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

The result was speedily deleted by RHaworth. Non-admin closure. Deor 21:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Euclid-Math-Class[edit]

Euclid-Math-Class (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Deleted earlier today under prod process. Speedable per CSD G1 --Blanchardb 14:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This is absolutely not "an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content", it's clearly a new editor's attempt at an article on Euclid. I don't think there's any content in there that isn't in Euclid or Euclid's Elements, though. I have asked the creator to take a look at those articles and see if he can contribute to them rather than creating a new page. This one should be deleted. --Stormie 22:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Stormie. The title of the article suggests that this may be a posting of a paper written for a school assignment. Deor 13:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research. Also, it's not a G1 candidate, but it may be a G4 candidate. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 17:53, 4 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. Coredesat 03:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United States weather of 2007[edit]

United States weather of 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The primary reason for this nomination is that the articles are not notable. Weather happens; that fact is amply covered in articles like Climate of Florida or Climate of North Dakota. For really dramatic weather events that deviate from the normal climate pattern, we have articles like Late-March 2007 Tornado Outbreak or 2007 Western North American heat wave (themselves of dubious encyclopedic calibre, but anyway). Second, the entries are necessarily subjective (mostly unreferenced too). For instance, ME, VT, NH, CT, RI, AK, HI, NM and OR are mentioned not at all in the 2007 article, while observations like "May was dry and an unseasonably warm" are presumably rather more mundane than the entirety of 2007 weather in those 9 states. Third and most troublingly, these two articles pose a dangerous slippery slope. Are we now committed to writing articles on every year in US weather from now on? Can we expect Czechoslovak weather of 1927, Angolan weather of 1982, Egyptian weather of 1564 BC and Imperial Roman weather of 37 AD coming down the pipeline eventually? I hope not, and I hope we can put a rightful stop to this misguided endeavour. Biruitorul 00:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because the same arguments apply:

United States weather of 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Comment I have to say that I don't see a problem with the idea for such an article but rather with the fact that it lacks sources. I agree with your example about articles about weather from all ages, however if some people are willing to devote their time to create such articles they can go ahead I suppose. Who knows, maybe it can become a source for a researcher fifty years from now :) If the concensus is delete, count me as delete though - the article is on shaky ground. Baristarim 06:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete For dramatic weather changes or events listed in the article, it seems redundant to other articles like 2007 Western North American heat wave. For less dramatic event, they are not notable in any way. Some observations may even constitute OR. At any rate, the content here is not suitable to include in an encyclopedia. Period. Chris! _ct 06:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Revision I agree with the arguments of redundancy and lack of notability; however, it seems like an article with a heading such as this would be an excellent place to link to the pre-existing articles on notable weather events within the given year, as well as a place to have some (cited) observations as to the general trends indicated by such notable events. More of a cross-reference index than a stand-alone article. Ncalvin 22:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment is there a WikiAlmanac to transwiki this to? 132.205.99.122 20:30, 5 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. Coredesat 03:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of undefeated military commanders[edit]

List of undefeated military commanders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Blatant, irredeemable original research. "Undefeated?" There are endless objections to this--what constitutes a defeat, what constitutes being in command, when should we and should we not take the absence of a historical record of defeats as positive evidence of undefeated status--and no solid secondary sources used, and I can't think of any that exist. Zap it. --Robth^Talk 23:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. It's original research, and there's no way to resolve that problem without deleting the article. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a good idea without good sources. Baristarim 06:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Doczilla 08:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. JJL 23:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. —FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if your entire career occurred without a single conflict, you would be undefeated. 132.205.99.122 20:31, 5 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. Arguments for keeping appear to have been refuted. Coredesat 03:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of deaths in The Sopranos series[edit]

