The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spebi 05:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schnitzerbagels[edit]

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

"Schnitzerbagels is a word that was made up by Kristian Hopkins from Fisher, Illinois." Says it all – Gurch 04:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Super Speedy Delete -- as per WP:OR ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 04:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I don't think this would qualify for any speedy except for maybe A1. Maybe could be speedied per WP:IAR, but delete anyways, as it is clearly a NFT article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• It doesn't actually meet any of the speedy deletion criteria, but that doesn't mean I haven't tagged it for speedy deletion anyway. Sometimes you just have to be pragmatic per WP:SNOW.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 05:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Junk article... per nom. Jmlk17 05:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not needed, not notable. • Lawrence Cohen 05:52, 21 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. GRBerry 18:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dalmål[edit]

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

This is complete gibberish, obviously incompletely translated by machine from the Swedish Wikipedia article "Dalmål"[1]. A specialized subject like this requires somebody to translate it manually who knows both languages and understands the linguistic terminology. There is no reason to keep this around until a proper translation is made. (There are other issues with the "edits" of the creator of the page. With contributions such as this or this, I am surprised he isn't banned already.) Olaus (talk) 00:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The English name for this dialect is Dalecarlian[2] and we should probably have a stub. But this is such a mangled partial translation it's worse than useless. --Dhartung | Talk 00:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a problem with the redirect from Dalecarlian to Elfdalian. Elfdalian is a peculiar dialect spoken in Älvdalen, which is one, peripheral part of Dalecarlia, but there are other varieties of Dalecarlian. Olaus (talk) 08:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per both Olaus and Dhartung. Good work Mandsford (talk) 01:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. Create article on subject matter! ---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 04:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 05:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or replace with a stub, if that can be done by someone who knows something about the subject (I certainly don't).--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 06:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and move to dalecarlian, notify translation desk Dalecarlian and Elfsdalian are rather separate dialects. I've been working on Claude François de Malet, that also was an article from French wiki that also was machine translated [3]. Bad translation from another wiki isn't a reason to delete but for tagging it ((copyedit)). Consider that machines are increasingly getting better, and very soon they'll provide quite adequate translations --victor falk 09:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think that the nominator's point is that it would be better to delete (or stubify) this poor effort unless there is someone who takes an interest in an article and has the skill to translate it accurately. I've buffed up machine translations of Spanish and Italian articles on subjects that I'm somwehat familiar with. Not only is the structure of Swedish more different froM English than French, the subject (linguistics) is specialized enough that most of us wouldn't know if we were doing the job correctly. I applaud you for translating the article on Malet, but there's no comparison. Even without a machine or knowledge of French, most of us can guess the meaning of: "Claude François de Malet, né à Dole (Jura) le 28 juin 1754 et mort le 29 octobre 1812, est un général d’Empire, auteur du coup d'État de 1812 contre Napoléon, durant la retraite de Russie." As far as a "translation desk", isn't that all of us? Mandsford (talk) 12:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're perfectly right. Both about there are many more and better anglofrench than angloswedish machine translators and that Dalmål is a tougher challenge than de Malet. Dalmål is an article I might be interested in editing, I speak swedish as well as french and I am interested in linguistics. Though I'm much better at improving translations than making them. For another example, look at France in the American Revolutionary War. It has improved from being badly translated to poorly written from the original fr:Guerre d'indépendance des États-Unis d'Amérique. The first step is to translate the swedish words and clarifying the most abstruse parts. From there, non-swedish-speaking editors can join in. Since I talk the talk, I have to walk the walk[4]. What about involving Elfsdalian and other swedish dialects editors?--victor falk 23:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that is what I'm saying. You can't really "copyedit" this mess. Unless you look at the original Swedish text, you won't even have any idea what this page is trying to say. It needs to be translated from the original from scratch (or, even better, rewritten from more up-to-date sources - this is originally from Nordisk familjebok, a valuable but often rather out-of-date Swedish encyclopaedia from the early 20th century). Why would you (Victor) want to give the credit for creating a page to someone who appears to be a habitual Wikipedia vandal, rather than to whoever actually makes the effort to write a proper article? Olaus (talk) 12:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think one can, see my comment above. As for its origin, I'd like to point that many articles are from Britannica 1911; some are little more than machine-translated and copypasted. This article is at a more advanced state than that, it has been wikified to some degree, categorised, it is sourced, and parts of it have been translated to wikipedia standard English. Whoever created this article is irrelevant, it is no longer theirs. Even if they've made thousands of vandal edits and only one legitimate contribution. Problems with vandals should be taken up at ANI or elsewhere, AfD is no place for requesting punishments against vandals. --victor falk 23:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't see the point of doing it this way, but if you are prepared to massage this text into something useful, I am not going to insist on it being deleted. The important point is just that it shouldn't be left in its current state. As for the vandal issue, he seems to have been warned already and has had other aspects of his edits questioned (judging from his talk page), so I don't think there is anything more I can do. Olaus (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And before anyone says, "It's not my job", yes, you're right, nobody is under any obligation to make this article readable. I don't think that Victor, or anyone else, actually has the time or the desire to make this article work, and that Olaus is 100% right that it's of no use in its current state. It's written in a bizarre Swenglish (Anglo-Svenskon?) pidgin that nobody understands. Maybe we can leave a stub that says, "And if you know Swedish, click here for more" Mandsford (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The author of the page has now moved the entire content, except the deletion box, to Dalecarlian language. He has also posted Norrlandic language in Swedish. (It is a copy of Norrländska mål on the Swedish Wikipedia. At least, it is in Swedish rather than Swinglish, but I don't see why it needs to be here to be the basis for a translation when it is already available there.) Olaus (talk) 07:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above :-) Stwalkerster talk 11:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A user had removed the AfD box on the page. -Yupik (talk) 20:08, 26 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 Lobo (DC Comics). Spellcast (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bludhound[edit]

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

Extremely minor character, made only one appearance. Fails test for notability Konczewski (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. Searching for 'lobo' and 'bludhound' does return some coverage but nothing substantial.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding Talk 10:03, 22 November 2007 ( seriesUTC)
• Delete as fails WP:FICT. It is a general consensus on Wikipedia that articles should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment, with each split normally lowering the level of notability. What this means is that while a comic may be notable, it is not normally advisable to have a separate article on a character from the comic. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Lobo. Appreciate the concerns above, but feel that a redirection works better for all, as a potential search term as well as preserving history per the GFDL and encouraging participation in Wikipedia. Failing WP:FICT is somewhat meaningless, as the guideline is not a test articles have to take in order to stay, or that being deleted is the punishment for not meeting rough standards. Hiding Talk 10:05, 23 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. Tikiwont (talk) 09:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Maire[edit]

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

Very minor character that hasn't appeared in prin in nearly 70 years. At best, this should be redirected to a list of minor characters. Fails notability test Konczewski (talk) 00:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There appears to be a painter of the same name by a Google search, who might be notable.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Deleted articles are not necessarily "salted", so an article on the painter could be created afterwards, if sources allow. If any user doesn't want to wait, build the page in your sandbox. Either move the article when it's ready or when the current one is deleted, whichever comes second. Jay32183 (talk) 08:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding Talk 10:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as fails WP:FICT. It is a general consensus on Wikipedia that articles should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment, with each split normally lowering the level of notability. What this means is that while a comic may be notable, it is not normally advisable to have a separate article on a character from the comic. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:FICT.   jj137 (Talk) 16:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - merge if the merged list is notable. :-) Stwalkerster talk 11:41, 26 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 01:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ScreamingMonkey[edit]

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

Does this article meet our notability requirements? MoRsE (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or put something useful in it. As is, it is a waste of space. ---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 04:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - non-notable, could be a speedy at a push, but not sure which one it'd fit.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as fails WP:SPAM.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:39, 22 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. Spellcast (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Performance 3000[edit]

Performance 3000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Motor tuning company written up by Performance-Dave. Is it notable? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. Appears to fail WP:CORP.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Performance-Dave:

I feel that our achievements are highly notable in the UK tuning market, while this is obviously not of interest to some or even a lot of people, our achievements are significant in the context of the area we specialise in. Therefore I don't believe that it is any less or more so notable than any other subject. There are plenty of topics and articles on Wikipedia that are of little or no interest to me and a lot of others but this does not make them any less notable or significant. We are featured in specialist car modifying and enthusiast magazines on a regular basis and are a media favourite within the field because of the unusual and sometimes pioneering work we carry out, this alone demonstrates that we are notable within the market. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Performance-Dave (talk • contribs) 10:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:CORP. WP:NN, WP:COI, has no WP:RS. WP:SPAM? --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:36, 26 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. Spellcast (talk) 16:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Systematic Layout Planning[edit]

Systematic Layout Planning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT#HOWTO. ELIMINATORJR 23:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as Wikipedia in not a how-to guide. Thanks!, Codelyoko193 (T/C) 23:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but can be salvaged into a merge and redirect Deletable per WP is not a how to guide. However, if there is effort, the article can be salvaged. Certainly a lot of work has been put into it. Suggestions for salvage include an article of design processes and how SLP fits in or differs. Another salvage strategy is merging it into the article of Richard Muther (the creator) and summarising it further. I have insufficient technical background to do the former but may be able to help with the latter. If decided this way, leave a note on my user talk page as something to do. Archtransit (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. :-) Stwalkerster talk 11:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki per WP:NOT#HOWTO. Taemyr (talk) 13:40, 26 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 with some Salt --JForget 01:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tablexchange[edit]

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

Non-notable website written up by an spa therefore probably spam. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom. Thanks!, Codelyoko193 (T/C) 23:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-Purely promotional advertising.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 04:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Consider salting - been deleted five times already.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per above -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 10:24, 22 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 blatant copyvio and spam. Mushroom (Talk) 08:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essex Agricultural & Technical High School[edit]

Essex Agricultural & Technical High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

• Copyvio of http://www.agtech.org, or spam for them. This article has at least twice before been trimmed down from a copy of http://www.agtech.org to a stub-and-external-pointer, and afterwards the copy came back. If the school wrote both http://www.agtech.org and this article, there is suspicion of spamming. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep-Rewrite article to tone down the sales pitch.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 04:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Copyvio, and uses a disgusting, advert-like tone (sentences beginning with "our") in the description - get this off of Wikipedia as quickly as possible and write a stub in its place if necessary.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I trimmed this article twice before to a stub-and-ext-link, and each time someone restored it to the full text. I have left messages in User talk:Patman1126 and User talk:65.96.159.39 about this. (I suppose that if both of them are members of the school's staff, then it may not be a copyvio, but it is still advertizing.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:36, 22 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 Withdrawn by nominator. TTN (talk) 01:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frank West (Dead Rising)[edit]

