) have asked anyone to come and post here? Diffs, please; let's have evidence rather than accusations. Note that anyone who wants to is free to watchlist another user's talk page or monitor their contributions: none of us has any control over who watches our work and decides to comment. "Recruiting" is a different business, it's asking selected people to join in and support a particular outcome. So I look forward to seeing those diffs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As soon as you can show me the dif where somebody asked Stan Primmer to join the argument. I have no evidence that he was specifically recruited, any more than I have evidence that you recruited the same person to block both Robert Young and Stan Primmer. But Primmer does follow a discussion list, which is no different than following somebody else's discussion pages and comments. "Meatpuppet" is a very bigotted term, as I noted: usually it means somebody from another venue (in the outside world) who disagrees with a pissed-off Wikipedian who thinks they know everything important about the outside world, already. But in this case, notability among people in another venue, is exactly the issue under discussion. So all this talk of meatpuppets is very odd. SBHarris 22:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The recuitment has been happening at Robert Young's yahoogroup, http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People -- but you won't be able to read it unless you are already a member, because Young has closed the group to new members since he began his campaign. But he has posted a series of messages to the groups' 827 members, calling for a massive campaign of votestacking and disruption. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"calling for a massive campaign of votestacking and disruption."?? Is he really doing that, or are you putting words into his mouth? If not, I'd like to see YOUR cite, as I don't have access to the group you mention. And I guess you don't either. SBHarris 03:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the sheer volume of Ryoung122's contributions to related AfDs, you'll see that he doesn't do brevity, so I'm not going to spam this AfD with it all. But if you want to see what's being said, drop a note on my talk and I'll post some of the campaigning messages there. In the meantime, you have alleged votestacking on wikipedia, which can be shown by diffs, and I'm still waiting for those. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On your TALK page?? I woudn't be caught dead on your TALK page. Not only have I seen how you treat others there, I've also seen how you use it as an excuse to accuse them of harrassment. I'm not stupid. SBHarris 03:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe we're arguing about how many times a gerontology paper in Science has to be cited by other papers to be significant. What, is it 13 and I missed reading the cutoff? I know, you'll say "more than average." Do you KNOW the average? Or do you just mean more than the average of academics who get a paper into SCIENCE in the first place?? [Shaking my head about the surreal place Wikipedia is, where there's a full bio on some kid who pitched to third place in the Little League World Series, and was found to be 14 years old instead of 12....] SBHarris 03:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment OK, SBharris, here we go, some comparative data.... I searched in Web of Science for all items published in 2002 in Science (excluding news items and such that hardly ever are cited, I only included articles, letters, and reviews). That gave 1283 items. The most cited one has 1779 citations. The average number of citations is 100.23. The article on which Cole is a co-author ranks 966th. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.... So, no, it's not cited below average with a difference of just a couple of citations. It is way below average for Science.... In addition, this is not even a real paper. I looked it up and it is a 2 paragraph letter to the editor (something most academics would not even put in their publication list). Cole is 4th author out of 7, the least prestigious place. I see no reason here to change my delete vote, quite on the contrary. --Crusio 10:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/blogs/paging.dr.gupta/2006/12/supercentenarian-looks-back-over-112.html

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/health/2006/12/19/gupta.supercentenarians.cnn

That's a lot more than the 'average' professor. It's also not a 'self-published' source. We also find popular citations with bloggers and the anti-aging communities:

http://pimm.wordpress.com/2007/09/14/sens3-stephen-coles-on-the-secrets-of-supercentenarians-slides/

Hmm, University of Cambridge, UK.131.96.70.143 03:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The 1st link makes no mention of Dr Coles, the 2nd won't work for me, and the 3rd is an acknowledgment for allowing Coles' slides to be used on blog about immortality. Nothing there that can be regarded as reliable sources. —Moondyne 05:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. CNN and Sanjay Gupta...not reliable sources? Rubbish. Your computer not working? That's the basis?131.96.70.143 06:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Robert, have you actually ever take the time to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources? I suspect you haven't because your comment seems to be saying if a name is in print then that is a reliable source. Per the guideline: "A reliable source is a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Evaluation of reliability will depend on the credibility of the author and the publication, along with consideration of the context." (my emphasis) A passing mention of a person in CNN or a blog only tells me that the person exists and that is not in dispute. What is in dispute is, whether the person is notable, and those url's don't help me answer that question. —Moondyne 12:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the argument here is being made in conjunction with the WP:PROF criterion that An academic repeatedly quoted in newspapers or newsmagazines may be considered to meet criterion 1. A small number of quotations, especially in local newsmedia, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark. Now, CNN and Worldpress are not local newspapers. And I presume it makes no difference whether the newsmagazine is a print one or a TV one? The point here is whether or not an academic has broad media recognition factor as being a "go-to" authority in some matter or other, not particularly verifiablility in the academic sense. That's something different. And Coles has that-- a number of peer-reviewed publications, but the argument used against him there is that these aren't cited "enough." But WP:PROF really doesn't have any hard and fast criteria, but it does give a number of suggestions of which any one is enough, and if you find an M.D., Ph.D. who is pushing at two of them, that should be a clue that he's not just your average Joe. In any other case I think he'd get a pass, but he seems to have gotten into the middle of a pissing contest which involves his organization (also under attack) and a colleage of his (recently no-limit blocked for no really good reason) and so it's gotten to be a mess.

I'll have more comments above, in relation to the "self promotion" question. If Coles was a real self promoter I supposed he'd be here doing that himself. But as it is, I'll have to do a bit of it for him. SBHarris 21:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into GRG. —Moondyne 09:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Hello Moondyne. The GRG article is also nominated for deletion, so you can probably cancel your merge vote and revert back through your strike-through. Neal 17:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks Neal. changing back to delete, especially in light of Crusio's new evidence of self-promotion and manipulation of impact factors as detailed below. —Moondyne 03:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, did I not add in the 4 tildes? Another shot. Neal 06:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment Not really, see comments from DGG and myself above. --Crusio 11:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