List of deaths in The Sopranos series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I am nominating this article for deletion because it is not notable, it is not verifiable, and it is indiscriminate in terms of plot detail and statistics. First of all, WP:N requires for a topic to establish notability through significant coverage by multiple reliable sources. The article is only supported by a Flash presentation by CBS News. The article simultaneously does not meet WP:V with the lack of secondary sources, which leads to WP:IINFO. In-universe information is supposed to be supplied to complement real-world context of the topic (and the topic cannot exist here due to lack of notability). Instead, there exist statistics without verifiable explanatory text at List of deaths in The Sopranos series#Statistics. I recognize that death is a common theme in The Sopranos, but this non-notable list of indiscriminate in-universe information gives no encyclopedic insight about this theme. A better approach would be to use academic studies of how the TV series has depicted death sequences, which would qualify as real-world context. This existing list does not warrant encyclopedic inclusion for this multitude of reasons. Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination is now properly transcluded – the old discussion was transcluded before. Bencherlite^Talk 00:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - indiscriminate list; fancruft. Biruitorul 00:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It's not indiscriminate - the list has a clear focus. And it is obviously verifiable. And there's adequate notability and sourcing, like the CBS News coverage. Colonel Warden 00:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The article only uses primary sources, the TV series itself, to cover the topic. There's a failure to use secondary sources, and there needs to be multiple reliable sources providing significant coverage of this topic. This hasn't been the case. In addition, there is no real-world context -- it's indiscriminate in that sense, having only plot information per WP:PLOT, and it has a blatant "Statistics" section. There is no encyclopedic support for such a list. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There's plenty of secondary material out there because deaths in the se ries are so significant. For example, Over the years The Sopranos has been known for its high body count. In honor of the series finale, take a look back at some memorable deaths..., Review of Psychology Of The Sopranos: Love, Death, Desire and Betrayal in America's Favorite Gangster Family in Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, Death on Sopranos..., Whacked Sopranos reflect... Colonel Warden 08:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Like I suggested in the previous AfD, a Death in The Sopranos prose article would be completely appropriate. That would definitely provide encyclopedic insight through the application of real-world context. Here, there is an indiscriminate compilation of plot detail, with no secondary sources used. In-universe information is supposed to complement verifiable content from reliable sources about the topic -- here, it's serving as the core content instead, with little to no real-world perspectives about any of these deaths except for the original research laden in the Statistics section. I understand that information may seem "cool" or "useful" to Sopranos fans as reflected in the last AfD, but Wikipedia articles need to fit the five pillars in providing encyclopedic content. If a reader unfamiliar with The Sopranos comes by, all he or she will find is a re-hashing of plot detail without real-world context to back it up. It seems that this kind of list would be far more suitable for a place like the Sopranos Wikia. My suggestion is to establish a Death in the Sopranos if the theme is so notable, and provide a link to the list of deaths at the Sopranos Wikia in the External links section. That way, encyclopedic coverage can be provided about the theme, and the list will be just an additional click away on a wikia that would embrace its content. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:FICT, fails the general notability guideline as well. Fails WP:V, there is a lot of information uncited that isn't IU information, like for instance David Chase telling actors far in advance when they are going to die. "Aprile Curse"?? A lot of the "Statistics" section looks like original research to me. Also, Wikipedia isn't a substitute for watching the show. Knowing who died in a show is not relevant. Death on a show is not relevant without context. There is no context explaining why "death" on The Sopranoes is a relevant encyclopedic topic. You want to mention who dies, then put it in the plot section of the episode list.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is definitely indiscriminate information, and no real notability for this in-universe list. Crazysuit 06:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fancruft. Doczilla 08:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The nom sums it up very nicely. Not notable and is OR. Nuke it. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 19:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Also, for the characters who are notable enough to be mentioned in an existing article, it can say which episode they died in. For others... well, if they weren't notable enough for their lives to merit inclusion, why should their deaths? :-D Ombudstheman 22:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep would be fine at The Sopranos and this is a reasonable way to keep that article manageable in size. JJL 23:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's not indiscriminate; it's quite specific:list of deaths in a particular TV show. Personally I think it should be limited to on-screen deaths, and the Statistics section should go, but that's not a reason to delete the whole article. Labelling it "fancruft" is not a valid reason either. "Whacking" is obviously an integral part of anything to do with gangsters and the Sopranos is no different. It's perfectly reasonable to have an article on it. As has been pointed out above there are plenty of secondary sources available.Pawnkingthree 00:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It's indiscriminate in the sense that it's merely plot detail and statistics. Like I said, the secondary sources could be used to write a prose article about the theme of death in The Sopranos, but it doesn't warrant this indiscriminate list that has no real world context. Just because an act is a common occurrence in a TV series does not mean they all have to be listed -- this would mean ER should have a list of all the surgeries that took place in the show, that soap operas should list all the specific instances of backstabbing, that Star Wars films should list all the specific instances in which The Force was used. There are no secondary sources used for each little entry that keep this list from being an indiscriminate re-hashing of plot detail. Please read #2 at WP:PLOT -- "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should cover their real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. This applies both to stand-alone works, and also to series." A compilation of deaths in the overall plot of The Sopranos without any of the requisite encyclopedic insight qualifies as indiscriminate. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'd support such an article only for a very notable series--such as this. One of the criteria for a list is useful, and this is certainly useful in keeping track of the plot and the characters. And it seems secondary sourcing has been found. If it were list of deaths in televisions series, then possibly one could validly say "indiscriminate"--not here, limited to one particular series. DGG (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A topic only needs to meet the notability criteria -- it doesn't matter if it's "very notable" compared to any other topic that meets the same criteria. Just because a TV series is popular doesn't mean it's OK to indiscriminately list plot detail as opposed to a deleting a similar list under a lesser-known TV series, provided that both of their general topics meet the notability criteria. Such a perspective fails to be neutral. Also, WP:USEFUL is not an argument, as a directory of New York phone numbers is useful, too -- the list still fails to provide verifiable content from reliable secondary sources to establish either the notability of this specific list or to provide real-world context per WP:PLOT -- it's still a re-hashing of plot detail, no matter whether this show is popular or not. If producers elaborated on their approach in deciding on the how and why of each character's death, that would be appropriate encyclopedic content. However, none of the listings provide any sort of out-of-universe information besides the episode in which the death occurred. Like I said before, this list can be transwiki'ed to the Sopranos Wikia due to the fans' policy-disregarding desire for such information. As I mentioned in my initial argument, the list fails to be notable, verifiable, or discriminate. The show's so-called popularity -- WP:WELIKEIT -- does not address the arguments I've put forth. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:00, 5 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. Blatant hoax. The evidence is convincing enough to delete this one early. Singularity 06:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Bobley[edit]

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

Blatant hoax about a non-existent MP / lecturer: zero Google hits for "Kenneth Bobley" and zero Google hits for "Ken Bobley". It would be astonishing, to say the least, if there was an MP who never had any mention recorded online at Hansard (whose online records start in 1988 and so would cover 7 years of his Parliamentary career) - see [1]. Bencherlite^Talk 23:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up the other giveaway is that there is no constituency of 'Camden' – Camden Borough is split between Holborn and St Pancras (UK Parliament constituency) and Hampstead and Highgate (UK Parliament constituency), neither of whom had this individual as an MP between 1985 and 1995 as claimed. Bencherlite^Talk 00:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Hoax. --Malcolmxl5 00:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 02:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hoax. Snigbrook 04:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Baristarim 06:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clear hoax for non-existant seat. Davewild 08:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:HOAX. Doctorfluffy 06:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Bearian 17:38, 5 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 09:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lobster Paradox[edit]

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

1 non-wiki ghit, which isn't about this group at all. No sources offered in article. Hoax? (Contested prod.) Fabrictramp 23:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, even if not a WP:HOAX then this clearly fails WP:N. Doctorfluffy 23:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Doctorfluffy. --Malcolmxl5 23:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:N MatthewYeager 00:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Baristarim 06:19, 4 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. Coredesat 03:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin School District 25[edit]