Frank West (Dead Rising) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a non-notable character that does not have real world information to establish notability. It is currently covered in the main article, and there is no current assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; no need to have separate articles on each character, and if another article is needed then they should be all on one page, like with Characters of Kingdom Hearts and Organization XIII. The main article handles things sufficiently enough for now. And it's unsourced (the end bit is false I believe) and basically reiterates the plot, which is a big no-no for WP:FICT.Keep, my mistake in not Googling his name. The article as it is now shouldn't be up for deletion. L337 kybldmstr (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Kybldmstr. :P Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete as per all of the above. This article is currently covered in the main article Greg Jones II 00:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. No real-world context. Eusebeus (talk) 05:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Copied over to StrategyWiki:Dead Rising/Characters. -- Prod-You (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - This is a notable character, he is the main protagonist of a best selling critically acclaimed game link. Plus, he has become quite big in popular culture garnering 40,300 hits on Google link. Smile Lee (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it concerns a notable character from a notable game for a notable system for which verifiable information clearly exists. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep This is a bad faith nom by TTN and unsuprisingly, his pals have shown up. He's the subject of an arbcom case related to his drive by redirecting, utter incivility and edit warring over such activity. He only nominated this article for deletion when I noticed he had redirested this article against consensus. He has not followed any of the steps on the main AfD page that should be taken prior to nominating the article for deletion so this nomination is out of order. AfD states: "Consider adding a tag such as cleanup, disputed or expert-subject instead; this may be preferable if the article has some useful content." Has he made any effort to request this article improved prior to deletion? Is there any discussion of his redirect that he's taken part of on the discussion page for the article? Of course not. This should be closed due to his attempt to WP:GAME the system. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 05:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No sources is a problem that cannot be fixed by any amount of effort or tagging. TTN has done nothing wrong, as deletion is the only real option. It is the responsibility of those wishing to add, restore, or retain material to provide sources, WP:PROVEIT. Jay32183 (talk) 07:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The amazing bad faith of TTN and his improper conduct throughout wikipedia has caused him to come up against an Arbcom panel and this cannot be denied away so easily. Circumventing the proper procedures IS a problem and one which I've noted in my original statement here, and you seem to have, conveniently, disregarded. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at your own history, do you EVER vote keep? Seriously. Do you contribute to this encyclopedia or simply take part in deletions? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note I've done some searching and have added more out of universe material to this article. I'm still hunting for more. Perhaps this will help overcome some of the deletionist arguments that it lacks out of universe material. I'm also strongly considering removing the huge chunk of "plot" detail from the center of the article. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The process was followed perfectly, and even if it weren't a perceived procedural error does not negate some one's point. "There are no sources, delete" is not a deletionist argument. If you actually read and understand policy and guideline then it is impossible for you to be either an inclusionist or a deletionist. In fact, those terms are very insulting when said to people who based their arguments on policies and guidelines. The deletion argument here is based on WP:PLOT, WP:GAMEGUIDE, WP:N, WP:V (especially the WP:PROVEIT section), WP:RS, WP:FICT, and WP:WAF. Deletionists make arguments like I don't like it or I've never heard of it, which aren't acceptable arguments at an AFD. Generally, I don't argue for keeping articles because well sourced articles almost never get nominated. If some one were to bring a article that actually showed significant coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources independent of the topic, I would be in favor of keeping that. Jay32183 (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then based on the sources that I've included today, will you change your "vote?" I've provided multiple independant sources which cover this character from multiple points. Thanks and I look forward to seeing your contributions to the encyclopedia. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (!vote changed below) Why the accusaions of bad faith? The nom has brought up a valid point and was reverted when he tried to redirect, so afd is a perfectly logical next step. This article doesn't even claim notability, let alone prove it, and if anyone really believes it's notable per Wikipedia's definition of the word, they need to prove that it's true rather than just insist that it's true. Miremare 14:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply The bad faith accusations stem from the way the nominator deals with challenges to his one man drive by redirect crusade. If you want more information on this, please see the associated ArbCom case which is in progress dealing with the behavior and reaction to it by others. [5] In this case, his bold redirect was challenged and rather than trying to discuss this on the talk page, he decided to jump past all the guidelines on the afd page and decided to try to get the article deleted rather than work with others since the consensus on the discussion page was strongly against him and he felt this would be a more sympathetic outlet. See this link where one of the parties in the arbcom has provided evidence of him saying precisely that: [6] Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Possibly TTN could stand to engage in a bit more discussion, but I don't believe (in the case of this article's nomination at least) that there's been any breech in procedure. You suggest using the cleanup, disputed, or other tags prior to afd, but it really comes down to what the editor in question believes it is possible to achieve with each individual article. If he believes a clean up or whatever other process wouldn't address his concerns, there would be little point in doing it. This would appear to be the case, or at least applicable, here. Miremare 15:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since I've added real world context in an attempt to establish the notability you sought, I'd ask you to read over the article and consider changing your vote. I'll try to add to this, but I've limitted time since its a holiday weekend and all. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as he is the main character of the game (which is quite popular) and there is in fact real-world context in the article about the creation of the character. If there is "no assertion for improvement", then the right way to fix that is to put a tag on the article. — brighterorange (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• For the real world information to establish notability, it must be impossible to cover it in the main article. It looks like it'll fit in with the main article's development section just fine. TTN (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where the hell you came up with that but it certainly shows you do not understand FICT at all. There is no such condition that it must be "impossible to cover" in the main article. "Impossible to cover in the main article", technically we'd have no character articles if we ignored stylistic and length concerns and just added huge blocks of text related to characters in the mai article, but this would make those articles unwieldy, unmanageable and unreadable. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem here is really the lack of significant coverage in independent sources. For example the whole character development section is based on a couple of lines in an interview. Miremare 16:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, and? Its a quote from the bloody designer of the game on an notable independent site. It establishes that the character was noted by an independent source. I've added material where this character was the subject of a piece on MTV, was discussed in relation to the gay lifestyle on a LGBT focused news source, and now on IGN. The question that the character is noted by news sources is closed, he has been. This has always been a question of clean up not deletion. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what I mean is, a quote from the designer of the game justifies the character design section, but doesn't provide notability. I don't know how much coverage the character receives in the MTV source, as it's viewable only in the US for apparent copyright reasons, but the innewsweekly.com and ign.com sources don't give him any more coverage than game reviews ever give the main character, and the gamespy interview never even actually mentions Frank by name. I think the info in the article would be better suited to a section on Frank in the Dead Rising article. Miremare 17:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The main character". Sure it doesn't have his name, but there is only one main character, one protagonist. I'd love to be able to translate interviews with him from the Japanese, but that's not a skill I have... and without that I'm doing the best I can. The character receives significant coverage. It does not need to be exclusive coverage. The MTV.com segment certainly is all about Frank tho. :P Its too bad you can't see it, its mirrored on the gaygamer.net site so if you want to find it.... Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it's referring to him as "the main character", I'm just questioning the significance of the character's coverage in an article that doesn't mention the character's name. Got a link for the mirror of that video? Miremare 18:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[7] Keep in mind, Dead Rising is terribly tongue in cheek and this video is very much in the same spirit. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that one's all about him then. This is a close run thing, and I'm not really very sure, but I'm going to change to neutral verging on keep. Searching through the Google results reveals that while there are few reliable sources actually concentrating on him as the major theme, various reviews do seem to dwell rather more on him than the average game character. I suppose it all comes down to interpretation of significant coverage, and it's too close to call for me. IMO this uncertainty defaults to keeping the article and that, coupled with the sources previously mentioned, is the reason for my change of heart. I'd really like to see the article's referencing expanded as much as possible though. Miremare 20:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it is. :P I also snagged another dealing with his "clothes". Oh Capcom, why do you make such hilarious games! And thanks for changing your vote. :P Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Information If you look at the history (linked above), you will see that TTN has taken the bold move of removing a reputable source from the article this morning. One wonders what his goal was? MTV.com is no joke, sorry. Comment He's done it again. If he removes it again, I will not revert, however I'd like everyone to note that he is removing content describing the character design, the motivations of the character design team and other real world perspective from an article he's claimed is lacking in such. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge content back to Dead Rising. The character development info can be added to that article's dev section; reception re: character can be added to reviews (though I don't think they strongly support the character). However, standalone, even if missing this MTV source, that's still not enough to support this article alone. --MASEM 00:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there are enough sources for a well written and verifiable character article, with real-world context. User:Krator (t c) 00:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw - This has stalled, so there is no reason to continue with it. TTN (talk) 01:49, 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. Tikiwont (talk) 09:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inter-County Scholastic Hockey League[edit]

Inter-County Scholastic Hockey League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Per WP:Notability (people) a player is notable if they played professionally or at the highest level of amateur competition. And it doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). There are numerous precidents for highschool leagues to be deleted. Djsasso (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lehigh Valley Scholastic Hockey League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lower Bucks County Scholastic Hockey League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pennsylvania Interscholastic Hockey League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

South Jersey High School Ice Hockey League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletions. —Djsasso (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails to meet notbility requirements. At best this information would be a small paragraph on the state / county education article. Flibirigit (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom and above. High school sports leagues are non-notable, and there are no reliable sources about the leagues; any references are nothing more than game summaries of teams playing in them, in local newspapers.  RGTraynor  23:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless reliable secondary sources can be found and added to satisfy WP:NOTE -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 05:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: agree with all of the above. Couldn't find any suitable secondary sources. -- JD554 (talk) 07:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia:Notability policy - Non-notable league -Pparazorback (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Not my subject really, but how is the guideline about notability of players relevant here? There are many cases where the individual members of a group are not separately notable, but the group is. This sort of thing in general in school-related articles seems a good place for summary articles.DGG (talk) 02:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just trying to show that the articles wouldn't have inherited notability from the players who play in it. It needs more than just the players to make it notable. The more important one is the organizations and companies guideline. --Djsasso (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. :-) Stwalkerster talk 11:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:17, 26 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. Tikiwont (talk) 09:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suburban High School Hockey League[edit]

Suburban High School Hockey League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable high school hockey league. Fails notablity guidlines Kaiser matias (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletions. —Djsasso (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet notability guidelines for oganizations. The players in them are not yet notable either. --Djsasso (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Flibirigit (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. JJL (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, would incline for speedy. Non notable hockey league. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless reliable secondary sources can be found and added to satisfy WP:NOTE -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 05:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I agree with Dennis The Tiger. An A7 Speedy for non-notable articles would be much quicker than having to have an AfD. You can always go for an AfD is a speedy fails, but you can't go for a speedy after an AfD. -- JD554 (talk) 08:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia:Notability policy - Non-notable league -Pparazorback (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. :-) Stwalkerster talk 11:37, 26 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. Tikiwont (talk) 09:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Western Washington High School Hockey League[edit]