1. Coles, LS; Earliest validated supercentenarian by nation of birth; REJUVENATION RESEARCH, 10 (3): 425-426 SEP 2007
2. Coles, LS; Living and all-time world longevity record-holders over the age of 110; REJUVENATION RESEARCH, 10 (2): 243-244 JUN 2007
3. Coles, LS; Earliest validated supercentenarian by nation of birth; REJUVENATION RESEARCH, 9 (3): 423-424 FAL 2006
4. Coles, LS; Living and all-time world longevity record-holders over the age of 110; REJUVENATION RESEARCH, 9 (2): 367-368 SUM 2006
5. Coles, LS; Earliest validated supercentenarian by nation of birth; REJUVENATION RESEARCH, 8 (3): 201-202 FAL 2005
6. Coles, LS; Validated supercentenarian cases aged 114 and above; REJUVENATION RESEARCH, 7 (4): 271-273 WIN 2004
--Kletetschka 18:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Kletetschka (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— Kletetschka is new but interested in keeping relevant articles on wikipedia for others to learn.
  • Comment. - And these help this article meet WP:BIO exactly how? - Galloglass 18:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. - No actually they don't strengthen the case in any way I'm afraid to say. They show that he is an academic but nothing out of the ordinary that would warrant his inclusion in an encyclopaedia. For future reference I would seriously recommend reading WP:BIO and WP:PROF which give a good idea on what is needed to meet the requirement. - Galloglass 19:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that's a heck of an attitude for somebody with an interest in hereditary peers! Have you no shame? Coles actually has achieved something in his life by his own work, by earning advanced degrees and making scientific progress, not by birth to somebody with a title. But you just edited (let me see) William Molyneux, 2nd Earl of Sefton, supposedly notable for using his life to found a trophy cup for rabbit-chasing dogs! (And, actually, if you know the history, he didn't even do THAT. But I'll leave it to you to read about William Lynn, proprietor of the Waterloo Hotel, who was interested in increasing his guest numbers). The difference between us, is that I'm not out to get the poor 2nd Earl of Sefton, a giant hunchback who is actually notable only for driving a carriage too fast and losing a lot of money betting at the races. I don't give a damn about "perfecting" Wikipedia by removing some Irish buffoon from it. Sometimes people serve, just by being poor examples. SBHarris 04:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nobody is contesting Dr. Coles' qualifications as a scientist or denying that he reports without bias from a strict medical perspective. The question here is whether he is notable in an encyclopedic sense. That he clearly is not. I strongly doubt that "many people read his papers", because they are all published in difficult to obtain journals (unless one works at a University or other research organisation where the library might have access to these journals). --Crusio 19:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment REJUVENATION RESEARCH is a journal with impact factor greater than "8" in year 2006. Impact factor 8 measures highly cited journal with broad audience. Publications in REJUVENATION RESEARCH along with CV show that Dr. Stephen Coles is a notable person. This notability warrants recognition of Stephen Coles in an encyclopedic sense. --Kletetschka 19:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remark REJUVENATION RESEARCH has indeed the highest impact factor in the ISI category "gerontology". L. Stephen Coles is listed as being on its editorial board. I still don't think that this tips the balance and will not change my delete vote yet, but it starts looking like a close call. --Crusio 20:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question has he published anything other than the lists cited? There's a big difference between substantive research and a few lists. --23:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs)
  • Strange Something really strange is going on here. I can find hardly any publications by LS Coles in Web of Science. Most publications listed seem to be from somebody else with the same name. Seems strange that somebody who has published only some lists would be on the Editorial Board of a prestigious scientific journal. So I had a look again at Rejuvenation Research. It changed its name a few years ago from "Journal of Anti-Aging Medicine". Under that title it was listed by ISIS, too, but had an impact factor lower than 1. As soon as the name was changed it soared to the head of the pack with an IF>8. This is really, really unusual. Somebody with more time to spare than me might want to look into this. It may be true, but I do think this looks fishy, I have never befgore seen anything like this. --Crusio 00:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snap. I started asking questions ten days when I found myself on the receiving end of a barrage of spam for nominating an orphaned category at CfD, and the more I have burrowed the more fishy it has got. At the very least, there is an awful lot of hype surrounding the GRG, and much care is needed sifting out such facts as there are. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blatant self promotion! Despite what I just said above, I was too intrigued to let this go. According to Journal Citation Reports, in 2006, articles that appeared in 2005 in Rejuv Res were cited 186 times and those published in 2004 were cited 98 times (these are the citation counts used to calculate an impact factor). Of these citations, a whopping 137 and 54, respectively, came from Rejuv Res itself! It looks like the self promotion that we have been seeing on Wikipedia extends to ISI!! (I could actually have seen this in Wikipedia itself.... :-) --Crusio 00:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
and just slews and slews that mention him for a few sentences each on different old people
and there are more, I'm just tired of listing them all. He's notable. He may be notable as part of his organization, but he's clearly the public part of his organization. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. - I'm afraid the article as it stands contains too many statements that have proven not to be correct; not least the one which states that he is a Professor at UCLA. So as it stands I feel no option but to stick with my original delete. - Galloglass 18:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If having incorrect information were a reason to delete an article, then every time an article were vandalized it would have to be deleted. This is a debate about whether there is any "evidence or assertion of notability" for the subject, as it says at the top, not whether or not the article is in good shape now. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Continued). The Robert Young article has already been deleted, so that only weakens my vote for this 1. It should be noted that Stephen Coles's nobility for his GRG.org site is false (unless you think webmasters are notable). Sure, GRG.org has tables. But he isn't involved with making them. When the collaborators send Robert Young the data which he puts on MicroSoft Excel, Robert Young sends Stephen Coles the page, and Stephen Coles uploads it to his site! And that happens every week! In theory, Robert Young and friends could make their own website and upload their own tables, but that would mean being separate from the Gerontology Research Group, and I've suggested he become co-webmasters with grg.org and that hasn't happened. So I find Stephen Coles's nobility as a scientist then as a webmaster.