Benjamin School District 25 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Family genealogy; non-notable, deleted. Neutrality^talk 22:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:N, after researching, still unable to find anything to pass WP:N MatthewYeager 00:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, self-proclaimed WP:OR - "The information in this article was researched by Tony Molinaro, a former Benjamin District 25 School Board president. Sources include school records, old newspaper articles, U.S. Census Records, and U.S. Land Records." (Retrieved from Benjamin_School_District_25.) Bearian 19:20, 5 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 and paste text to Talk:Beowulf. Sandstein 20:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beowulf and danish mythology[edit]

Beowulf and danish mythology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A bit of someone's term paper; incorporate useful bits into Beowulf and delete. Neutrality^talk 22:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fuse useful info to Beowulf#Themes.2C_characters.2C_and_story. I suggest that the info be transported to Talk:Beowulf so maintainers of the Beowulf article can pick it clean of useful facts then discard the rest.--Lenticel ^(talk) 22:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Definitely not grounds for a separate article, but it seems that some of the information can be merged into the main Beowulf article. Calgary 00:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per all--victor falk 06:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete just delete it, nothing seems to be in there which would be of huge use to the Beowulf article. As Lenticel suggested, drop the whole text to the talk page to see if anyone there would be interested in the info contained in this article. Baristarim 06:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but needs more than 1 RS. Bearian 19:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge salvageable information to Beowulf. utcursch | talk 15:26, 9 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. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 2 and the other AFD which were closed as keeps. W.marsh 00:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC) note per this DRV, this close has been overturned and the article relisted at AFD. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 3[edit]

List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No reason to remove this from the main article much less to have three articles. Merge into Manchester Airport. Vegaswikian 22:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't even merge it. It isn't encyclopedic. But whetever. Just delete it. i (talk) 23:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In every commercial airport article, and I do mean every, there's a list of airlines serving that airport and their destinations. Since when is that un-encyclopedic? Do you know something every editor of the thousands of commercial airport articles don't? --Oakshade 01:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as random trivia. Biruitorul 00:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Needs cleanup but otherwise clutters the main article. Regan123 00:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't be there either... DeleteBalloonman 07:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge. as above said, not encyclopedic. Merging is fine, however having separate articles is just useless. Heights^{(Want to talk?)} 00:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep and Delist - in a recent peer review editors were told to shorten the article by sectioning the terminal destinations into other pages. Rudget _{Contributions} 13:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - merge back in to main Manchester Airport article only that information is essential. As an aside, I can't see any such reference in the (very brief) peer review. - fchd 20:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Rudget. Commercial airport articles should have destinations by terminal as has become standard. If the editors are following the direction of learned editors from a peer review, who are we to slap them in the face with this AfD. This is a prime example of why Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy is official policy. I wouldn't be oppsed to creating a List of destinations served by Manchester Airport article and merging all the terminal destination articles into that. --Oakshade 23:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Peer review is not authoritative. Their suggesstions do not contravene valid AfD noms. — Soleil (formerly I) 23:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In this case the AfD has contravened the peer review. Bureaucracy at its Wiki finest. --Oakshade 00:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This cannot contravene the peer review, as the peer review does not have any authority. It is a bunch of editors who feel like making suggestions. — Soleil (formerly I)

• And here? Rudget _{Contributions} 16:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Here, there is authority in the result and advice. Peer review does not. I (talk) 23:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Learned editors from a peer review', that just leaves me speechless! Throw out AGF, throw out style guidelines, throw out all wikiprojects! I'm glad that we have found where all of the learned editors exist and they are the sole authorities on wikipedia style and don't need to consult with anyone. Talk about I like it pushed to the extreme. Vegaswikian 23:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The "learned editors" are actually from WikiProject Aviation and based their recommendations on style guidelines. You're emotionsl rant (time for a Wikibreak?) appears as I don't like it.--Oakshade 23:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I recommended daughter lists being split off in the peer review. Merging the three lists into one is a good idea as well.--BirgitteSB 20:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - and getting rid of it altogether may be an even better idea. - fchd 20:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - Are you suggesting merging the content back to the Manchester Airport article, exactly opposite of what the peer review suggested? Or do you mean delete the content? --Oakshade 23:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE - The other 2 terminal articles that were up for AfD, List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 1 and List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 2, have both been Kept.[2] [3] I suggest a closure of this AfD. --Oakshade 23:35, 9 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 close, AFD is not for proposing merges. Coredesat 03:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baton of honour[edit]

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

Merge/redirect to Scottish Police College. Neutrality^talk 22:44, 3 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. Recent edits have addressed the notability concerns. --Polaron | Talk 02:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic box opening technology[edit]

Automatic box opening technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, delete. Neutrality^talk 22:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: interesting idea, probably useful, but no proof that it's notable. Nyttend 22:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: check out this search, i'll rewrite article. MatthewYeager 00:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: added references, wikified, please reassess. MatthewYeager 01:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep per recent edits, but looks a bit WP:SPAMMY. --Brewcrewer 08:01, 4 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. This is due to the larger consensus for keep, and the unreasonable arguments made by the two delete supporters. Airport destinations aren't random trivia and this page will most probably be updated as the main page was before. Rudget _ 17:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC) note per this DRV, this close has been overturned and the article relisted at AFD. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 2[edit]

List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No reason to remove this from the main article much less to have three articles. Vegaswikian 22:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as random trivia. Biruitorul 00:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Needs cleanup but otherwise clutters the main article. Regan123 00:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I think standard practice is to list all airlines in a single airport together, regardless of different terminals within the airport. The information, as such, is worth keeping. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete you don't need to have a list of destinations served by an airport... that is subject to change.Balloonman 07:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep and Delist - in a recent peer review editors were told to shorten the article by sectioning the terminal destinations into other pages. Rudget _{Contributions} 13:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Rudget. Commercial airport articles should have destinations by terminal as has become standard. If the editors are following the direction of learned editors from a peer review, who are we to slap them in the face with this AfD. This is a prime example of why Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy is official policy. I wouldn't be oppsed to creating a List of destinations served by Manchester Airport article and merging all the terminal destination articles into that.--Oakshade 23:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I recommended daughter lists being split off in the peer review. Merging the three lists into one is a good idea as well.--BirgitteSB 20:22, 7 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.