Western Washington High School Hockey League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable league. As stated on page, not affiliated with Washington high schools. Google search only shows article page Kaiser matias (talk) 21:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletions. —Djsasso (talk) 21:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Even if it was affiliated with the highschools we delete high school hockey leagues on a regular basis. --Djsasso (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per policy. Wikipedia:Notability (people) states that athletes are notable only if they have played in a "fully professional league" or the "highest level of amateur sports", neither of which would be applicable to any player in this league. As for the league itself, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) states that it would be notable only if "it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources", and that has not been demonstrated in this article. Andrwsc (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails to meet notability requirements. Flibirigit (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable league, and according to the article, ice hockey isn't even a generally sanctioned sport in Washington state. Unreferenced, and beyond a few agates of type in local newspapers, there would be no reliable sources about the league. Ample precedent holds that high school sports leagues of any sort are non-notable.  RGTraynor  22:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless reliable secondary sources can be found and added -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 05:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia:Notability policy - Non-notable league -Pparazorback (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• If you do delete this article, please continue to delete the articles on high school hockey in every other state. SJHAGoalie (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That would be the idea. Feel free to nominate any others you see.  RGTraynor  13:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. :-) Stwalkerster talk 11:42, 26 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. John254 02:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ultzama valley[edit]

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

The article has only had relevant content created by 1 person. The article has no sources. The article is written more like a tour guide than a geographic article  Stewy⁵⁷¹⁴talk 21:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• ...which is more a reason for a rewrite than a deletion, no? Keep. Real place, real community of interest, real Wikipedia precedents, etc. Grutness...wha? 00:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Grutness is correct. The problems with the article is style and tone, not notability. Real place and major geographical location. --Oakshade (talk) 02:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- Agree with above. Article needs complete rework but is very valid. Someone take a stab at this one! ---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 04:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per everyone else, although sources really are required.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant keep The article doesn't meet deletion criteria [[8]]. Geographical articles are usually given much leeway as geographical sites are considered notable, even if only small towns. WP policy is to improve by editing, not delete. This is an article that needs to be rewritten. I will try to help or contact those who can help. Archtransit (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 22:03, 25 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. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 10:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister cast members[edit]

List of Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister cast members (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Completely unsourced, non-notable, useless and fancrufty. I personally can't see any value in the list at all; there are full cast lists for every episode and the total cast list has no merit to anyone. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 21:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. By contrast a list of YM and YPM characters would be of some use, although there are only a few recurring ones who don't have articles. --Dhartung | Talk 00:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete-Liked the shows but this list must go. Nice work though.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 04:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant list.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Yes, Minister. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. :-) Stwalkerster talk 11:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a pointless unstructured list. The principal actors are named in the main article and other actors where relevant. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:45, 26 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. — Scientizzle 16:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothic[edit]

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

Monster lacks real world notability, cannot be cited with secondary reliable sources independent of the subject, no real world context can be established Pilotbob (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- Pilotbob (talk) 21:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as stub has no primary or secondary sources. Dungeons & Dragons articles should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment, with each split normally lowering the level of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:15, 27 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 as inappropriate content fork per consensus. Jreferee t/c 02:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

War on Terrorism: Allies[edit]

War on Terrorism: Allies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was created by a user trying to justify his revert war on another page. It is pure POV, factually incorrect and unsourced. The only references (that don't even show up) are to other Wikipedia articles that don't even assert what Top Gun is trying to assert in this article. Most of the "allies" in the "War on Terrorism" do not acknowledge the fact and Top Gun is trying to POV-push his way into making it seem that the whole world is supporting the American campaign. In any case Verifiability not truth says it all and this article is not verifiable. Sir Anon (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I withdraw my vote to delete this page, please refer to the Move proposal by Victor falk below--Sir Anon (talk) 04:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP I do not see what's the problem here, all of the things stated in the article are true. I never said the whole world supports the campaign, only those who fight al-Qaeda and it's allies. Also all of the things stated in the article have been checked and sourced, they are linked to other wikipedia articles that support this one, also you should read the War on Terrorism article as well, it is all stated there. You say it is factually incorrect then the whole War on Terrorism up until now for the last 6 years should be factually incorrect. I didn't start any revert war, I have given up trying to explain to you Sir Anon the core of what WoT is about because you obviously can not understand it. I stoped reverting your removal of the list of allies from the WoT infobox. But you yourself wanted a source for the list of WoT Allies so I gave it to you, just did what you wanted. According to you we can not use other SOURCED Wikipedia articles as a source here. Why? Do you think that Wikipedia is totaly factually incorrect. The USA president himself has stated Lebanon is a front in the war on Terror, as well as Somalia, the Phillipines, etc. Don't even try to say Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan are not participients in this war. You said the "allies" in the "War on Terrorism" do not acknowledge the fact, well excuse me then what is the "coalition of the willing" or the NATO (ISAF) force. Verifiability you say? Where is the verifiability in what you say? The truth? You should firstly have to know what the truth is about WoT before you make such statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.170.203 (talk • contribs)
  • "the whole War on Terrorism up until now for the last 6 years should be factually incorrect" that's right
  • "According to you we can not use other SOURCED Wikipedia articles as a source here" that's right, we can only use reliable sources and Wikipedia is very much unreliable.
  • "Where is the verifiability in what you say?" I am not putting material into an article, you are. Please have a look at the following, this is official policy of Wikipedia and applies to all articles: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable,

published source using an inline citation... Any edit lacking a reliable source may be removed".--Sir Anon (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, OR and POV. Punkmorten (talk) 22:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, OR, POV, non-V. It duplicates information in the War on Terrorism article yet adds in un-cited OR. And, judging by comments made above by TopGun (I presume), the main architect of the article appears not to understand WP:V. AJKGORDON«» 22:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pure POV, war on terrorism is a POV term. Who decides what a terrorist organization is? The US President? that <BLP attack redacted>, don't make me laugh. RMHED (talk) 02:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:NOR --Strothra (talk) 04:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it then Delete it again just to be sure. Overly subjective, don't just buy the party line ---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 05:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as content fork.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unnecessary and out of context. Countries involved in terrorist related operations should be detailed on that relevant article. A list completely removes context, which is so important in this complex issue. Chwyatt (talk) 09:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - completely unfounded research.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 11:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - because there wasn't previous discussion --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is true. But this is really only an extension of discussions on the Talk:War on Terrorism page around the inclusion of a list of combatants. I don't believe that editors would want to have a facsimile of the same argument! We could C&P the relevant bits to the Talk:War on Terrorism: Allies page however... AJKGORDON«» 17:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

scroll down. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now It's hard to see how a list of blue-links is POV. I'm more concerned with the inclusion criteria since the WOT is only loosely defined, and what would be a RS for this. But since these issues have not been discussed on the talk page, an AfD discussion is premature without some basis for deciding. The first discussion of this should not be occurring here. I'm not opposed to deleting this later if it is supported by talk page discussion. Dhaluza (talk) 16:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a discussion right here, we have a week or so to discuss it here. I don't see why it should be discussed on the talk page instead, especially since this article was created by one editor to justify his revert war (for which he is currently blocked).--Sir Anon (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. What do say about my vote?--victor falk 23:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to War on Terrorism: Combatants, having such a one-sided list is rather wp:undue and wp:npov. The GWOT is a complex and much controversial subject, both as a war(s) and as a concept. With War on Terrorism:Combatants, one would know who fights who where and why.--victor falk 19:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this could be a good idea, clearly the countries that are currently listed as allies do not support USA on all their campaigns, yet your proposal would allow this information to be presented in a more unbiased manner. I would support the Move.--Sir Anon (talk) 04:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even combatant is a debatable concept. Some people say nations involved in ISAF in northern Afghanistan, not heavily engaged against the Taliban/al-Qaeda, are not combatants. If they are not fighting, they are not combatants. Others might say that military forces in a state in conflict are combatants. Again, a list has no context. And imo, a more vague list has even less value. Chwyatt (talk) 11:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Changing vote to Move to War on Terrorism: Combatants. Seems fair enough. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Also changing vote to Move to War on Terrorism: Combatants.(Top Gun —Preceding comment was added at 16:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as violating WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:POV. Not sure how changing the name changes the violations per WP:5P. Bearian (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If this article were to be moved and renamed as suggested above, the suggested title of "War on Terrorism: Combatants" doesn't follow style guidelines. A more appropriate title would be something along the lines of List of countries involved in the War on Terrorism. With that said, is such a list that useful? Most of the information here seems to duplicate what's already listed in either War on Terrorism or the content in more specific articles on individual theaters of operation. I don't entirely agree that this article violates POV - it's just a list, although the intro sentence needs a change - and if the duplicate information drawn out of the above-mentioned articles is the same, WP:V and WP:OR aren't deletion-worthy concerns to me either (so long as those articles are free from error). In any case, I have yet to see (in this AfD) much toward specific examples of POV, OR, RS, and so on. If it's to exist as just a supplemental list, keep it and cut out any loaded statements. If it's trying to fork off as a new article, which I don't see a need for, delete it. Tijuana Brass (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - moving the article to a new title does not rectify any of the policy breaches as stated by Bearian. There is no inclusion criteria (the country says they are fighting terrorism? The US says so?, NATO says so?, the UN says so?). There are some curious omissions - I would include the UK for its struggle against terrorism in The Troubles, for example. Moreover, some participants are regarded by their opponents as terrorists and by their allies as freedom fighters. Inclusion in this list/exclusion from it is highly POV. TerriersFan (talk) 01:30, 29 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. Spellcast (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blazing Ptarmigans[edit]

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

Looks like a decent article, so I didn't prod it. I'm having trouble seeing the notability here, and it would fail WP:SPORTS, which is the closest thing we have to notability guideline on sports teams like this one. Montchav 01:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:35, 13 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, Caknuck (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per nom, it does look like a decent article. I just say we keep and cleanup.   jj137 (Talk) 16:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The primary claim to notability seems to be the third-place finish in the 2005 USA Broomball championship, but I can't seem to verify that claim; USA Broomball doesn't have full tournament results for 2005 on its website and only lists the champion and runner-up. Google searching also doesn't yield any reliable third-party sources that have written about the Ptarmigans; most of the search results are for directories of broomball teams. GJ (talk) 06:49, 25 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. henrik•talk 23:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Llamatron[edit]

This game is not very important for an encylcopedia, so please delete it. - Drafting Steve

• Keep. A reasonably famous game; Jeff Minter is a notable game designer and all that, and being a commercially released game, it's probably covered in several game magazines of the era, so I don't think this gets glitched on verifiability. I'd like to hear some more elaboration on why this game isn't "very important for an encyclopaedia". --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep nominator has put forward no reason for deletion. User:Krator (t c) 23:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator put forward "non-notability", just no phrased as such. --Paularblaster (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable company, notable writer, notable game. Added a few links to the article, but there is tons of material. Probably needs a bit of a rewrite though. ELIMINATORJR 23:44, 21 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 without a strong consensus. Bearian (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Human search engine[edit]

Human search engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Disputed PROD. Original concern was

"Human search engine" is a neologism that lacks justification. ChaCha Search, the only mentioned example that has a WP article, calls itself social search not human search. Jatalla was speedy-deleted and MyShopPal and Search Amigo do not have articles. The mention of so many non-notable web sites in one article raises spam concerns.