The Gerontology Research Group might also be a company, so I would find that notable (not GRG.org). I think the problem is the size of the small field of gerontology. Stephen Coles seems notable in the fact that his field is so small. I think he's as notable as my chemistry professor, but when you think of chemistry, you don't think of my professor (because there's so many chemistry professors), but when you think of gerontology, you think of him (since the field is so small). Therefore, having a Ph.D degree and doing numerous publications by default isn't notable on Wikipedia, whereas winning a Nobel prize is. But anyways, I'm voting for Stephen Coles mainly for the sake of gerontology (however small it is). That he may be #1 in gerontology but that isn't enough. But then, the people below him in the field are even less notable. In other words, I feel the notability for the field of gerontology isn't the same as with chemistry or physics. And I would like Wikipedia to have some articles on leading gerontologists. Neal 19:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Statistician 15:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply I don't think so, n/a. Your 2nd question in your 1st sentence doesn't make sense, so I don't know how to answer it. What an admin thinks and what an admin does are different. And your last sentence isn't relevant for support, at least according to the Wikipedia policies. Neal 16:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment The rewrite indeed did away with a lot of the flab, but what's left still does not point to any notability. The articles listed are eminently non-notable. The info on the Maximum Life Foundation page (Coles' bio, linked as evidence that he was an adviser to the CIA) actually claims that he has 70 scientific publications, quite a bit more than the 11 in the Wikipedia article. However, if one searches PubMed, "Coles_LS" returns only 36 hits. Most of those articles are outside his claimed areas of expertise and have an Australian address: this is apparently another SL Coles. More smoke and mirrors again! If the information about the 70 publications on the Maximum Life Foundation site is wrong, then why should I trust any other information in this (non-independent) source? In summary, as a scientist this person is definitely not notable. --Crusio 21:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment The patent listed in the article as reference 8 was accorded to LS Coles, California Institute of Technology. Nowhere in any other info about Coles have I seen anything about a connection with CIT, which seems strange. The patent is about a molecular imaging method, which does not seem to jibe with any expertise Coles claims he has. Any evidence that this patent is from the same person that we are talking about here? --Crusio 21:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Richard, you just changed "11 publications" to "at least 50" in the article. Do you have any sources to back that up? The hyperlinks you cite don't back it up. --Crusio 01:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And we're down to just one patent. I actually read the patent, Richard. It says it came from work done under a NASA contract. So Coles also was a NASA contractor? Or was this somebody else with the same name? --Crusio 01:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't even think about it. It is indeed a patent by the man under discussion, inspired by the first talk on imaging of DNA at the Gerontologic Research Group (that group being considered for deletion). "Doesn't seem to jibe with any expertise Coles claims he has" is a meaningless statement, since Coles has yet to edit his BIO, and is not claiming anything (if he did, you'd be crying "self-promotion"). As to what expertise the man actually has, since you don't know him, you can't really judge that, now can you? Not all his interests and areas of expertise will show up on PUBMED (to say the least-- the NASA and CIA contacts are real enough). In any case, the patent is his (and provably so), and if don't like that, or if it somehow doesn't fit into your worldview (laugh), well now that's too bad. SBHarris 03:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sbharris, I have no beef with Coles or anybody and I don't really like your remarks about my supposed "worldview". When I wrote about the expertise claims, I meant his bio on the Maximum Life Foundation site. So the patent is his. Mind you Sbharris, this is one of the few times in this whole debate that someone actually dredged up something that turned out to be real and verifiable. Thanks for getting us this information, this is a positive contribution. Now can someone please find some evidence that this patent is notable? Was it used commercially?
Concerning some other miscellaneous comments made above: The Pubmed database contains MedLine, going back much earlier even than 1968 (it goes back to 1950 and even has some older sources, too). Coles' activities in Life Sciences (gerontology) should be traceable in there. The Web of Science, which does cover computer sciences and such, does not list anything like "numerous publications" either (see above). Is there any backup of the "numerous publications" that are now mentioned in the article?
Above it has been said that Coles is retired from UC. Any verifiable evidence about what exactly his status was before retirement? Was he an assistant, associate or full professor? Was he tenured or a research professor? Why is he now an "assistant researcher" and not a "professor emeritus"?
Sbharris, contrary to what you seem to think, I don't know this guy and don't care about whether he's in Wikipedia or not, there's nothing personal here. I do care, however, that Wikipedia provides correct and verifiable information. You have made a start by providing evidence that the patent mentioned in the article is indeed his (and please assume some good faith here when I doubted that, there is at least one other LS Coles around in Australia). If somebody is notable, it usually is not too difficult to dredge up evidence of that. I have tried and not been able to do this in this case, I only found what has been called "smoke and mirrors", backed up by references to sites that were not independent of the subject himself (such as the Maximum Life Foundation page). If you feel that this bio should be saved, the best way to do that is to continue providing evidence of accomplishments that might show notability. Not by assuming that the people involved in this debate are conducting some kind of vendetta.... --Crusio 08:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking into the use of the "smoke and mirrors" phrase, and it seems that it was started by Galloglass, and then used by Pete Hurd and you (Crusio). What I don't see is any indication that you might be willing to say that you might be wrong. What I see is people overstating a position and then trying to defend it. I see Richard editing the article and improving it by removing unsourced stuff and adding sources for what is there. Carcharoth 13:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Carcharoth the phrase smoke and mirrors was used specifically to refer to the circular boosting of Stephen Coles academic listing uncovered by Crusio which the defenders of this article have either failed to address completely or simply tried to deny the importance of. This simply will not wash. Taken together with the hyping of the GRG by its members there is simply a lack of credibility surrounding both it and the subject here. - Galloglass 13:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I realise all this, but what you (and others) have failed to demonstrate is firstly whether this circular boosting was intentional (it is entirely possible it is an innocent side-effect of working in a small field), and secondly whether Stephen Coles has done this circular boosting. That is what I take the allegations of "self-promotion" to be saying. If what you really mean is that other people have engaged in smoke and mirrors, then you should say that. And please, a little less of the "defenders" talk. Wikipedia is not a battleground. We need to have a calm discussion here. For example, where has the GRG been "hyped"? The way I see it, an unbalanced article has been discovered following the Robert Young episode, and the imbalances in the article have been corrected. That is not sufficient reason for deletion. Please try not to lump all these articles together (even though I am saying merge them), and try and assess each one on its own merits. Carcharoth 15:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Straw man

Vote but not a vote This is a textual mess so lets summarize here, remember this is based on the current state of the article:

The article "is" notable and verifiable

The article "is not" notable and verifiable

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hirst's Law[edit]

Hirst's Law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The diagrams (Image:Hirstslawidea.jpg, Image:Hirstslawidea2.jpg, Image:Hirstslawidea2a.jpg, Image:Hirstslawidea3.jpg, Image:Triangle-1.jpg, Image:Triangle-2.jpg, Image:Trianlge-3.jpg, Image:Triangle-4.jpg, Image:Triangle-5.jpg and Image:Triangle-6.jpg), all of which should be deleted, give this "article" away as complete bollocks that the author made up one day. MER-C 12:53, 11 November 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 11:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grey internet[edit]