I am closing this article for deletion page as a keep. Due to the larger consensus for keep and the undefined, short delete !votes which most probably came from voters who had not seeked the proper information before voting, due to the swiftness of their edits since the previous. Rudget _ 17:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

note - per this drv, this close have been overturned and the article has been sent back to AFD. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No reason to remove this from the main article much less to have three articles. Vegaswikian 22:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reason to move it to a sub-article which is given on the Manchester Airport talk page, there is no Wikipedia policy which states that long lists of irrelivant information related to airports must be on the articles pages, it seems to be the opinion of one project yet this article stretches over two projects. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 22:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there are display or format issues, then that should be discussed and resolved before making significant changes which may be opposed. Vegaswikian 23:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as random trivia. Biruitorul 00:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Would this mean you believe none of the airport articles should include a list of destinations? _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 18:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Needs cleanup but otherwise clutters the main article. Regan123 00:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete needless trivia.Balloonman 07:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Would this mean you believe none of the airport articles should include a list of destinations? _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 18:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep and Delist - in a recent peer review editors were told to shorten the article by sectioning the terminal destinations into other pages. Rudget _{Contributions} 13:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And in the past, these types of pages have been routinely deleted. Making a change for peer review does not mean it is the correct one. Also don't forget that another project is working on a better solution then this. Your logic here seems to be based on a peer reviewer likes it justification. This issue should have been raised in the correct working projects before taking this action to make a point. Instead the decision was to ignore the existence of other projects. Vegaswikian 19:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Rudget. Commercial airport articles should have destinations by terminal as has become standard. If the editors are following the direction of learned editors from a peer review, who are we to slap them in the face with this AfD. This is a prime example of why Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy is official policy. I wouldn't be oppsed to creating a List of destinations served by Manchester Airport article and merging all the terminal destination articles into that. --Oakshade 23:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I agree with above. Merging all the destinations into one page would be better. Rudget _{Contributions} 16:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - As the creator of the article I also agree that this can be merged into one article, even though the Airports WikiProject have given some good ideas of using expandable tables, I do not feel it would work with the large airport such as Manchester's. Vegaswikian's point that someone wants it kept because WP:ILIKEIT is contrary to the fact that they want it deleted because they do not like it. The list of destinations is notable but not notable enough to be included on the Manchester Airport article and it dominated the article with information not directly relevant to the article. The editors of the Airports Project have not given a rationale why the destinations must be included on the article other that 'just because it does'. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 18:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Merge as the creator I think the articles for each terminal should probably be included in one list. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 18:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I recommended daughter lists being split off in the peer review. Merging the three lists into one is a good idea as well.--BirgitteSB 20:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you are comfortable with the creation of thousands of tiny new articles based on this precedent and you are totally opposed to the alternative of converting the list to a collapsed table which is likely to be the direction for all other similar articles. Vegaswikian 20:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see this as any sort of new precedent. There are many lists of a similar nature already. I do oppose attaching large lists directly to articles no matter what javascript tricks are used. Articles are prose.--BirgitteSB 20:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is a precedent for the airport articles which all contain these lists and do not have them as separate article. And I'll ask again. So you are also opposed to a collapsed table in the article. The effect of that is basically the same look as the main article pointer with the difference that we don't create thousands of extra articles. This is important given that the table allows one common format for all airport articles. The proposal you are pushing says that some articles should have information broken out into another article while the remainder should retain the information in line. And the break out point is based on a very subjective definition of large. Vegaswikian 20:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't know how to express my opinion any more clearly: I oppose attaching large lists directly to articles of any sort, no matter what javascript tricks are used. Articles are written in prose not tabular form.--BirgitteSB 21:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • So lists and tables should not be included in articles? If they can be included what determines large in the context of any article. You are saying keep because you don't like the article with this infomation included. I do hope that the closing admin considers that the keep votes here are really WP:ILIKEIT ones. Vegaswikian 21:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not at all. Rather it is your nomination that is "don't like it". My "Keep" opinion is based on this list being well-defined and finite; acceptable by policy and in line with the current practice of splitting off large detailed bits from articles. While I do not like the particular suggestion you asked me about afterwards, it has nothing to do my initial “Keep” opinion. I could just have easily disliked your suggestion and said “Delete” the material entirely from Wikipedia as others have said.--BirgitteSB 14:49, 8 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. Coredesat 03:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marlow family[edit]

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

Fictional family in children's series, nothing indicates notability, page was created in late 2005 and has been little improved since, nothing to redirect it to that would make any sense. Fee Fi Foe Fum 21:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - if the series had an official name this could be redirected or merged, family was subject of most of the author's books. Article can probably be expanded, needs links from the pages for the individual books. Also needs to cite sources. - Snigbrook 04:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom because it's unreferenced. I would be willing to reconsider if appropriate references were added. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Baristarim 06:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I doubt notability can be established. Doctorfluffy 06:04, 5 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 with Topfreedom. The current article in its entirety is now in the Topfreedom article. Redirect kept as this is a likely search term. --Polaron | Talk 02:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen Jacob[edit]