There are now claims that this term really is used and a talk-page debate regarding notability vs neologism vs synonym with another topic arose that doesn't seem to be going anywhere, so here we are in AfD-land. DMacks (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep has gotten a lot of press recently due to Jumbo Wales discussing starting such a search engine. --Brewcrewer (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect. The term may be in use, but the thing itself does not seem different from Social search. Maybe between the two of them, we can get a decently-cited page describing this "guided search" thing? DMacks (talk) 21:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I would welcome any evidence from reliable sources that this term is in actual use. I originally proposed the deletion of Human Search Engine because an IP editor tried to create a new section over at List of search engines called Human Search Engines, and took it upon himself to move ChaCha Search into that section. If this is a term lacking any industry recognition, then such a change is unwarranted. http://searchamigo.net describe themselves in their marketing materials as a 'human search engine', and I believe this IP was trying to publicize Search Amigo. EdJohnston (talk) 22:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Both sides have valid points, but I don't see any harm in keeping it.68.163.110.9 (talk) 09:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan73 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC) — Wikifan73 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Merge and redirect to social search. At best this is a subset without independent notability as of this time. --Dhartung | Talk 00:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep My stance on this is well documented. All you have to do is read the Human Search Engine discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.97.74 (talk) 02:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I have heard the term used and seen it in industry articles. I am moving the article so the second and third words are lowercase. - Jehochman ^Talk 12:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This article does not have any notable keeping. Unless it's rewritten majorly and not wrote like a news site it will be better. If it is kept, it requires major cleanup. Jac _roe^Blank 21:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I seem to recall alot of press on human searches... IIRC AskJeeves had that feature. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- It is a very new subject, information is coming up soon. Let us see what is coming up. Randomxa (talk) 14:31, 26 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 and redirect. ~Eliz81^(C) 04:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mía Colucci[edit]

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

There is plenty of room for this in the main Rebel's Way . Do we really need an article about the show, a list of characters, and then ever character has their own article. Ridernyc (talk) 20:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The lack of substance to this article indicates that although it may be of great importance in Argentinian pop culture there may not be much to say about this character that can't be better covered in the articles mentioned by the no nominator.--Nick Y. (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Rebel's Way. --Brewcrewer (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The rationale given by the nominator seems to me to be a good argument for a merge and redirect, especially since a redirect here would be cheap and harmless. JYolkowski // talk 23:51, 21 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 and redirect. ~Eliz81^(C) 04:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marizza Pía Andrade[edit]

Marizza Pía Andrade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is plenty of room for this in the main Rebel's Way . Do we really need an article about the show, a list of characters, and then ever character has their own article. Ridernyc (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delte per nom--Nick Y. (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Rebel's Way. --Brewcrewer (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The rationale given by the nominator seems to me to be a good argument for merge and redirect, especially given that such a redirect would be cheap and harmless. JYolkowski // talk 23:52, 21 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 and redirect into Rebelde Way.. ~Eliz81^(C) 04:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rebelde Way characters[edit]

List of Rebelde Way characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is more then enough room for this in the main Rebel's Way article. Ridernyc (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete this information is pretty much already covered in the main article. Redirects perhaps?--Nick Y. (talk) 20:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Rebel's Way. --Brewcrewer (talk) 20:49, 21 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. User:Chrisabraham did a good job of removing some of the spam / advert material, but the core issue of verification of the subject's notability hasn't been met - references were either from Marlo websites or a furniture-related online magazine. If some reliable sources can be found to verify the subject's notability, this article may be restored. Tijuana Brass (talk) 23:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marlo Furniture[edit]

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

Delete nn company fails WP:CORP, lots of charities listed but no indication how much is given to each - if I give a buck to each of them do I get a page here? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I removed all of that information. There was no proof. You were right. Chrisabraham (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Although I prefer small businesses in my own dealings this one is too small to pass notability.--Nick Y. (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Marlo is not that small. Four super-stores and over 350 employees. "Over one million Washingtonians have purchased their furniture from Marlo Furniture."^[1] Chrisabraham (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SPAM, WP:ADVERT, and WP:V. --Brewcrewer (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I agree that the copy was lame but I have tried to fix it for balance, etc. It was too "SPAMMY" but I have tried to make it more balanced and neutral. Chrisabraham (talk) 00:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non notable small business. Chris! _ct 22:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Marlo has been in DC for over 50-years and has never been bought or gone out of business. It is private and family-owned. Non-notable according to whom? Joe's Diner, maybe, but not Marlo. Chrisabraham (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I tried to edit the article a heck of a lot because you're right -- it was seriously spammy and all of the words were "marketing" words and so forth. Please consider it again. Chrisabraham (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:LOCAL. --Dhartung | Talk 00:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep The edits help, and from personal knowledge I know this place is very well-known in the Washington DC metro area, but its notability to the entire English Wikipedia community is questionable at best. I'm inclined to give the article a chance since it's been less than 24 hours since it was created, but it definitely needs sourcing. Xymmax (talk) 04:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment May I please have a stay of deletion through the weekend, please, so that I can bone up on my protocol before you delete it, please? It is a holiday weekend. Chrisabraham (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You only need to say "keep" once, otherwise it can look like you're trying to vote more than once. Xymmax (talk) 05:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As audacious as it sounds, I would suggest that Marlo furniture is a sort of cultural touchstone for generations of ex-Washingtonians who passed through as poor students/interns/non-profit slaves/etc in DC's pre-Ikea days - who have subsequently spread out into the world. Almost everyone of the ex-DC student/intern/slave ilk over 40 that I have met had some sort of Marlo furniture experience (generally of mixed emotions, frankly). In fact, just this week here on Mauritius, I met a French/Danish couple who met while in DC - he studying, she interning. Their Marlo bed collapsed under them in the vigor of their first week of romance. Great story (better than mine, which concerned the customer service department, but they laughed politely anyway). Great shared cultural touchstone of the international ex-DC crowd - and frankly, no less culturally relevant than the "you remember that Scooby-Doo episode..." conversations that 30-something Americans have as cultural-bonding experiences at ex-pat bars around the world every night. Mark (my real name - I don't have a username yet) 13:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.192.81.96 (talk)

Keep. I'm a decorative arts historian weighing in. I study the history of objects, including furniture. There are entire organizations and museums devoted today to the study of regional furniture (and other decorative arts) so the argument that it is non-notable because it is regional simply does not stand up when looked at from a historical point of view. It "regionalness" is what will help people to date it in 50 years and may actually make it worth something. There is a Wiki page for Raymour&Flannigan - a regional store in the Northeast that sells very similar products. Seems like the Marlo page should stand for the same reasons. --Soydcw (talk) 00:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've lived in the DC area for close to 25 years and have seen many old mainstays die off. Marlo is one of the largest and longest run family companies in the nation's 8th largest metropolitan area. This area is also very transient, so maintaining a loyal customer base can be quite difficult. Larger, national chains have not squashed it like some many others. I would hope Wikipedia doesn't become solely a place for megastore entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jptrenn (talk • contribs) 04:14, 27 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 summarized content into Enemies in The Legend of Zelda series and delete the rest. These articles fail many of the criteria at WP:FICT, and Wikipedia is not a guide to all things Zelda (or any other game or fictional work). I've tried to incorporate a representative piece of each article into the more general Enemies one; editors who would like access to the deleted material for the purpose of doing a more extensive rewrite may contact me on my talk page. As a side note, the material seems to have been preserved at http://egamia.com/wiki/ . Tijuana Brass (talk) 07:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This applies to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Octorok, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moblin, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gohma, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lizalfos, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poe (The Legend of Zelda), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stalfos and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wizzrobe.

Stalfos[edit]

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

This article is an in universe repetition of the various appearances of this enemy from the various Legend of Zelda games. As such, it is just a duplication of that information with nothing encyclopedic added because of the articles lack of notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No evidence has been provided that it is notable beyond its own universe. _{« ₣ullMetal ₣alcon »} 15:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwikied and Delete or Redirect moved to the Encyclopedia Gamia edit the article here --09:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cs california (talk • contribs)
• Delete, fails WP:FICT for fictional characters. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it lacks real-world notability. - Koweja (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Enemies in The Legend of Zelda series, it has appeared in almost every game in the series Knowitall (talk) 05:20, 25 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. Tikiwont (talk) 10:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dayna delux[edit]

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

Non-notable model, only ref is her own website. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:V and WP:NOTE. --Brewcrewer (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable model, per nom Chris! _ct 22:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above :-) Stwalkerster talk 11:43, 26 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 summarized content into Enemies in The Legend of Zelda series and delete the rest. These articles fail many of the criteria at WP:FICT, and Wikipedia is not a guide to all things Zelda (or any other game or fictional work). I've tried to incorporate a representative piece of each article into the more general Enemies one; editors who would like access to the deleted material for the purpose of doing a more extensive rewrite may contact me on my talk page. As a side note, the material seems to have been preserved at http://egamia.com/wiki/ . Tijuana Brass (talk) 07:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This applies to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Octorok, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moblin, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gohma, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lizalfos, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poe (The Legend of Zelda), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stalfos and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wizzrobe.

Poe (The Legend of Zelda)[edit]

Poe (The Legend of Zelda) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is just an in universe repetition of elements of the character and gameplay sections of various Legend of Zelda game articles. Since this topic has no notability of its own, the article is entirely duplicative. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• What is this a duplicate of? — brighterorange (talk) 00:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete basically just a large gameguide/plot summary. Ridernyc (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwikied and Delete or Redirect moved to the Encyclopedia Gamia edit the article here --09:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cs california (talk • contribs)
• Delete, fails WP:FICT for fictional characters. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it lacks real-world notability. - Koweja (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge no reason not to put it into the Enemies in the Legend of Zelda series article. Knowitall (talk) 04:53, 25 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. Tikiwont (talk) 10:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

State of Mind (Music Magazine)[edit]

State of Mind (Music Magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

• Delete no indication that this free magazine is notable WP:CORP Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Brewcrewer (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete. Article has additional edits and references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by McKinley211 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable magazine. The single references from the magazine's own site doesn't indicate notability. Chris! _ct 22:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please describe "Notable" - as indicated before, more references to follow. See Relix or Filter Magazines...

• Delete per nom. :-) Stwalkerster talk 11:44, 26 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 summarized content into Enemies in The Legend of Zelda series and delete the rest. These articles fail many of the criteria at WP:FICT, and Wikipedia is not a guide to all things Zelda (or any other game or fictional work). I've tried to incorporate a representative piece of each article into the more general Enemies one; editors who would like access to the deleted material for the purpose of doing a more extensive rewrite may contact me on my talk page. As a side note, the material seems to have been preserved at http://egamia.com/wiki/ . Tijuana Brass (talk) 07:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This applies to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Octorok, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moblin, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gohma, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lizalfos, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poe (The Legend of Zelda), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stalfos and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wizzrobe.