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

"Let me define the grey Internet..." No evidence of widespread usage, about 185 unique ghits, most unrelated. MER-C 12:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 22:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blulogic[edit]

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

Non-notable company with no secondary sources in regards to its notability, speedy deletion contested by an IP. –– Lid(Talk) 11:54, 11 November 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. The final comment listing many possible sources do seem to backup Shuki's claim of potential. I'm not comfortable deleting on the back of such a debat, therefore. I would suggest re-visiting this in the not-too-distant future and, if nothing has been or can be done, then it should be removed. -Splash - tk 19:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reuben Joshua Poupko[edit]

Reuben Joshua Poupko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a WP:NN congregational rabbi who, while he may have done sterling service all his life, does not appear to have done anything that could be called "notable" to merit a WP:BIO -- speaking up for "Zionism and Israel" and harping on Elvis Presley, notwithstanding. IZAK 11:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete as hoax/nonsense/pure vandalism. Pascal.Tesson 03:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fergus Hill[edit]

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

Notability asserted by claims of newspaper appearances however can find no supporting data on the internet to support this. Possibly a hoax article with the image of being legitimate by attempting to assert notability. –– Lid(Talk) 10:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy deleted. ELIMINATORJR 18:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PIERRE JOSEPH-DUBOIS[edit]

PIERRE JOSEPH-DUBOIS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable footballer. Has never played in a professional league, so fails WP:BIO. Mattythewhite 10:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirected by author to Clow Cards. ELIMINATORJR 19:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Clow Cards[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Clow Cards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Renominating; unnecessary in-universe mostly WP:OR article that is not notable on its own and fails WP:Plot#Not. This is an excessively detailed list of cards from the series that is already sufficiently (and in some ways better) covered by the Clow Cards article. Collectonian 08:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. The appearances of each card are clearly demonstrated in the images. So that's not WP:OR. Their personalities and powers are clearly documented in the sources listed at the bottom of the page, so that's not WP:OR either, and stating which episodes each card appeared in exempt from WP:OR as a reference to an episode is self referencing (for example, "in episode 29, X happened" clearly references itself to a specific episode). WP:Plot#Not also does not apply as this page is dealing with characters in a show, not the show's plot.

Strong Keep It is fully understandable that you might be unaware of this franchise or the significance that the Clow cards have to it, so I will give you some details.

The clow cards are the linchpin device around which the Cardcaptor Sakura franchise is written, without them there is no franchise.

Each card is a recurring character in its own right. They have their own distinctive personality, powers and appearance which have been laid down in detail by their creators Clamp. These are all clearly laid down in Nakayoshi in which the Manga was originally serialized and in the Clamp fortune telling book. The authors have been interviewed multiple times and have included extra panels explaining details out of universe and have written numerous out of universe guides and publications (for example, art books I-III which are specifically named in the references).

The Clows Cards appeared as characters in 12 Manga volumes running across 2 story arc, they were then mirrored to an Anime that ran for 3 seasons with no breaks and stared in 2 movies. All of which have sold internationally. On top of this they have been the subject of computer games across 7 computer platforms. While they are not individually notable enough to have their own page, they are more than notable enough to have a collective page.

- perfectblue 18:00, 11 November 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motivation Activist[edit]

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

Original research, among others. Original authors gone. Most likely PR. Leranedo 08:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 21:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cadderly Bonaduce[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 08:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

I have added Aballister Bonaduce. Marked for expand for 10 months, marked for cleanup for 11. This non-notable fictional character doesn't have adequate secondary sources to put together a meaningful article.[31]   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have added Adalon. Non-notable fictional character.[32]   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep (closed by non-admin) as per consensus. RMHED 23:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OS-tan[edit]

AfDs for this article:
OS-tan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

While I have put a good deal of work into trying to bring this article up to Wikipedia standards, it seems that it cannot be done. At this point in time the majority of the article's sentences are tagged due to for citations being needed and most of the source material for the article is in Japanese and generally hard to come by outside of internet sources of dubious use. Furthermore, the whole subject matter doesn't seem to be on par with an encyclopedic article. Darkstar949 08:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Thus the problem, while the OS-tans might be very note worthy in Japan and would have a place in the Japanese version of Wikipedia, they haven't had the same sort of effect outside of the country outside of small groups of people. --Darkstar949 01:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But if it's significant enough to get an Japanese language article, then shouldn't an English language one exist as well? 132.205.99.122 21:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked for a note saying "Wikipedia is not local" but couldn't find it...might have to do something about that. Regardless, my understanding of the concept of notability does not include a linguistic or cultural element--while English language sources are preferred for ease of verification, I personally see no reason why every article on every version of Wikipedia shouldn't have an analogous article on every other version of Wikipedia, provided notability is properly established. Might have to do something about that, too.... --jonny-mt(t)(c)Tell me what you think! 01:18, 14 November 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. Although if someone can verify this is a real place (a subdivision, most likely) a redirect might be in order, to a city or county article. W.marsh 21:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday Lake, California[edit]

Holiday Lake, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem to be at all a notable, defined location. Dougie WII 07:58, 11 November 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 11:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duel Monsters Expert[edit]

Duel Monsters Expert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable online game without referencing, may be copyvio as well. Prod removed by author without explanation. JuJube 07:33, 11 November 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 in both AFDs (Shadow Realm (Yu-Gi-Oh!) and Shadow Game (game)), although a merge seems reasonable. W.marsh 21:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Game (game)[edit]

Shadow Game (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No real-world notability and no references; there's nothing encyclopedic here that isn't already covered in the various articles on the Yu-Gi-Oh! anime. Prod removed by author without explanation. JuJube 07:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 12:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simba Recordings[edit]

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

Non-notable music label, so going against company or music notability guidelines, fails both. Tagged for notability since January of this year with no improvement. Optigan13 07:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because: President of nominated label, also has no assertion of notability per biography guidelines.:

Vique Simba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, since the current article is not the same as the version nominated for AFD. Elkman (Elkspeak) 21:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gil Montilla[edit]

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

Randomness... —Coastergeekperson04's talk 07:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's in a city from his district, so I added it in. Good catch! :) ~Eliz81(C) 08:40, 11 November 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 11:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katbite[edit]