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

She got her tits out! And gets a mountain of googles because, guess what?, tits get that on the internet. There's simply no-way this one incident can merit a biography (where's the sources). I'd call this a COATRACK for the nudity lobby, but as someone already remarked, there's less of the coat and more of the rack. -Doc^g 21:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Doc. Might merit a very short sentence in topfreedom but that really is about it. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or migrate into an article about the court decision. John Vandenberg 21:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this was an important case. Insipred protests across Canada and activists in the US. After her conviction was overturned, other women took advantage of the, er, legal climate. There are a couple dozen Google Books results discussing the case seriously or highlighting it as an important point. The people celebrating this -- nudists -- are in fact people who insist that it is not the titillation factor but an issue of gender equality under the law. --Dhartung | Talk 02:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then have an article on the case, or on the issue (not that we lack them) but I see NO sources for a biography of the individual.--Doc^g 02:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Generally, people who are known only due to a news item would get merged into a news item. However, this individual triggered a landmark legal ruling which steps it above the usual person in a news story situation. The amount of news coverage is tremendous. For eXample, this New York Times article. -- Whpq 15:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The level of news coverage isn't the issue. There's enough news coverage to mean that we can cover the issue. The question is do we have enough notable biographical information on the subject to merit a biography? Can a biography be written about this subject that isn't really just the news-story or the courtcase posing as a biography. I say no, but if you can provide sources that include notable information apart from the newsstory, I'm happy to change my mind.--Doc^g 15:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I would not be opposed to reforming the material in the article to be about the court case if there is insufficient reliable sources to establish a bio. -- Whpq 16:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Have to agree with Doc. Jacob was a one-hit wonder. She got her 5 minutes of fame. So what if women can bare their breasts in public. Since that time I haven't seen any new trends in public nudity. This is another case of "Interesting, yes, but who cares?" Bombycil 16:40, 8 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. Coredesat 03:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mini Moke (SUV)[edit]

Mini Moke (SUV) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

violation of WP:Crystal Ball and lacks sources Butterfly0fdoom 21:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless reliable sources regarding the development of this "modern MINI Mid-Size SUV" are added the article during the course of this AFD discussion. --Stormie 22:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lack of reliable sources, unverifiable. A few websites claim it is 'confirmed' but I can't find anything to back this up. Snigbrook 04:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unsourced speculation. • nancy • 19:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Looks like pure speculation. --AliceJMarkham 16:20, 6 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. Coredesat 03:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toyota ACE[edit]

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

Not only is it pure speculation (WP:Crystal Ball), there's no sources, either. Butterfly0fdoom 21:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete content and Redirect to Toyota FT-SX. There are sources (AutoWeek) but is just another code name for the same concept vehicle. There's no reason to have a separate article. --Sesameball^Talk 21:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless reliable sources regarding the development of this "new full-size crossover SUV to debut for the 2009 model year" are added the article during the course of this AFD discussion. --Stormie 22:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The article changes so much since Doc glasgow and JzG gave their opinions (link), notably resulting in the nominator changing 'sides', and as such these two factors mean there is no way to determine a consensus from this debate. Daniel 11:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Schults[edit]

nn semi-pro wrestler, only about 400 google hits, obvious WP:COATRACK as it talks about the incident he had, and not about him. Delete This is a Secret ^account 21:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after improvements This is a Secret ^account 02:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unless notability established, and good sources evident. Nearly all the googles are to internet interest (myspace etc) in this one incident. We don't write up newsreports and call them biographies. There don't seem sources for a sensible biography. -Doc^g 21:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete d Guy (Help!) 21:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions.

• Keep He retired as a wrestler prior to the WWW, so lack of Ghits isn't terribly significant. The John Stossel bitchslap and resulting lawsuit had major coverage in the US. Article could be improved admittedly, but nomination is based on recentism not lack of notability. Horrorshowj 10:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ordinarily, people use the word recentism to describe the problem of articles being written about news stories with short-lived attention, which will not be of interest in 10 years. That is how the Stossel incident appears to me. So you must mean something else by recentism - what? — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean by it is giving undue weight to recent events and people, and conversely an inability to evaluate anything older than about ten years accurately, because you can only view it in the context of current events. I view this Afd as fitting for two reasons. First, the mention of Ghits as lack of notability. While most current pro-wrestlers generate a lot applying the same notion to someone who retired in the mid to late 1980s is ridiculous, as that's pre WWW in an industry that goes out of its way to dissuade long memories. Second, he characterized the subject as a semi-pro wrestler, apparently due to his being in regional promotions. This ignores the fact that prior to about the same time his career ended there were no national promotions in North America. Schults was in every one of the major promotions for 15-20 years which is a pretty good track record and definitely not deserving of a semi-pro description. Horrorshowj 00:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The nomination is mainly based as a WP:COATRACK article This is a Secret ^account —Preceding comment was added at 18:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an essay not a policy or guideline. It also primarily refers to articles that are pushing a biased interpretation. What about the article is pushing a bias? Horrorshowj 00:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw keep it....it's an interesting tidbit. Not every article should be a feature length production. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.63.155.197 (talk) 08:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I say keep. Looks to me like notability is asserted, and it's well sourced. Tromboneguy0186 22:16, 8 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. Coredesat 03:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeon (The Legend of Zelda Series)[edit]