Wizzrobe[edit]

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

This article is just repetition of plot and character elements of various Legend of Zelda game articles. It has no notability on its own, and will not be able to develop into an article of its own. As such, its just duplication in an in-universe way. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - I agree with the nominator that it "will not be able to develop into an article of its own" and is not notable outside of the games from which it came, therefore the reasonable thing seems to be to put it (back?) into Enemies in The Legend of Zelda series in a much reduced form. A simple deletion looks like it would leave a blank spot in that more comprehensive article. ◄Zahakiel► 19:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, per above. Haipa Doragon (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since this all OR and nothing is sourced there will be nothing to merge. Ridernyc (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original game manuals could be used as a reliable source, as could official Nintendo websites on the game series. Some longstanding fan sites might rise to the level of reliable sources as well. 76.97.163.77 (talk) 05:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwikied and Delete moved to the Encyclopedia Gamia edit the article here --Cs california (talk) 08:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - As per Zahakiel. .:Alex:. 10:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:FICT for fictional characters. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. - Koweja (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - As per Zahakiel. Knowitall (talk) 04:51, 25 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 Moved to user space for creating user, and resulting redirect was speedy deleted G6. Hopefully this can be created per our standards. Non-admin closure. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Egalitarianism[edit]

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

This article - a defined neologism - is a near exact duplicate of Vegalitarianism, which itself is up in AFD as a neologism at the time of this posting. Opened up separately in another AFD as a result, but I'm open to a speedy if the parent AFD doesn't hold out. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, and per re-creation of an article already in an AfD. WP:NEO alll the way. The author of both of these articles has explicitly stated in the Vegalitarianism AfD that he made these words up. Keeper | 76 19:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I was all set to argue, but when you read WP:NEO it really is clear. Off to Wiktionary for this one. Xymmax (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment. Um, no. Wiktionary doesn't want unverified, unused, made up words either. Did you see "Stig's" comments in the other AfD? He made them up. See what Wiktionary has to say about it in either of these places. Keeper | 76 19:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually was referring to the term in this Afd, which does pull hits under Google, and appears to be a term used in discourse in the vegan/animal rights community. "Vegalitarianism" of course, is another matter. Xymmax (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Dennis and Keeper: I did indeed coin 'vegalitarianism' but 'animal egalitarianism' is not a combination of words made by myself, they already exist as you will see if you search. I am attempting to find a suitable title for my article; rather than trying to find reasons to delete it altogether I would be grateful if you could let me find a solution to this issue. I don't expect your help, naturally, because you seem to be opposed to the content of the article, even it it seeks to make the voices of philosophers past and present, who have and are suggesting that the rights of humans and non-human animals be merged, heard by vegans and carnivores alike. -- Regards, Stig Shousokutsuu (talk) 19:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What gives you the idea that I'm against the content? I don't care about the content to that capacity, and no doubt the concept exists. It is still a neologism. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I am not opposed to the content of the article, and your suggestion here that I'm somehow against animals is absurd, and borders on incivility. I want Wikipedia to have articles that are of real topics. Not words you made up. Sorry, you won't sway me on this one, it's pretty much cut and dry. Whether I eat turkey tomorrow or Tofurkey is irrelevant to this discussion. Keeper | 76 19:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and potentially block this user if they keep intentionally reintroducing neologisms, against consensus. Blocks are preventative, and were designed for just this type of SPA. Mr Which^??? 19:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless reliable sources can be found that this term is in use, and the article is cleaned up. Right now, it reads like an essay, not an encyclopedic article. If the outcome will be deleted, stig might request userfication to work on the article, and move it to mainspace once it is ready. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keeper: Thanks for your reply; please take no offense though -- you have my respect. In your and Dennis' case it was the lack of support and lack of help that made me suppose the motivation for asking for the article to be deleted was more than simply adhering to the policies of Wikipedia. Compounding this impression is the AfD for 'Vegalitarianism;' it contains an abundance of evidence most participating editors are against the ideas expressed in the article. I refer to "hear the screams of the vegetables, and they scream delete as neologism" and "sorry, veggies," et cetera. If there would be any support, I would expect to see some help in re-phrasing the title rather than suggesting the deletion of the article altogether. Further, the article is not about the word but about a well-established concept. Also, I did not make up 'Animal Egalitarianism,' that is an existing combination of words, and I put this article up in a good-willed attempt (I also announced it on the AfD for 'Vegalitarianism') to find an acceptable title for the article should 'Vegalitarianism' turn out not to be suitable. Kind regards, Stig Shousokutsuu (talk)
  • ...ah, now it's clear. Many times, we use humor in an AFD when we feel a bit snarky - it doesn't mean we're against the ideals, though, it means we're just having a fit of silly. It would be hard to explain here, but if you look for a song called "Carrot Juice is Murder", you'll understand the joke. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stig, I'll reply on your talk page so that this discussion doesn't get to clogged with distractions. Keeper | 76 20:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Mr Which: please do not think I am trying to evade the policies of Wikipedia; I am, as I told Keeper above, trying to find a suitable title for a legitimate article on non-speciesist egalitarianism that is a non-neologistic term. I had just started on the article when it was labeled for deletion; me, as well as other, more prominent philosophers and writers, will be working on it over time to offer a complete insight on the subject. -- Kind regards, Stig Shousokutsuu (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the article clearly violates WP:NEO Chris! _ct 22:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I suggest stig blanks the page, making it an eligable candidate for G7, and then have it userfied to his page for further work, and possible reintroduction. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:46, 22 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. east.718 at 02:12, November 27, 2007

CAOS Calgary Animated Objects Society[edit]

CAOS Calgary Animated Objects Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unverifiable article about a non-notable organization. The 55 unique ghits don't help. MER-C 12:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable enough for an encyclopedia. There are lots of small organisations and societies out there but they're not all notable.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Organization, which was incorporated in 2003, has received national coverage for its activities consistently since 2005. The Globe and Mail, one of Canada's most respected national daily newspaper accredited CAOS with putting "Calgary in the pop-culture vanguard" for its International Festival of Animated Objects, the same Globe & Mail article also drew attention to how "Calgary...has become one of the most fertile spots in North America for ground-breaking puppetry" http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/content/subscribe?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FLAC.20050127.PUPPETS27%2FTPStory%2F%3Fquery%3Dchris%2Bturner%2Bpuppet&ord=2147520&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true.

CAOS and the festival propel a very active local mask and puppetry tradition into an international arena, all the while bringing international attention to the city of Calgary. Extensive coverage for the organization can be found in FFWD magazine-Calgary's weekly arts & culture publication: "Calgary is a hotbed of original, unorthodox puppet work" (quote from an article written to cover CAOS's festival) http://www.ffwdweekly.com/Issues/2005/0120/cover.htm, http://www.ffwdweekly.com/Issues/2007/0118/fest3.htm.

The organizations' activities receive consistent attention from CBC Radio http://www.cbc.ca/calgary/features/artscalgary/eccentric.html, CKUA Radio, CTV, and CityTV, CJSW Radio, The Calgary Herald http://www.canada.com/topics/travel/canada/AB/story.html?id=8839e51e-6bf3-45ca-a3db-e513a8fb48b6, Legacy Magazine http://www.legacymagazine.ab.ca/current_issue.html?IK=303&Step=2&Story=3, This Magazine http://www.thismagazine.ca/issues/2007/11/pullingstrings.php, The Gauntlet http://gauntlet.ucalgary.ca/story/10894, Metro News http://www.metronews.ca/uploadedFiles/PDFs/20070706_calgary.pdf, BeatRoute Magazine http://www.metronews.ca/uploadedFiles/PDFs/20070706_calgary.pdf, and numerous community-level publications http://parade.calgarystampede.com/entrants/Winner_Circle_2007.html, http://arusha.org/news/arushaevents, http://www.highperformancerodeo.ca/rodeo_past/2005/caos.html, http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:6ukKPLB8Dq4J:www.ramsaycommunity.ab.ca/newsletter/RCA_Newsletter_2007-10_scrn.pdf+xstine+cook+ramsay&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&client=safari.

CAOS was recently awarded the "Innovative Business Practices Award" from the Rozsa Foundation for Arts Management, indicating a level of recognition from Calgary's business community. http://calsun.canoe.ca/Showbiz/2007/10/28/pf-4611665.html

It may be possible to merge the article with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Festival_of_Animated_Objects as a way to include the information with another page, instead of deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puppet flogger (talk • contribs) 01:00, 20 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, TerriersFan (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per given refs. But put the refs in the article --Brewcrewer (talk) 06:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC) '[reply]
• Keep. refs above show it meets WP:ORG. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per Brewcrewer and DoubleBlue.   jj137 (Talk) 02:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above :-) Stwalkerster talk 11:44, 26 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. east.718 at 02:12, November 27, 2007

UAB Montgomery Internal Medicine Residency Program[edit]

UAB Montgomery Internal Medicine Residency Program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete not every program of every school in every university is notable and this is no exception - a merge with the university's article would be fine too Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete UAB has 84 residency programs, and "the only internal medicine residency program in Central Alabama" isn't enough for notability--not even if it were the only one in all of Alabama. And, in fact, it isn't even the main medical campus--the main UA internal medicine residency program is in Birmingham--this is a sort of secondary program. quite apart of the lack of notability of this program among internal medicine programs, it would take quite a lot to convince me t hat any individual such program is notable, just as for individual university departments. The UA medical school is certainly notable; perhaps even the branch of the UA medical school in Montgomery might be notable, but not one individual program there. The article is directory-type and public-relations information entirely, and I think I would have called it as speedy-delete for blatant advertising, G11.DGG (talk) 03:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:COI problems are apparent; mostly self-citation.Biophys (talk) 04:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Lack of notability. Tim Ross·^talk 19:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, could be merged/redirected if fixed WP guidelines allow for a company's product to have an article in some cases. Though UAB is not a company, if rewritten, the article could be merged into University of Alabama Montgomery (similar to the parent company). In fact, the history section of the article seems like a good start for a UAM article. Deciding admin should consider creating a new article with the history section of this article and redirect. If so, I am willing to help with writing, just let me know on my user talk page. Archtransit (talk) 22:31, 23 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 by East718. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otters ASC[edit]

Otters ASC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) Delete nn team in non-professional league, no independent sources showing notability Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:31, 21 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. Carioca (talk) 00:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dual Blades[edit]

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

Delete no sources to indicate that this video game is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sources available on Game Rankings at [9], including [10] GameSpy, [11] IGN and [12] GameSpot. Please, fire up a game review database if you're concerned about a game's notability, if it's on a modern major console then 9 times out of 10 you'll get reliable sources in seconds.Someone another (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above and publisher. User:Krator (t c) 19:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable, but in need of cleanup. I cleaned it up and removed the copyvio, now it needs expansion. Pagrashtak 19:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above :-) Stwalkerster talk 11:45, 26 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 summarized content into Enemies in The Legend of Zelda series and delete the rest. These articles fail many of the criteria at WP:FICT, and Wikipedia is not a guide to all things Zelda (or any other game or fictional work). I've tried to incorporate a representative piece of each article into the more general Enemies one; editors who would like access to the deleted material for the purpose of doing a more extensive rewrite may contact me on my talk page. As a side note, the material seems to have been preserved at http://egamia.com/wiki/ . Tijuana Brass (talk) 07:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This applies to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Octorok, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moblin, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gohma, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lizalfos, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poe (The Legend of Zelda), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stalfos and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wizzrobe.