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

Non-notable band, no references from reliable third parties. Only news link appears to be from single editor website. Tagged for notability since January 2007, and prodded, with no improvement. Very few edits to article ever. - Optigan13 07:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was REDIRECT. She's already treated as much as anyone else in the main article.-Splash - tk 19:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marilinda[edit]

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

Only notable for being the winning model of Project Runway 3. Nothing else is stated about her work. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 06:09, 11 November 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian riccioni[edit]

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

You'd think someone with this many accolades would have a verifiable article. But no, the 26 unique ghits seem more interested in someone caught up in the 2007 Subprime mortgage financial crisis. MER-C 06:07, 11 November 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 G4 by User:Chuq. Non-admin closure. ~Eliz81(C) 09:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The World Game Forum[edit]

The World Game Forum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is about an Australian soccer forum. It does not cite reliable sources indicating its importance and Google News and Google News Archives comes up with no references. Article contains little to interest people outside the forum Capitalistroadster 05:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was deleted by Neranei. Pagrashtak 18:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Douchebag The Card Game[edit]

Douchebag The Card Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Deletion Nomination Article is unreferenced, and is about a card game which was probably made up one day. No evidence of this card game being noted by independant sources, thus it is not verifiable in any way, and thus should be deleted. Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Aside from PROD (which would have been removed since there is an active person editing the page -- even deleted the AfD notice), and the fact that CSD doesn't apply here, why can't you believe it? - Rjd0060 16:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's complete and utter gibberish that's not got a snowballs chance in hell of surviving. Lugnuts 18:40, 12 November 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 11:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Law Office of Xavier Morales[edit]

Law Office of Xavier Morales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

nonnotable company [33][34] Chris1321432 05:16, 11 November 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 11:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Lagoons[edit]

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

nonnotable company [35] Chris1321432 05:14, 11 November 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 g3 vandalism, cut and paste of Richard Leech. NawlinWiki 00:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Leech[edit]

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

Article is a duplicate of Richard Leech, right down to the link to Richard Leech's IMDB entry. User has created other articles with believable but very inaccurate information ([36] [37]), leading me to believe this is a hoax article. Toohool 05:15, 11 November 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 a1, virtually no content; WP:CRYSTAL; no sources. NawlinWiki 00:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4:3 (film)[edit]

4:3 (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete wp:crystal Chris1321432 05:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was REDIRECT to Boulder Valley School District. Nothing apparent to merge given the treatment of other schools in that target article. -Splash - tk 19:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manhattan Middle School of Arts and Academics[edit]

Manhattan Middle School of Arts and Academics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable four year old middle school Chris 04:48, 11 November 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 11:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mu Iota Alpha[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mu Iota Alpha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability not asserted or evident. Decoratrix 04:36, 11 November 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 close, AFD isn't for talk pages. Non-admin closure. shoy (words words) 05:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Chris Marcil[edit]

Talk:Chris Marcil (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Chris Marcil|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Flaaaaaaaaaaaming! 04:37, 11 November 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 close, AFD isn't for talk pages. Non-admin closure. shoy (words words) 05:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Susan Wald[edit]

Talk:Susan Wald (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Susan Wald|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

removing pointless infos Flaaaaaaaaaaaming! 04:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was REDIRECT to Sawmills Studio following the merge. -Splash - tk 19:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous Records[edit]

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

Very short article that the PROD and speedy deletion were declined. Tasc0 04:29, 11 November 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 henrik•talk 19:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earth radiation[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. Expired prod but strikes me as as something worthy of a debate especially given the debate on the talk page. Pascal.Tesson 04:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Non-English sources are perfectly fine in the absence of English sources. (please take a look at the relevant guidelines) There's also an article about it in German at skeptiker.de. Pascal.Tesson 16:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As sources, yes, but as the primary justification for notability? Taking information from a non-english source seems different than justifying notability where there does not appear to be any significant coverage in any english media. It does seem a bit english-chauvinist though; I'll review WP:N. The only source I can read that I could use to add information to the page is the Bachler book. Also, do the non-english sources differentiate between Earth radiation, curry lines, Hartmann lines and ley-lines? With a non-tested, non-empirical subject like this one, it's important to make sure that the translation is to the correct concept when there's so many linked pseudoscientific ones that have no real tests for verification. WLU 17:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability as it is understood on Wikipedia is basically the existence of sources. That these happen to be in a foreign language is largely irrelevant. As for differentiating between earth radiation, Curry lines, Hartmann lines and ley-lines, I'm not sure I'm particularly interested in understanding the subtle nuances between various pseudo-scientific concepts but "earth radiation" seems as good a title as any to discuss all of them, though I can see an argument for merging everything into radiesthesia. Pascal.Tesson 17:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Swedish sceptics refer to Edwin Robinson and Cahit Coruh, 1988, Basic Exploration Geophysics, John Wiley & sons, New York, ISBN 0-471-61297-0 and Steven Weinberg, 1993, Dreams of a Final Theory, Hutchinson radius, London, ISBN 0-09-1773954. Nixdorf 17:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was MERGE to Animaniacs. This has been done (thanks to Gak Blimby), so now I will turn this into a redirect to Animaniacs as is usually done following a merge to retain authorship attribution. -Splash - tk 19:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Animaniacs Title Sequence[edit]

Animaniacs Title Sequence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not meet notability requirements and can not stand alone outside of the main article. Much of it is trivia information or self-sourcing. Some info could possibly be merged into the main Animaniacs article. AfD seems to be necessary as others have tried to merge with redirect and been met with reverts. Collectonian 03:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest with you, I don't think this article is that good either. It seems to be trivia, and stuff that isn't even that relevant to the Animaniacs article. I do not object to this proposal of deletion. Gak Blimby 04:11, 11 November 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. Sandstein (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Dessler[edit]

Andrew Dessler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (View AfD)

Not notable professor. Fails professor notability guideline Wikipedia:Notability (academics) on all line items. He's a professor with some scientific publications but this isn't anything distinguishing from the thousands of other professors. He is not significantly more notable than the average professorDHeyward 03:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The only place I've seen him is on blogs and this bio. His article doesn't assert any notability that meets the guideline. I'd gladly remove it if substantial information is presented. But this has been here for a month with no assertions of notability beyond what I'd expect for an associate professor and publications. Please respond with notability as it relates to Wikipedia:Notability (academics). —Preceding unsigned comment added by DHeyward (talk • contribs) 04:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not. See the now-bolded statement in my comment. - Rjd0060 05:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot void the comments here just because there have been new additions. If you feel like canvassing on the users talk page to inform them there have been changes, you can. I still say delete based on the changes. - Rjd0060 16:50, 11 November 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 11:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McCaleb Burnett[edit]