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

As one can tell from this article's talk page, deletion sentiment has been simmering all the way since it was first created. The article author's WP:OWN-y attitude and stubborn refusal to justify contentious statements in the article with sources has not helped any. At any rate, these are not deletion reasons. I contend that the article does not cover a notable topic; there is nothing that makes Zelda dungeons any more notable than dungeons from any other game in the genre. Sure, dungeons exist in Zelda games, but that does not make them a notable topic to write an article about. The whole article amounts to poorly repeating what the "Gameplay" sections of each individual game article say, except with more WP:OR and unverifiable statements. Axem Titanium 19:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It is a non-notable topic not backed by any reliable sources. At most, it deserves to be a sub-section of gameplay in the series article. TTN 19:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Primarily WP:OR with no reliable sources to demonstrate notability of the topic. --Sesameball^Talk 20:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Largely OR, already covered by "Gameplay" sections of game articles and the series article. Haipa Doragon (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Unsourced information. Should be merged to main Zelda page under gameplay if possible. --Hdt83 ^Chat 00:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete - Okay. Everybody here probably expects that I'll weigh in on this debate, especially since I have SUCH a WP:OWN-y attitude about it (tell me YOU don't about YOUR OWN articles). This article was originally going to discuss dungeons in video games in general, but I could not conceive of any other games that really have "dungeons" in the sense that the Zelda series does, so it turned into a heavily Zelda-based article, which does include a loose definition of a "dungeon" in the sense used outside of the Zelda series. I don't feel that this subject, whether of Zelda or otherwise, gets proper treatment anywhere on Wikipedia, and so I set out to fill a perceived need for such a definition, and though some things that are mentioned in this article are similar to those in the articles written on each individual game, I haven't repeated anything. I put everything into my own words, with several sources to back some of the stuff up, while most of what is written herein can be found by anyone who has a console and a game. A lot of the video-game-related content on Wikipedia is written with the games as the basis for the majority of the information given in the articles, yet most people don't seem to have a problem with that. I don't doubt that the Zelda dungeons have served as the basis and model for many other things. Video games are a strong influence in modern cultures across the world. Zelda is one of the largest components in that category. Dungeons, which are one of the series' most prominent features, are part of the Zelda series and beg a definition, which cannot currently be found on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is for helping people improve their ideas, not tearing them down, but that's all I've gotten about this article so far.Cocoapropo 02:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Well, no, that's not what wikipedia is about. Wikipedia is about building a premier encyclopedia on the web. Of course, that often means helping editors improve their ideas... but it also means there are many policies we must follow, such as the ones we've mentioned - like WP:V and WP:OR (and in this case WP:NOTE, since we're discussing whether the article should exist). As I mentioned in my delete vote, the problem with the article is that it is largely original research and has no reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Also, I would respectfully suggest that most editors are, in fact, fully capable of taking a detatched approach to articles they created or may have strong personal feelings about. --Sesameball^Talk 02:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as OR per Hyper Dragon. I, for one, don't feel that way about my own articles, most of which look completely different from when I first created them by now. JuJube 02:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Most of my "research" comes straight from the games themselves. One thing I was wondering about is that I noticed that the Hyrule article hasn't been nominated for deletion, even though it only has a small handful of sources, most of which are on one topic within the article, and none of which are notable or official that I can see, and most of the rest of the article is from the games themselves or player observation. What's your take on this, I wonder? If you are going to apply it to me, apply it to this situation and all others.Cocoapropo 03:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I reformatted your edit only so it doesn't disrupt the rest of the daily AfD page - nothing personal. As for your question: please reference WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Sesameball^Talk 04:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - original research, and opinion with no reliable sources, and no notability -- Whpq 15:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- Cocoapropo, your research is called source based research (as in primary source). Look here WP:OR and it will tell you about source based research, and how it can come straight from a video game, and that it is not OR at all. It will also tell you that primary sources such as this are allowed on WP, even though a lot of editors forget that. All you need to do to save your article is find some reliable secondary sources to back up you primary source. Nintendo power, news articles, fan cites ext. I believe that this is a notable topic and the most that should be done is move the whole thing to The Legend of Zelda (series) under its own heading. Obviously Zelda is notable, and you can't talk about Zelda without talking about the dungeons. Also, yes the article does need cleaned up, but thats not a reason to delete it. Cocoapropo, another thing about WP, unfortunately information added does need sources. And unfortunately again, you don't need sources to delete something. Saying "I think this is true" holds no ground whatsoever, but saying "I think this is false" is a valid argument. Its in no way fair, but its the way WP is run. Viperix 18:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Viperix, I really appreciate you for saying that. If you could help me come up with more secondary sources, I would appreciate that more. As for your comment, Mr. IP Address Only, I realize, as stated above, that there are dungeons in other games, but as I mentioned, I couldn't come up with any that were like the Zelda dungeons, which, as far as I know, have pretty unique dungeons in the strictest sense of the definition as purposed in this article. If you would like to add to the article to include other games and their so-called dungeons, please do, because that's what I was going for in the first place. I did mention these in the introduction to the article though in a very general fashion, so unless you have a significant contribution to make that would change the course of the whole article and merge the existing one into a new one to justify deleting this article, then save it for another place. If you are going to merge this into a new article, too, make sure the title of the article is broad so as to include all such dungeons. Thanks for your input.Cocoapropo 04:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete dungeons in Zelda are not significantly different from other games, such as Dragon Warrior. 132.205.99.122 20:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – such a comparison of Zelda dungeons belongs on a blog or forum or something. Not notable for inclusion in Wikipedia, unless it has some deeper influence or significance. --jacobolus (t) 02:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Such as what, jacobulus? If you have suggestions, please share. Respond on my talk page or the discussion page, if you read this. For the rest of you, I have added a few more references and specifically stated that EVERYTHING written in the article comes straight from the games, unless other references are specifically provided. I would also like to ask again if any of you feel that this subject gets proper treatment on Wikipedia already, and if so, where? Put yourself in the shoes of a non-Zelda fanatic and, if you were reading the Zelda articles, would you want to know what a "dungeon" is? Do the articles currently provide a decent working definition? If nothing else, if you're not going to help improve this article, at least help it be gently merged into an existing article (not multiple articles) where it would make sense, and provide a proper redirect. If, on the other hand, you do not feel that this subject receives proper treatment elsewhere on Wikipedia, then it is a perfectly legitimate entry.Cocoapropo 04:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've reviewed the sources you've added. Aside from the FAQ type sites, they would be fine for the Zelda series article. But none of the references provided support notability for dungeons in the Zelda series. In fact, I dont; even see the word dungeon used in them. They support facts you've added about the series. But that infromation belongs in the Zelda series article. -- Whpq 13:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, important feature common to the games in a best-selling series. It makes sense to have an article dealing with them as a group. We can write similar articles about dungeons in other series as well. Everyking 05:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are notable within the context of Zelda but not in the wider context of the encyclopedia as a whole. The same can be said about dungeon articles regarding other series. Axem Titanium 20:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge with Zelda series article, per above arguments. Yes, dungeons are integral to the Zelda gameplay, but they deserve a general summary at most, and not specific mentions of layouts, enemies, objects found, etc. Zelda dungeons are just like dungeons in other adventure games - places to wander around, solve mazes, kill enemies and collect treasures. We should either merge this article's content with the main Zelda series, or merge it with a more general article about dungeons in adventure games. It would make a nice mention in a general Dungeon article. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 22:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as fails WP:NOT#GUIDE, but credit to the editors for cited sources for their work.--Gavin Collins 22:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm at a loss to find anything here that's not in The Legend of Zelda (series), and there's an implication in this article bordering on OR to the effect that dungeons in the LoZ sense are a unique creation of the game series. -Harmil 00:02, 8 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 snowball close: rivers are notable if verifiable. `'Míkka 19:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iavardi River[edit]