Lizalfos[edit]

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

This article is a regurgitation of the character and gameplay sections of various Legend of Zelda articles, and has no notability to speak of. As such, it is pure duplication and has no potential for any encyclopedic coverage. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwikied and Delete or Redirect moved to the Encyclopedia Gamia edit the article here --09:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cs california (talk • contribs)
• Delete, fails WP:FICT for fictional characters. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it lacks real-world notability. - Koweja (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Transwiki depending on if it qualifies as a "Recurring enemies in The Legend of Zelda series".Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 07:36, 25 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 summarized content into Enemies in The Legend of Zelda series and delete the rest. These articles fail many of the criteria at WP:FICT, and Wikipedia is not a guide to all things Zelda (or any other game or fictional work). I've tried to incorporate a representative piece of each article into the more general Enemies one; editors who would like access to the deleted material for the purpose of doing a more extensive rewrite may contact me on my talk page. As a side note, the material seems to have been preserved at http://egamia.com/wiki/ . Tijuana Brass (talk) 07:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This applies to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Octorok, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moblin, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gohma, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lizalfos, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poe (The Legend of Zelda), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stalfos and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wizzrobe.

Gohma[edit]

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

The article is just a regurgitation of the character and gameplay sections of several Legend of Zelda game articles. Since the creature in question has no notability, the article is just an in-universe duplication of elements of other articles and provides no encyclopedic coverage. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:FICT for fictional characters. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it lacks real-world notability. - Koweja (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Enemies in The Legend of Zelda series, however do significant cutting. Knowitall (talk) 04:55, 25 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. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MONTH[edit]

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

Reason Mr.whiskers (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close The article doesn't exist and this is messing up articles such as this. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This is not fair, it is a good list and a good thing to have. PS3 gamers should fight this with all their might. Anyway if this is deleted someone else will just remake it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.179.47 (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close Per Mattythewhite. Inexplicable AfD nom given that no such page exists. And (per note) is causing some linking issues where the MONTH template is used. Guliolopez (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close I removed the AFD message from the Template:MONTH page because it was ruining every article that uses Template:dts2. MONTH is a template, not an article. --Pixelface (talk) 18:03, 21 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 Concensus to delete. Davewild (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Hat[edit]

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

PROD Deletion contested at DRV and restored. But the reasons for the PROD deletion still stand. The only source is the company web-site. So without independant sourcing, there's no evidence that this passed WP:CORP. TexasAndroid (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Company is notable, it passes the google test with 65,300 ghits. It has citations from credible newspapers, and other sources. --evrik ^(talk) 17:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. To start, 65,000+ Ghits does not necessarily prove notability. Most of the hits are blogs/directory type hits. I did the same search in News and received significantly fewer hits, not that that in itself necessarily disproves notability, I'll admit. Without reliable sourcing though, I still say delete. The information is probably more suitable for Wikitravel. Keeper | 76 18:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I found quite a few independent sources with little difficulty, but then again that didn't surprise me since this is definitely iconic, it has a reputation far beyond LA (as an aside,I seem to recall seeing a segment about The Hat on Food Tv or Travel Channel). I think this is just a forgotten stub about a quite famous eatery, hopefully someone will flesh it out a bit.Jacksinterweb (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Care to share any of these "independent sources" that were so easy to find? I found, also with "little difficulty", a multitude of blog posts, which are not reliable sources but merely opinions. I would be happy to change my position in this discussion with reliable sources. Again, it needs to cite sources that establish notability, not that merely state that it exists, or that so and so likes eating there and thinks its iconic. Keeper | 76 19:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please document the policy that syas that blog posts can't be counted as reliable sources, or is this your opinion? --evrik ^(talk) 19:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not "policy", but a general summary of how the project views weblogs can be found here. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, TexasAndroid, I just found that reference and came here to post it, you beat me to it! Keeper | 76 20:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per the note below, there are a number of newspaper articles that can be cited. When I get a chance i will add them in. --evrik ^(talk) 04:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment, my position of delete is getting weaker (but it's still delete) per additions made to the article by evrik. However, all but the first reference (LA times)(sorry, LA Daily News) are not reliable. Chubbypanda: blog for a food critic - by definitioin , opinion. Temple City Chamber of Commerce: reads like a promo, which it is (trust me, my company has been "written up" by a CoC newsletter - it's all adspeak. Not reliable) Campuscircle. Non notable source, mostly paid ads. Manta - business profile, however - it has a wiki portion. I was able to go in and change the business profile with a username. I know nothing about the Hat, but I was able to update info. (don't worry, I didn't save anything). The last two are blogspots. The only ref that's decent is the first (LA timesLA Daily News), but really it isn't much more than a press release with a brief bio of the origins. I like it as a source, but the article still needs more to establish notability. Keeper | 76 20:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article now appears to be well-sourced, which shows that it is a notable topic. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Which of the blog posts and chamber of commerce advertisements do you believe make this well sourced? Yes, "the Hat" exists, and people like eating there. (Personally, I love pastrami.) However, that doesn't make it notable by Wikipedia standards. Still need sources to prove, reliably, that it is worthy of this project, as opposed to Wikitravel or my/you/space/tube. Keeper | 76 21:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I see that since the accusatory (or perhaps just snarky) challenge to show sources, they have been revealed. Granted newspaper sources in this case are either reviews or business items about the chain. Reviews are indeed just opinions...about the food. Reviews also give context to the restaurant beyond how tasty the food is (or isn't). Reviews speak to The Hat being more than just a burger joint, but indeed part of the landscape of LA. I know that in this missionary zeal to delete (or "obliterate") its easy to dismiss reviews, or Ghits as having no weight, but I think thats a mistake (WP in fact allows for editors to think outside of the box). We should try to see the context of 35000 ghits and dozens of reviews, that there might be something there. The fact that the orignal editors did not cite this properly does not mean it can't be done. Jacksinterweb (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Blogs and Flickr as references? No way. Sounds delicious, but fails notability. Jmlk17 04:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Jmlk17! Sounds great but isn't wikiable!---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 06:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Jmlk17: ((flickr-inline)) is an external link and not a reference. --evrik ^(talk) 04:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Appears notable and sourceable. In general, popular 10-outlet chain restaurants that are expanding aggressively usually turn out to fit notability guidelines - you just have to look for the articles. There's some significant independent coverage from reliable sources somewhere in this list [13] - Orange County Register and a few others have stories about them as opposed to just restaurant reviews.Wikidemo (talk) 12:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As the article says," locally iconic". That's not enough for notability. small restaurant chain. If LA has a local-interest wikia, that would be the place for this article. DGG (talk) 03:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So then, by that standard we should AfD Carnegie Deli? The article is referenced in Cuisine of California. --evrik ^(talk) 04:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to make your case. The Hat may very well be notable, it may not be, that's what we're here to decide. I'm sorry if some of the editors think I'm coming off "snarky", it's truly not my intent. Articles require sources though. Full stop. The proof of notability is its appearance in established, independent, reliable (read: fact-checked) sources. Not blogs, not food critc reviews (they review every restaurant eventually, its called finding work and getting paid to eat your food.) Being reviewde by someone that is paid to go eat at a restaurant doesn't make every restaurant notable beyond Wikitravel entries. We are not here to compare its article to other articles that could just as easily be nominated for AfD and maybe just haven't yet. Keep improving the article, Evrik (and others), its looking much better. But calling another editor's opinions "accustory" (Jacksinterweb), is just, well, accusatory. Keeper | 76 15:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm ... When I said, "So then, by that standard we should AfD Carnegie Deli?" I was posing a rhetorical question in response to DGG's comment, "locally iconic. That's not enough for notability." I don't think that the size of the chain has any impact on notability, and using that as a reason to say it should be deleted is not valid. --evrik ^(talk) 17:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed about the size of the chain - a long chain of restaurants doesn't make you automatically notable, nor does being a single storefront (mom&pop or otherwise) make you nonnotable. The key is in the sourcing. Thank you for clarifying your rhetorical question (that I obviously took too literally.) Sorry about the "WP:____" spam. I've looked through the sources that have been added recently (I believe mostly by evrik) and hope the trend continues to make this a quality article, if it in fact stays. Keeper | 76 17:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I added a few more references, and an image. With more time, I thik the article copuld grow in terms of its history and its relationship to SoCal culture. To red some of the refernces, you may need a subscripiton to a news service. --evrik ^(talk) 22:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We have room for "locally iconic" restaurants as long as we have multiple sources to prove that they're iconic. I think the current refs are sufficient. Zagalejo^^^ 23:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well sourced and is notable in the San Gabriel Valley area. It is the flagship restaurant of a well-known regional franchise. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 01:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a good article for a chain local to millions of people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenFrantzDale (talk • contribs) 19:42, 25 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. east.718 at 02:10, November 27, 2007

Between the Lines (Xena episode)[edit]

Between the Lines (Xena episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable episode of Xena. The article consists basically nothing more then a short plot summary. Ridernyc (talk) 17:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Most episodes of Xena are non-notable episodes of Xena. Mandsford (talk) 17:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect anything worthwhile to List of Xena: Warrior Princess episodes per WP:EPISODE. Otto4711 (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is nothing to merge that a fan couldn't come up with in 30 seconds. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn; make a single plot summaries page for all eps if desired. JJL (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but be very careful about merging. This article was created by the sock (now blocked) of a user I blocked for persistent copyvios. This user has been posting Xena material copied from various fan websites. The user does not appear to be a native speaker of English, as his/her few apparently original contributions have been poorly written. Any text posted by this user is likely a copyvio, particularly if it is well written. -- But|seriously|folks  09:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Relevant summary info can be added to the episode list per WP:EPISODE. Eusebeus (talk) 22:50, 22 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. east.718 at 02:10, November 27, 2007

Sarah Schwartz[edit]

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

I am not convinced that this person meets the notability criteria. Prod removed by creator, who added links , but they were not independent reliable sources. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If not, the article sure needs a substantial amount of copyediting to correct the wikilinks, but she isn't even mentioned as part of the staff on the Ain't It Cool News article. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 17:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per notability guidelines, meaning, she's not. Keeper | 76 17:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable and most of the sources cited don't mention her at all, the "ain't that cool news" link for example. AngelOfSadness talk 18:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Delete- Wannabe.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 06:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.   jj137 (Talk) 20:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Pili cal (talk) 05:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. :-) Stwalkerster talk 11:45, 26 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. Despite the SPAs, the notability concerns have been addressed with sources. Spellcast (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manuela Darling-Gansser[edit]