McCaleb Burnett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Delete Appears to be vanity page, performer does not rise to notability standards Eleemosynary 03:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even a hint of notability. Decoratrix 04:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete—No prejudice against re-creation in a state where an assertion(s) of notability is presented in a verifiable manner. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mick_Meredith[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mick_Meredith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Mick Meredith isn't notable at all. He's just some random comedian, this article is also extremely badly written. It has had the notability tag since March, nothings been done. Thmcmahon 03:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

03:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Montchav (talk) 00:20, 24 November 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 Robin Burger, Carla Kettner and Anna Fricke. Keep Susan Strickler, as, due to additional assertions of notability, no consensus established to delete. Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Burger‎[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Robin Burger‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

possible series of vanity articles LeyteWolfer 03:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the exact same reason:

Carla Kettner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Anna Fricke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Susan Strickler‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The reasoning for the AfD is that the article was ghostwritten by User:Wilhelmina Will for an unregistered editor who hasn't established notability and, frankly, refuses to. When asked to improve the article, the original author instead chose to harass the various participants (including Wilhelmina Will) to the point of being IP-banned for 72 hours.
I see no reason to speedily delete, but my doubts arise from concerns that the other ghost-written articles all revolve around other Hollywood writers whom previously have not established notability. The cynic in me is concerned that these might be second-person vanity articles, due to the timing with the current writer's strike in the US. Needless to say, I am not emotionally invested in it, so will not fight for a pro-deletion consensus, if the intent is clear to keep it. Thank you. --LeyteWolfer 03:01, 11 November 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. Sandstein (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother 9 (US)[edit]

Big Brother 9 (US) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I dbed it, but it was removed. It was then proded, so I decided to put it here. Thanks, Codelyoko193 (T/C) 03:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The winter edition is speculated due to the strike. Sources close to the matter reported to Variety the possibility of Big Brother in the winter. There hasn't been anything official from CBS to confirm Big Brother's return. Also guidelines of WP:BIGBRO state that until there are promos on television the article shouldn't be created beforehand. All pages that are created before promos or just a few months away from an announced edition are deleted until it is very close to the season's launch. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 04:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice - at the moemnt it reads liike an advert. Restore when the show actully airs.--Lucy-marie 16:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Way too early, I havn't been able to find anything to support this except for a fan website. I think the only way this page should stay is that someone should come up with some links to prove that the show has at least been confirmed. Seth71 20:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Falls into the same class as Survivor 16, which also has an article. The only thing speculative about this is when it will appear, not whether it will appear. --SilverhandTalk 16:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What's the date of the airing and recording of it, just to be curious? Critical info missing, obviously which it makes an automatic WP:CRYSTAL failure.JForget 00:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was DELETE ALL. It is very clear that these are considered over-granular and superfluous to their categories. (Note that cats+lists together are retained at times, but rarely at such a superfine granularity as this). Procedurally, it is a bit unfortunate that there was an expansion of the nomination partway through, but it has clearly not made any difference to those who came afterwards since everyone was very well aware that there was a long list of articles being considered at once whenever they personally arrived at they AfD. As such, the AfD could be viewed as being closed on the 'before' nomination and 'before' deletes and then the 'after' nomination and the 'after' deletes and the outcome would be the same. Otoh, we could just recognise a consensus when we see one... -Splash - tk 19:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Turkish dramatists and playwrights[edit]

List of Turkish dramatists and playwrights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

These were all mostly deprodded (seemingly in bad faith, but WP:PROD says that ain't no excuse to revert). They're all perfect examples of WP:LISTCRUFT, and are all redundant to corresponding categories. Closedmouth 02:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have added many more similar pages to this AfD which I believe can appropriately be considered under the same discussion. I found them on Ozipozi's contributions — people can check it out to see if I missed any. I did not list articles which had any content beyond category-listing; those can be probably be handled best in seperate AfD(s). Going to go nurse the carpal tunnel now. — Swpbtalk.edits 04:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rest:

List of Turkish television personalities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish tennis players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish chess players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish basketball players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish physicists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish photographers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish Music producers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish mathematicians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish bankers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish film producers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish fashion designers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish Cartoonists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish-Norwegians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish Mexicans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish people of Georgian descent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish people of Bulgarian descent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish delegates to major international contests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish winners of Miss Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish Aviators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish Archaeologist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish Writers and journalists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish Academics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish people of Albanian descent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish religious leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish musicians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish martial artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish sport wrestlers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish writers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish football managers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish footballers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish boxers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish mountain climbers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Olympic competitors for Turkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish motorcycle racers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish bodybuilders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish carom billiards players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish backgammon players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish racecar drivers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish athletes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish journalists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish theatre directors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish comedians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish composers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish Musicologist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Turkish television presenters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish sculptors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish screenwriters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish record producers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish models (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish historians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish educators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish calligraphers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish Businesspeople (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish Actors, actresses and models (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish financiers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish astrologers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish academics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish Cypriots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turks of Assyrian descent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Swedes of Turkish descent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish-Romanians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish Malaysians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish-French people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish-English people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish Egyptians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish Dutch people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish Danish people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Canadians of Turkish descent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish-Brazilians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Belgians of Turkish descent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish people of Bosnian descent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Azerbaijani Turks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Austrians of Turkish descent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Turkish Swiss people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I oppose closing the AfD and splitting it into dozens of individual AfDs - it is very annoying for the people who do not care about the problem. Possible solution is to create a single separated page structured so people could vote either en-bloc or per item. Pavel Vozenilek 12:12, 15 November 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 11:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Juros[edit]

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

Being a child who almost died from leukemia is (unfortunately) not notable, nor is being a magician notable. The intersection of these two life experiences is mildly interesting but not worth an article. Google gives about 600 hits for his name. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:30, 11 November 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. Addhoc 12:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Puppetdermis[edit]

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

WP:NOT#DICTIONARY Captain panda 02:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patpat[edit]

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

Article doesn't meet WP:Notability standards. Hirolovesswords 01:30, 11 November 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.