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

I think this river is not notable. I believe that it did not receive any significant coverage in any type of source (emphasis used to refer to WP:N). The only sources in which it seems to appear are maps. I have proposed the article for deletion before, but the prod was removed. The subsequent discussion on the talk page did not convince me that this subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Pepve 19:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, major geographic features such as rivers are inherently notable. It's likely there are print sources and non-English sources that can eventually be used for an article. --Dhartung | Talk 21:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Where does this inherent notability come from? Which policy or guideline states it? How small must a river be not to be included? And have you checked Google Maps as I did, only to conclude that the river is probably no more than two foot wide? (I'm sorry for all these questions, but this keeps me awake.) -- Pepve 22:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Dhartung. If this was a drainage canal, maybe I'll support you. I can't find any guidelines in WP:NOTE and WP:LOCAL that says rivers should pass notability (maybe it is simply common sense that they do pass notability). Actually, if you understand Romanian, went on a library section that deals with Romanian rivers, have secured Romanian news articles then prove to me that this river is nn. Then I'll be convinced that you have a point. Alternatively, you could tag it ((geo-stub)) and wait for WP:RIVER or Romanian wikipedians to fix it (Fixing geo-stubs is hard work, trust me).--Lenticel ^(talk) 22:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So in order to prove non-notability of some subject from an area where another language is spoken, one has to know that language. Enforcing that would give carte blanche to all speakers of small languages... Can we not just use common sense? -- Pepve 23:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I just shown you the non-common sense way to prove that the article is worthy of deletion because you simply don't get it (or refuse to get it). I did not say that this would be the approach in all foreign language articles, (the best way to address such problem is to notify a neutral wikipedian that understands the article or the Wikiproject in question). Oh by the way, define small language.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll go with: "I simply don't get it." Because I really don't see the common sense in any of this. (And really, I'm not stupid enough to define 'small language'.) -- Pepve 01:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The others are correct. Major geographical features such as rivers and mountains are notable. It's not like this is self promotion, advertising or a violation of WP:BLP. --Oakshade 23:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry for replying to each and every comment, I'll pace myself after this one. Just this: from what principle, guideline or thought do you conclude that all rivers are notable? -- Pepve 23:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Common Sense. The New York Times just isn't going to write an in depth piece on most, if not all, rivers in Romania, yet it's still a river that provides water, food, and navigation, the source of original settlement for villages, towns and cities and being a tributary to much larger rivers. --Oakshade 23:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As you say Pepve, let's just use common sense. A river is obviously inherently notable. Nick mallory 23:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems a perfectly reasonable geography stub to me. A quick google search (in English, even) reveals that the river's valley is notable for its limestone, and the river has a well-known local waterfall. I've added a little more to the article (though it would have been a keep in any case, even without it). Grutness...wha? 00:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The AfD template had been removed from the article by User:Afil. Have re-added it and left a comment on the User's talk page. Grutness...wha? 00:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further note - if I hadn't commented on this personally, I'd probably have closed it as a snowball keep... any passing admin agree with that assessment and willing to do the honours? Grutness...wha? 00:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And indeed I feel like I'm in an avalanche. :-) -- Pepve 01:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused (you might have guessed that already), my google search for 'iavardi' comes up with two relevant hits: our article and a photo album of a hiking trip. How did you find the other information? And why did you add peacock terms ("is regarded as one of the most beautiful") to the article? I've learned not to use them... (I mean no offense, but accept my apologies if you're offended.) -- Pepve 01:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • well, the link you just provided ( google search for 'iavardi') produced 3,760 hits for me... I don't know how it only came up with two for you! You're probably right about the peacock terms, though. Grutness...wha? 06:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep And my Google search brings up 455 hits. Regardless, I'm inclined to believe that all rivers are notable. Maxamegalon2000 06:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As long a there are reliable sources showing existence agree that all such geographical features are automatically notable. Davewild 09:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw by nominator (is there such a thing?) This is a battle I can not win, my views on Wikipedia are apparently quite different from the views of a lot of co-Wikipedians. Rest assured that you did not convert me, I still believe that such articles have no place in any encyclopedia. Wikipedia should not have all information, a selection has to be made. There will not be enough potential editors in the world to finish the articles if everything was selected. (And Grutness, I want your Google!) -- Pepve 11:04, 4 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. Coredesat 03:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of female rock singers[edit]

List of female rock singers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

List of female heavy metal singers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Should be deleted for the same reason as List of female singers. They add nothing to Category:Female rock singers and Category:Female metal singers. Spellcast 18:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the red links as redirects to the appropriate bands first. — RJH (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a notable intersection of traits. Axem Titanium 19:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The list lets me search by the groups the singer is in, the category doesn't allow me to do that. The list would be even more useful if it was broken into solo singers and group singers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep For the reasons stated by Richard Arthur Norton. Asarelah 01:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Unlike the too general "list of female singers", this list is specific to females who sing or perform rock music which is very male dominated. This list is valuable to the category as it provides more names including some that may not have their own Wikipedia page outside of their band articles. Rj24 3:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep For the above reasons and more. Angli Cado Primoris 01:19, 8 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 User:Brendanconway. — iridescent 19:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James collins, english singer[edit]