Manuela Darling-Gansser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was originally speedy-deleted under CSD A7. DRV overturned, finding an assertion of notability was present, and also finding more sources, for which see the DRV. Still, delete, given continued notability concerns, and pending other opinions. Xoloz (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per Notability Marlith ^T/C 17:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unless major improvements in the sourcing of these assertions (where on TV, ISBN #'s for published works, third party bios of her?) show up during this discussion. Keeper | 76 18:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Nix it- post haste.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 06:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep See sources added, ISBN # provided as well as other users now contributing to the article.--Birri85 (talk) 03:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• DON'T DELETE!she is a celebrity cook in her own country and fast becoming a figure head of the slow food movement. plus she has 2 more books at the publishers to be released this year! please!--Viv G (talk) 04:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepI'm finding it difficult to understand why the article is under question. I'm under the impression that wikipedia is an open source encyclopedia that features and presents relevant information from the masses to the masses. I understand the need to maintain tight screening but Manuela seems to have more than enough supportive material to confirm her credibility.--Greg Devine (talk) 04:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

note to closing admin; the three "keep" votes so far have been added by SPA accounts. The article is improving through these accounts though. Keeper | 76 15:49, 23 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. Davewild (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black-Eyed Kids (BEKs)[edit]

Black-Eyed Kids (BEKs) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability concerns (from speedy/prod tags) + factuality + possible hoax Kwsn (Ni!) 16:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Apparent multitude of external links seems to boil down to just one story. Notability as an "urban myth" not established. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable whether as myth or fact.Xymmax (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable within the field of urban myths. Universal notability is irrelevant as most pop culture artifacts would fail it (EG: All US football stars and teams would fail notability if global notability were had to be proven) - perfectblue (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Non notable and all info could be put on other pages or is already covered by other pages.YVNP (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This isn't a hoax - at least, this is an actual urban legend. However, the article has been deleted before. Zagalejo^^^ 18:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Failed for three times. Unreliable (few) sources. Zerokitsune (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete it and hunt down the user who submitted it. ---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 06:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid deletion rationale, please try to take this seriously. - perfectblue (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Strange article. I have no objections to its deletion, the sources aren't great.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep BEKs is modern day folklore which granted not too widely known about at the momment but it IS known and as new people find out about it the more they'll wanna do some research on it therefore deserves a wiki reference just as well as vampires, ghosts, aliens, and other myths and urban legends. Many incident reports have been made and a wiki-reference to where more information and research on these creatures or myths should be accepted. Hoax or not, BEKs have become Folklore if not modern day urban legends. This article dosnt state that any of it is FACT because just like vampires, goblins, ghost, ghouls, and what not its never considered fact.. hence what makes it PARAnormal! Although there have already been many reported incidents about this and there have been alot of people interested in the subject as shown in many forums and websites and should be allowed a spot on wiki for these reports and other people researching to have a place of reference to find all the information they may need - hence what wikipedia is all about. Cybermewtwo (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: my original article has been changed completly pretty much. <_< 23:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cybermewtwo (talk • contribs)

• Keep, but needs improvement. BEK are a verifiable urban myth that has been doing the rounds on the internet since 1998 and is still going. Its age alone allows it to pass notability and that's not even counting the huge proflegation of reports and sighting, it's only Wikipedia's own regs against using message board posts that prevent literally thousands of reports and discussions being listed here as sources confirming their notability. Frankly, this page is a stub with half a dozen firm citations of this as a notable and existing myth, that's more than half of the full articles on Wikipedia have. Let's be serious, this is a urban myth so it's not going to get coverage in peer reviewed journals, it's nearly 10 years old and is still going so it's got staying power and has a clear place in the public consciousness, and it's covering the myth as a myth and not POV pushing to say that it's about a real creature or creatures so it passes on all accounts. - perfectblue (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. BEKs are internet hoax (since 1998 and internet only? It's 100% hoax). Not forget: this article was delete two times. Lumina Montecarlo (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're argument would only make sense if the entry claimed that they were real, but it clearly states that they are a odern urban myth, and where the first account of the myth came from, and by your own admission the myth has survived nearly 10 years which clearly makes it notable on duration alone. perfectblue (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable and nonsensical. Even those arguing keep admin " granted not too widely known about at the moment" -- that's an admission of non notability if there ever was one, and WP does not exist for the purpose of making non-notable things notable. DGG (talk) 03:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't "admit" that it's non-notable, I say that it is notable based on its age and its spread. How many other urban myths not only survive for 9 year, but also spread widely outside of their original geographic location? That's like saying ET is non-notable because it wasn't a hit in Iceland. - perfectblue (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This article has same problems of former deleted article. Age is not synonymous of quality or notability. Message boards are not reliable sources, anyway. Give us good references. Zerokitsune (talk) 00:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain what you mean by quality, but if you read the changes that I've made to the page it makes it abundantly clear that it is dealing with the myth of BEK, not BEK as a reality of science/nature so the fact that there is no tangible evidence of BEK as a real life creature is pretty much irrelevant as this entry isn't about them as a creature, only as an element of a myth. I also have to point out that in the case of an urban myth, age actually is an indicator of notability. A myth isn't like a physical object. It must be perpetuated by popular culture in order to continue to exist and it is this perpetuation in culture that makes it notable. Let me put it this way, the myth began in 1998 and attracted sufficient notability/notoriety that versions of the myth continue to form to this day and it continues to be discussed and debated, too. If the myth formed in 1998 and existed only as a footnote in web-lore today then it wouldn't be notable, but that is not the case as people are still reporting BEK (real or fake) and are still actively discussing the original sighting. This is a clear indicator of its notability.

As for reliability, I'm afraid that you have fallen into a common trap, you've read through WP:RS and have remembered the end but have forgotten the beginning. WP:RS clearly states that a source must be appropriate for the claim being made. In this case, the claim being made is that an urban myth exists, and that the contents are ...... While a message board would not be a sufficient source to say that BEK exist and that X saw one, they are reliable enough to demonstrate that BEK exist as an element of pop-culture. I can't stress this enough, the citations are proof of existence in pop-culture, not proof of facts in history or science. They serve only to show that the myth is verifiable as a real myth, not that the events in the myth really happened.

For example, If I were to write an entry about a campfire-tale horror story I could legitimately cite any website, book or message board that carried a representative version of that story. It wouldn't matter who the author was, who what the story was, or how academically credible the story was, all that would matter was I could demonstrate that the myth is recounted in popular culture and what it's contents were as per WP:V and PW:NOR. 99% of WP:RS is not applicable as the page is dealing with fiction, not fact. In fact, the primary application of WP:RS would be to ensure that the source is representative of the myth, and is not a fringe or original version.

It's not really relevant in any case as this page isn't actually reallying on message boards as sources they're a tertiary source at best. The entry's primary sources are actually pre-existing text "discussing a topic that first appeared on a message board", which fully complies with WP:RS and WP:V. Message board sources serve only to show that the myth "exists on message boards" which is perfectly allowable as WP:RS states that the source must be appropriate for the claim and since the claim is that "the myth appears on message boards" then message boards are perfectly OK as tertiary sources (WP:V that the topic appears on message boards, while media discussing message board entries are actually demanded by WP:V and WP:RS as they are third party sources. Take the citation for Barry Napier. He's a third party WP:V source discussing BEK as a myth from a skeptical perspective. Frankly, that's enough to WP:RS this page on its own.

perfectblue (talk) 10:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There are sources but none seem to be reliable. Capitalistroadster (talk) 10:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously people, this is an entry about an urban myth not about some new found species. WP:RS is a sliding scale, the more extraordinary the claim the more reliable the source and vice versa, and there's certainly nothing extraordinary about an entry stating that BEK are an urban myth (Take a look above, nobody on this page is disputing this fact, not one person). Maybe if the page was claiming that BEK were living breathing creature.... but no such claim is being made. The sources are entirely appropriate for the topic.

What about Napier? He ticks all of the boxes. He's a reliable third part reporting on the story as an urban myth from a skeptical perspective. He can stand 70-80% of the entry up by himself.

If this entry is deleted on reliability grounds it sets a bad precedent: that urban myths need to be sourced as if they were talking about real topics, which in itself is POV pushing as it could imply that the contents of an urban myth are real. Let's get a grip, only a fraction of notable myths will ever get peer review attention or be detailed by big name authors, the sources are perfectly OK for the entry.

Let's look at the facts.

• 9 years old and still going
• Approaches the topic as "a real myth" not "a myth about real things"
• Source to a reliable skeptical third party

There are no serious grounds for deletion here. It passes all of the criteria set for it in policy and in guidelines. - perfectblue (talk) 14:40, 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. Insufficient independent reliable source material and WP:V. Jreferee t/c 02:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flowform[edit]

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

The article is written with lots of claims about the benefits of flowform that seem overhyped and undersupported (... the angle of the hydrogen atoms to the oxygen is at the ideal state for water to hold its greatest energetic potential...) The tone resembles that of a book review or infomercial, rather than an encyclopedic article. I can't find enough information about the topic to make me think that the subject itself is notable, even if the tone was adjusted Joyous! | Talk 16:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• comment this article has already been deleted once, at least according to the edit summary for the creation of the present article. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• comment A different version of the same article was speedied in May 2007 with the summary "Pseudoscience. Lacks reliable sources. No indication of notability. Advertising?" by User:Premeditated Chaos. --Joyous! | Talk 17:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• (ec) thanks! I was just about to ask if it was CSDG4, but since it was speedy, the answer is no... Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without major revisions. There is clearly an artform, perhaps even a notable one, involved in this article. The science that is discussed, though, is at best, very poorly expressed, and parts of it seem exceedingly implausible. This might make a usable art entry with modifications. More references would certainly help. Tim Ross·^talk 17:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete It sure is pseudoscience, the question is whether it's notable pseudoscience. IMHO, the books provided are published by the Rudolf Steiner Press are not independent of the subject as required by WP:N. I think the Wilkes book is clearly not independent, and am inclined to view the Schwenk book similarly (it's not clear to me that it serves as a secondary source for the topic anyway). Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, So I wrote the article- and I would ask that this not get deleted just because some of the scientific parts are not clearly understood by someone who does not have the full understanding of what is going on.

I understand your concerns over the "psudoscience". But perhaps before dismissing it you might actually do some research to find out what its all about.

The parts about the angle between the atoms of the molecule- I got that directly from a well known physisist- Nassim Haramein- though there is more for me to learn on that subject. But I understand its not refrencable material- so we'll take it out. Soon we'll be able to refrence it. I'm still working on figuring out how to refrence material within the wiki medium- its not the most user friendly thing.

All that aside- the flowform is a well established art medium and worthy of attention with a history and international acclaim. Many of the benefits are qualitative experiences- and of course we live in a society that understands very little about quality- a thing that is very difficult to measure and quantify.