Hello. Thanks for deleting the page. However, I notice that large chunks of it have been moved to the Kersal page. Please remove those part because I did not give permission for that and intend using those parts elsewhere. Kersal Flats


The result was Speedy Deleted. IrishGuy talk 19:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kersal flats[edit]

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

A problematic article in that it's a POV fork from the main Kersal article. It was originally written by an editor who appeared to be using the article as an extension of his own website which had the same subject matter of the article and to act as a mini photo gallery. When the link to his website was removed from the article he took umbrage and appears not to have returned. The article isn't referenced at all and appears to be original research with nothing to back it up. Talk page comments have suggested a merge to Kersal, but a response was that as nothing is referenced there's nothing to merge. I've never seen an article with so many maintenance tags (11). Although the area isn't totally non-notable this article on its own is not the way to go and ideally should be a part of the main Kersal article. As a result this article should be sent to dev/null because there's simply no need for it. -- WebHamster 01:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I did not take umbrage. I have simply not had time to edit/update the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.62.147.107 (talk) 05:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to delete the page several time. I would add that the subject matter is of some social, economic and political importance. It feeds into a debate on housing solutions in the 1950s and 1960s and the similarities with the same issues today. From a narrow perspective the demolitions of these flats was the largest controlled demolition in the world. In addition the comments regarding the photographs are wrong. They are mine and are not taken from another site. Thus feel free to delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kersalflats (talk • contribs) 13:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot delete an article by simply blanking the page. If you wish for the article to be deleted an admin must do it, as you are the creator you can add ((db-author)) to the top of the article and an admin should delete it promptly. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 16:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the use sure can request deletion by blanking the page. Since there have been no other significant contributions, that would be per WP:CSD#G7. I have now restored the author blanked version and tagged for speedy deletion. - Rjd0060 16:57, 11 November 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. Despite much persuasive effort, there is evidence of successful persuasion. -Splash - tk 19:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fawn (musician)[edit]

Being a member of an NN pop duo is not notability. Passing mention in soundtracks or album comps is not notability. Working with a bunch of notable people does not make this person notable. Scoring commercials does not make a person notable. A followup from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vincent Covello(musician) --- tqbf 01:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's well documented? Cite sources. --- tqbf 01:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This change was pasted over the AfD template as a comment by User:Donnamusic. This user has made very few edits outside of the subject of the article. --- tqbf 19:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Donnamusic, you just cited a Businesswire press release. Press releases do not meet the WP:RS standard; they aren't independent of the subject and aren't subject to editorial oversight (anyone can make a BW press release for virtually anything, and it will automatically be picked up at aggregators like Yahoo). Do you have better sourcing? --- tqbf 19:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have several newspaper articles (paper form) documenting the sales of her song "Oneday" which raised 5 million for HIV/AIDS. It is a well documented fact in the media. The PSA ran with Fawn and Joan Rivers. I saw it a few years ago.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.233.64 (talk • contribs) — 76.175.233.64 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Moved top-posted vote. --- tqbf 16:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moved top-posted sockpuppet. Stop wasting time. --- tqbf 16:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What has been described as a magazine article above appears to be a scanned ad or press release - as evidenced by the contact information. Victoriagirl 16:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Valuable articles don't usually require the services of four sockpuppets to justify. :) --- tqbf 16:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A case could be made that all four of User:Donnamusic, User:Photomatt16, User:76.175.233.64, and User:Mkdav are SPAs from the same user. I'd be surprised if this article was kept, regardless. --- tqbf 20:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above text has been repeatedly top-posted to this discussion by the Donnamusic SPA. I give up on cleaning up after it. --- tqbf 01:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've moved yet another comment placed above the AfD nomination. It should be noted that this is the second Keep recommendation made by this user. It is also of some relevance, I think, that it is one of several Keep recommendations that have made the exact same error in their being placed above the AfD nomination. This includes contributions by the single purpose accounts Photomatt16 (talk · contribs), 76.175.233.64 (talk · contribs), and Mkdav (talk · contribs). Additional comment: tqbf has given up on attempts to clear this, but I haven't... not yet. In answer to Donnamusic's question, no web posting is necessary, all that is required are reliable, verifiable sources. Victoriagirl (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another top-posted comment, moved to the bottom. --- tqbf 02:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Donnamusic, the issue here is whether Fawn meets Wikipedia's notabilty guidelines. The references presented in Fawn do not meet the guidelines. Concerning the three pieces presented on this page:
  1. The scan from the January 2007 issue of Music Connection, appears to be press release or ad. Amounting to fewer than 100 words, it is unsigned and ends with the email address for Pavlina Krepelkova, a contact who, it would appear, works for Bobbi Marcus Public Relations & Events, Inc..
  2. The subject of the BBW Press article is not Fawn, but the "I Create Music" Expo (indeed, the article is titled "Another Hit for Ascap with the 'I Create Music' Expo"). The singer is only mentioned once in the article, as one name in a rather long list of attendees.
  3. The final piece, that from Plus Model magazine does indeed appear to meet Wikipedia standards concerning reliable sources. While by itself it is not enough to meet the notability guidelines, it is a start. Victoriagirl (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--hey tqbf--just got your message on my page--thank you. I'm new to this, and am appalled at the general immature treament from select wikipedia users here on this page. At least you took time to advise me. Donnamusic.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Abbott (politician)[edit]

David Abbott (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete biography of a school trustee. He was a candidate in municipal and provincial elections, but was never elected. Fails WP:BIO. Mindmatrix 00:43, 11 November 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 11:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haven Riney[edit]

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

Non-notable bio. No references outside of a non-notable film link, and a passing mention in newspaper article. Initially prodded, but that was removed, so putting up for deletion discussion. - Optigan13 00:29, 11 November 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bomstein Agency[edit]

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

Non-notable corporation no references going beyond trivial coverage. Tagged for notability since January. Initially prodded, but that was removed. No significant edits coming from anyone aside from a single purpose author or the company's IP. - Optigan13 00:35, 11 November 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Volumearc[edit]

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

Not-notable software. Most contributions have been nonsense on the talk page. DurinsBane87 02:55, 11 November 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 TRANSWIKI and DELETE. Having considered my options here, I observe that the transiwki recommendation reads to me as a delete afterwards; that the 'rework' recommendation is out-of-scope to an AfD outcome since that short amount of writing into the series article can be done without this article and also without the list on the artists page. I conclude then that whilst phrased as a 'merge' it isn't really, and that there is only one person who would genuinely have this merged and then to a target from where the content has already been expunged. Some content just has no home on Wikipedia. I shall therefore transwiki this to wikia:marveldatabase and delete it from here. -Splash - tk 18:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Zombies (homage covers)[edit]