So I will amend it, if it helps, so that it doesn't claim anything that can't be backed up. Again, this is something that is a part of a much larger movement- the Waldorf and Biodynamic movements- which have a lot of things in them that can't be explained by conventional thinking- and yet they have proved themselves remarkably. The flowform is right there with them.

PatrickPHawk (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Patrick P HawkPatrickPHawk (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi PatrickPHawk, In order to avoid deletion, you don't have to argue that the claims presented in the article are true, you just have to provide evidence that the subject of the article is widely talked about. That criterion alone is supposed to decide which topics are included. For a full explanation see this explanation of the WP:N#General notability guideline. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep-For now under this condition, Patrick, clean the article. I am not concerned that it is tagged pseudoscience by some but that is all the more reason to be clear about the scientific principles at work in the art. There is plenty out there on water vortices that could support the effects you are trying to express. Maybe you could define the art and others may contribute with more technical knowledge of the effects.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 06:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Is notability being claimed as pseudoscience, as homeopathic medicine, as oxygenated water, or as an art form? I don't see enough of any of them, or even in combination. All I see is the title of one book, published by a private press. DGG (talk) 03:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! So I will be ammending this very shortly- Holiday is upon us so not much time at the moment. For those who percieve it as a "psudoscience"- I would challange you to broaden your horizons, and lift your minds out of the materialistic, compartmentalized reality that is ever-so pervasive these days. There is some deep ecological science at work in this invention/art form- and I can pull information from other sources to back it up, it just takes more time. The combination of science and art in a single invention is rather rare and worthy of attention- the two fields don't have to be mutually exclusive. The philosophy that flowforms are based on is the same that birthed Waldorf education and Biodynamic agriculture- and there are well documented articles here that speak to the success both of these have had in the world. (By the way DGG- there are two books, and several websites. The notability is based in its presence as international phenomenon with over 30 years of applications and research, not the book that the inventor wrote to tell the world about what he discovered and how he came to it- like most inventors do). PatrickPHawk (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)PatrickPHawkPatrickPHawk (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC) Nov, 23, 8:00pm[reply]

• Delete The article pretty much needs to be purged and rewritten anyways. Mikemill (talk) 02:42, 27 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. John254 02:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paola Cavalieri[edit]

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

no assertion of notability. Philosopher/author has written some rather obscure titles, but all in all, I feel that author fails WP:BIO standards Keeper | 76 16:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.   jj137 (Talk) 17:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal rights because I thought they might have informed opinions on the person. -- Lquilter (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am not sure about this person not being notable. Google gives 694 hits (condensed from about 23,000) for "Paola Cavalieri", giving sites in many different countires. This all seems to concern this particular person. This appears to indicate notability. Any reaason why these Google hits should not be taken as an indication that the article needs expansion, not deletion? --Crusio (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A Google scholar search shows that she has often been cited. Definitely notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment. Sorry, I still don't see notability. Reading the guidelines of WP:BIO, a person is notable if they have been given independent, reliable works/writeups/biographies about them. I did a google scholar search too (before this nomination). What I returned were excerpts from her book(s), which I do not dispute are in existence, although obscure (read the nomination). No one has written about her, though. Her contributions (ie, books) do not contribute significantly to {her} field. If those doing searchs (ie, Phil Bridger), would be kind enough to actually add the sources to the article that assert (reliably) that she has "often been cited", I would be happy to withdraw this nomination. Keeper | 76 22:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. From WP:PROF: "The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is the basis for a textbook or course, if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works, if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature". If you did a Google Scholar search you should have noticed, under the very first entry, a link to 94 citations. I'll put a link to the list of citations in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment. A Google News search may be more relevant than Google scholar for this particular case. I'm seeing attention to her work in The New York Times, Taipei Times, US News & World Report, Salon, Guardian, etc. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll add here that I did a google news search also, and returned less than 40 hits (similar to what you've linked above.). IMO, none of them assert notability specifically. Please though, add them to the article. An AfD is good for drawing attention to unsourced, non-notable articles. Prove me wrong here - improve the article! Keeper | 76 22:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What do you mean by, "none of them assert notability specifically"? Citing to scholars and theorists is occasionally done as "the notable doctor so-and-so" but more usually, simply discussing someone's work is in itself the sign of notability to be sought. Remember that unlike celebrities, scholars are not notable because of their biographies or their personalities but because of their scholarly contributions. Thus, we look to discussions of their work, just as we look to discussions of the particulars of a celebrities' celebrated life. --Lquilter (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the book with Singer is a very famous and important book indeed, probably well worth an article by itself. Google News in not like Google--its not the count that matters, but the material found there. finding 2 significant stories there in major sources about somebody is fully sufficient for establishing the notability--of an academic or anyone else. David E, please add them, so we dont have to indiviudally repeat the search. 03:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)DGG (talk)
  • Here you go. Oh, and keep. The fact that her name seems to be current in such a wide selection of international sources convinces me that she is notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep-This one needs a chance. It is valid.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 06:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per DGG. --Crusio (talk) 08:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - sourceable. Activists, scholars, writers, etc., are known by their works, not their personal details. WP:BIO has to be applied carefully. Wikidemo (talk) 12:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'comment the review sources I asked for have now been supplied, and the notability is clear. snow close, perhaps.DGG (talk) 03:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination based on vastly improved article. Thanks for fixing this and finding what I apparently couldn't find with several google (and news and scholar) searches. Please let me assert that I attempted to fix this article with citations before nominating and simply wasn't finding what other editors apparently found quite easily. 40 lashes for Keeper. My apologies for dragging this out, the article asserts notability just fine now, IMO. Changing my position to keep. Keeper | 76 15:41, 23 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. east.718 at 02:10, November 27, 2007

Mike Shamus[edit]

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

Autobiography with no claim of meeting WP:BIO in article. Gsearch for Mike Shamus, both alone and with either of his companies does not turn up evidence of notability, no sources in article to show notability. Contested prod. Fabrictramp (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Although I did find some stuff on Google, my biggest concern here is that this is just an advert for a DRM product masqerading as a bio. So even if it's kept it certainly needs the sales pitch removed. Pedro :  Chat  15:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per nom.   jj137 (Talk) 17:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Nix It-Just a advert.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 06:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete appears to lack notability. Article is not written very well. I have no suggestions for improvement such as highlighting the notable areas (and I favor improvement rather than deletion). Archtransit (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - smacks of WP:COI as well as good points per nom. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. :-) Stwalkerster talk 11:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Struggling to find evidence of notability. Also note that the subject of the article blanked all text save the AfD notice. [14] (has since been restored) nancy 20:35, 26 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. east.718 at 02:10, November 27, 2007

Digital Dreamgirls[edit]

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

It's written like an advertisement and has no sources except the website itself. In addition, it's not even close to meeting WP:Notability (web). Assertions of notability are made, but no sources are listed and Google turns up nothing except various incarnations of the same website. Eatcacti (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.   jj137 (Talk) 17:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Assertions of notability in the article neither qualify logically, nor they are supported by sources. --Futurano (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. :-) Stwalkerster talk 11:47, 26 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 action, closed by nominator. The article will instead be edited to remove the links which fail the relevant policies. Mindmatrix 15:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Software that uses Subversion[edit]

Software that uses Subversion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete spamlink article. The previous AfD was closed citing WP:OUTCOMES, which is incorrect in my opinion. There has never been any consensus through AfD to keep an article that is a list of external links; in fact, quite the opposite is true (an example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international travel guides and web sites). The proper recourse for such links is to place them in the relevant listing at dmoz (in this case, most likely this one), and link that listing from the external links section of the article Subversion (software). Note that claiming the information is useful or it was in the subversion article for two years does not validate a keep for any external link. See the relevant policies at WP:EL, WP:NOT and WP:SPAM. Mindmatrix 15:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and close as out of process. The previous AfD was ONE MONTH AGO. If you don't agree with the process by which the result was chosen then take it to deletion review but don't clutter up the AfD list with a rerun. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Keep renomination is too soon after last one. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'll take it to deletion review, but note that there are no procedural time limits for re-nomination in any of the deletion guides (at least, none that I could find). Mindmatrix 22:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This material was part of the Subversion (software) article for more than 2 years before it got moved out into it's own article. It is very useful and includes references to internal Wikipedia pages along with the external ones. Cshay (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-perpetuation. This article is never going to get better because nobody has any interest in making it so. I assume that it'll be on its 25th AfD in 2046, it still won't be any better, and people will be saying "well, it survived for forty years already..." Chris Cunningham (talk) 13:11, 23 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 under CSD G4 by Bencherlite. Pagrashtak 16:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Template Construct[edit]

Standard Template Construct (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable, in universe aspect of warhammer. Fails WP:WAF, WP:Plot, WP:FICT, alsoe wonder how many reliable secondary sources could be found for this. Ridernyc (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC) Ridernyc (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

never mind this should be CSD since it's a recreation. Ridernyc (talk) 15:06, 21 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. Kwsn (Ni!) 16:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Bourassa[edit]

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

Resume; no indication of notability per WP:BIO. 89 unique Google results, most of them blog postings. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 14:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete concur, no indication of notability whatsoever. From all that I can determine, his Google history is due to his setting up or posting on a number of blogs. Xymmax (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. A resume, with no assertion of notability. So tagged. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:31, 21 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 Koopsta Knicca. Spellcast (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

De Inevitable[edit]

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

Merge and Redirect. NN album. Appears to fail WP:N. No references either. Endless Dan 14:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Koopsta Knicca Album itself is not notable, but artist appears to be - numerous Google hits as both a solo performer and as a member of Three 6 Mafia(Oops, forgot to sign.) Xymmax (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that sentiment. The artist is/was notable. --Endless Dan 15:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - per Xymmax.   jj137 (Talk) 17:47, 21 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 WP:CSD;G1, complete nonsense. Guy (Help!) 15:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semblances of Sovereignty[edit]

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

Delete as either nonsense or original research. I cannot tell what the author of this page intends; it appears to be a collection of text snippets copied out of other articles, with no apparent connection among them. If nothing else, the article should be deleted for using both "rootless cosmopolitan" and "jetset" in the introductory paragraph to describe Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Russ (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G1. It may be long, but it is still unsalvageable nonsense. --DAJF (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete appears to be grammatically correct sentences that don't actually mean anything, as if the nouns were just dropped in at random. Very weird. I could just be misunderstanding what's going on here so I won't speedy delete personally. --W.marsh 15:18, 21 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 Donna Air as already actioned by Bearian. TerriersFan (talk) 02:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crush (pop band)[edit]

According to the article, this band produced just two singles and no albums. No references are given. Thus, it fails WP:BAND. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Merge info into Donna Air's page because the band is not notable^[2] by WP:BAND but it's notable enough in her life to be mentioned on her imdb page^[3]Red Fiona (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.   jj137 (Talk) 17:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I was bold and Merged them. Another admin closure needed. 23:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs)

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