Marvel Zombies (homage covers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is little more than a stub. Its listing information that if it isn't important enough to be put into the Marvel Zombies article, certainly isn't important enough to be put into its own article.Stephen Day 07:35, 11 November 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. There has been no effort on the article since nomination, and the problems remain despite the warning of having had it deleted once already. -Splash - tk 18:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patentcafe[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines for companies, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Especially the company has not been the subject of substantial coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Incidentally, the name of the main contributor hints at a conflict of interest. (The article was speedied, then recreated). Delete. Edcolins 10:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I originally marked to speedy the document, per G11 after the user had stated his/her intentions to improve it, I removed the tag in hopes that article could be saved. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 11:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Full disclosure - I speedied the original article and then provided advice to the creator on how best to go about creating an article that would not get deleted. See the conversation here, here, and here. Unfortunately, I failed to respond to his last message, figuring he had gotten along fine until I recieved the AfD notice. --jonny-mt(t)(c)Tell me what you think! 05:07, 12 November 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 11:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Rost[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines for people, Wikipedia:Notability (people). Especially this UN civil servant has not been the subject of substantial coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Being spokesperson for the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is not sufficient. (The article was speedied, then recreated). Delete. Edcolins 10:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skoop[edit]

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

Doesn't seem notible ChrisDHDR 11:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete all. Sandstein (talk) 12:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 1[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Also includes

Per this deletion review this AFD and those for terminals 2 and 3 have been relisted after an improper close. Previous AFDs shown below. We will stick to one discussion for all 3 lists As this is an administrative nomination no opinion on the outcome is offered Spartaz Humbug! 18:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - Just so editors fully understand what transpired. These articles were created less than 2 weeks ago. Up to two weeks ago, all the Manchester Airport destination lists were included in the Manchester Airport article, just like all commercial airport articles (the destination list was included since December, 2004). A peer review of that article suggested separating the destination lists into these "daughter articles" for length purposes. That's what this AfD is for, only these new "daughter articles", not the content in the Manchester Airport article. --Oakshade 03:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This 'clarification' has been added after the comments below and is contested. Regan123 00:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And-Rew, you need to make your case at WikiProject Airports and WikiProject:Aviation as likely deleting these specific terminal articles will not at all change the long Wikipedia practice of listing airlines and destinations in all commercial airport articles. Oh, and in my opinion in contrast to yours, LISTS OF AIRLINES AND DESTINATIONS ARE EXTREMELY ENCYCLOPEDIC, that's why WP:CONSENSUS has always had them in existence without contention. --Oakshade 22:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus has clearly changed on these matters. Restoring the information and removing the links to the (still) existing articles before closure of this debate is not appropriate. Regan123 00:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a WP:CONSENSUS link to the Consensus Can Change section. Where is the evidence of the "clearly changed" consensus on destination lists of all commercial airport articles? (Citing only this AfD is not at all a sign of consensus change BTW).--Oakshade 00:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus has changed on the list for Manchester Airport. Above are 8 delete or comment !votes that say delete altogether. 4 are for keep in some form. Consensus no longer exists on this article regardless of what other articles have Regan123 00:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a discussion for specifically this terminal article, not the Manchester Airport article. That's where you need to build a consensus to make such a major change to something that has been in place since 2004. The editors of the that article are there, not here. --Oakshade 01:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But this information was taken out of the main Manchester Airport article. It's just not encycloapedic, it's not particularly important at this sort of level. A specialist wiki, or the airport's own website would be more appropriate for this level of detail. And for me, that would apply to any airport under the sun. But we're only discussing this article here. Contributors to the main Manchester Airport article are as welcome to contribute to this debate as anyone else. - fchd 05:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was taken out for size reasons, not because it was considered "un-encyclopedic." (Read the Manchester Airport Peer Review which explicitly suggests creating a "daughter article" with the list). Never has there been a commercial airport destination list deleted. Never. For a such a colossal change (and it would be colossal) in in content such as removing destination lists from all commercial airport articles, there needs to be a major change in consensus with dozens, if not all commercial airport articles, starting perhaps at WikiProject Airports, not just one article. If an editor (or two) decides to delete the content from the Manchester Airport article and that article alone, I would be vehemently opposed to it as I'm sure most regular Manchester Airport editors would be. If there's a consensus change with all commercial airport articles, I won't have issue. --Oakshade 05:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was originally nom'd because User:Vegaswikian wanted the contents moved back to the main article. Fair enough. Also, regardless of why it is was moved, the debate has moved on here, to should we keep it all, which is clear from the comments above. However the contents are being discussed above for deletion. If this AfD closes as delete then merger back would not be appropriate. As myself and others have said, because something is decided for other articles does not justify it here. If the AfD closes as merge, then whilst I strongly agree, will accept that consensus. Also, I have adjusted my !vote above and marked it as such. Regan123 14:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regan123, you would have to gain consensus at the Manchester Airport article to delete the destination list. Period. --Oakshade 16:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep (closed by non-admin) per consensus and WP:SNOW RMHED 00:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


2007-08 United States network television schedule[edit]

2007-08 United States network television schedule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a TV guide. The actual factual accuracy of this article is debatable as long as the WGA strike lasts. Will (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been around since the 1950's, I vote for it to stay. --Yankeesrj12 01:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Bogus. It has already beaten deletion once. This is my favorite article. Without this article I would be on wikipedia a heck of a lot less. EXTREMELY STRONG KEEP User:Ppoi307 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.163.39 (talk) 01:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You dont know how long the WGA strike will last, who cares. It's the most up to date schedule possible, once again VERY STRONG KEEP!, and your also from England in which I don't know why you care about the schedule. --Yankeesrj12 02:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (Non admin closure). Qst 17:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DCC Alliance[edit]

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

Contested PROD: proposed for deletion due to lack of notability. Stormie 21:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done an initial rewrite of this article, cleaning it up a bit and fixing most of the missing references. I'll try to do some further work later. —Sladen 07:08, 13 November 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 Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye -- Mike (Kicking222) 20:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crap Art[edit]

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

One guy's made up word. Clubmarx 23:40, 11 November 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.
More