James collins, english singer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Almost slapped an A7 on this as the claims to notability seem to amount to so much froth, but given the amount of work that's gone into this, bringing it over to give benefit of the doubt. Every claim in this article is less than it appears; on closer reading, this does not seem to actually be the bio of a bona fide opera singer, but a vanispam piece (albeit a cut about the usual WP:NOT#MYSPACE fodder) about someone with no actual achievements other than an appearance in what I strongly suspect is a single am-dram production. — iridescent 18:18, 3 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. Coredesat 03:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology departments and laboratories[edit]

List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology departments and laboratories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not satisfy WP:NOTABILITY, and Wikipedia is not a directory. Specifically, the article does not (and I don't think ever would be able to) provide significant coverage using reliable secondary, independent sources. Noetic Sage 18:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - additionally, the article makes no indication to ever provide claims of notability. --Sesameball^Talk 18:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Do we really need a list of departments and labs? I doubt it. It's currently a linkfarm in some areas. We're not a directory, so delete. i (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for above reasons. Also, the MIT web site does a very good job of listing Labs and Centers, as well as Departments. The main MIT article could just link to those pages. Note, I'm an MIT alumnus, Class of 1971. Lentower 19:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in agreement with all comments above. If we had some special 'edge' in describing how MIT was organized, or we knew something about MIT's structure that hadn't been widely publicized, then there could be a reason for this. I don't believe that is the case. Sourcing this correctly would be very tough; it would necessarily become a lagged and often incorrect copy of the directory on one of MIT's own websites. EdJohnston 21:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not fit for WP. And, good suggestion: simply link to the directories on the MIT website, they do a very good job there with those pages (unlike many other Universities, I may add). Turgidson 03:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no need to duplicate subpages of MIT's web site here. JJL 23:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep At least the department section. That doesn't seem well described on MIT's site. Therefore it could be of interest to people who want to understand MIT's structure. Unless the labs can be arranged similarly, I'll support their removal Mbisanz 03:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment On the MIT Depatment page, if you mouse over the name of the school, the names of the departments in the school are also highlighted, which shows the structure. If you need something more like the way it's done on the List we are considering deleting, I suggest you ask the MIT Webmasters to do it there. That helps all Internet users, not just those who look at WP. Lentower 20:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, and as cruft and advertising for a university that can afford its own webspace. We already have MIT. Bearian 17:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --AliceJMarkham 01:22, 6 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. Encyclopedic topic, lots of room for expansion. --Fang Aili ^talk 17:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of musicians who play left handed[edit]

List of musicians who play left handed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unless being left handed had a profound impact on their career, this is an indiscriminate and trivial list. Spellcast 18:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep If you're familiar at all with playing a guitar, you'll have to admit that most guitars are designed to be played "right-handed". Essentially, you finger the chords with your left-hand, and you "play" the guitar (the strumming and picking that separates the pros from the amateurs) with your right hand. It's not as easy as it sounds. It's less of a problem now, with backward-looking "left-handed guitars" available, but the problem is in the way that the strings are configured. Mandsford 19:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Correct. Unless them being left handed is important and relevant, then there is no need for such a list. If it is relevant to someone, put it in their article. If we start getting a few, we can make an article about it. But I doubt that will ever happen. So delete it. i (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a notable intersection of traits. Axem Titanium 19:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually left-handedness and mixed-handedness are both linked to musical accomplishment in adults. See my comment below for details and a WP:RS. - Neparis 22:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Just seems too trivial for a list on WP. I understand the difference it makes in learning to play but I think it makes more sense in context of the individual articles rather than as a grouped list. Interesting but not really very encyclopedic in my view. Pigman^what?/trail 20:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Being left-handed is relevant here because playing left-handed is different from playing right-handed. There are books written about playing left-handed guitar. (added: Left-Handed Guitar: The Complete Method by Troy Stetina, for example.) Etc. Being left-handed may not have a profound effect on their career, but it has a profound effect on the way they play. Albert King, for instance, had a unique style because he was left-handed, as well as Elizabeth Cotten. They both played a right-handed guitar left-handed without restinging it, which made the string backwards for a left-handed person. It also affected the playing of Jimi Hendrix because he played right-handed guitars altered for left-handed playing, but leaving the controls alone, so they were on the opposite side as normal for him. Steve Miller (musician) thought that this was such an important factor in Hendrix's playing that he had a special guitar made that was essentially a left-handed guitar altered for right-handed playing. (added: In fact, the photo on that page shows him playing such a guitar.) Bubba73 (talk), 23:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: this is a lot more relevant than, say, actors who are left-handed. I've been wanting to expand this artice to explain more about it. A left-handed person who plays guitar either (1) learns to play right-handed (awkward at best, impossible at worst), (2) plays a right-handed guitar upside down, making the strings backward for a left-handed person, leading to a different style, and (3) playing a proper left-handed guitar. And category (3) can be broken down into (3a) play a true left-handed guitar and (3b) play a right-handed guitar modified for playing left-handed. And (3b) involves problems with intonation and non-symmetrical bracing and other features of the guitar. There is a lot more here than meets the eye at first glance. Bubba73 (talk), 23:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PPS: I don't want to significantly change the article while it is up for deletion, but instead of deleting it, I would like a chance to expand it to more than just a list. Bubba73 (talk), 23:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be best if you do it now, actually. If you can satisfy some of those who support deletion while the article is still being discussed, then it's all good. i (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to do a lot of work on the article and then have it deleted. Bubba73 (talk), 01:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've somewhat changed my mind after giving examples of musicians where playing left handed had an effect on their work. But how much can be said for the rest of the musicians in the list? Spellcast 10:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category-fy Also, please note there is a difference between being left-handed and playing left-handed. Fee Fi Foe Fum 23:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does "Category-fy" mean? Bubba73 (talk), 01:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He means make the list into a category like Category:Musicians who play left handed. Spellcast 10:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that would do any good because it wouldn't explain anything. Bubba73 (talk), 15:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explanatory text can be added to the category header. Alternately, an article on left-handed musicianship can be written, and a link to the category can be made to look like a link to a list, as I have done with List of hip hop musicians from Memphis, Tennessee. Fee Fi Foe Fum 21:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is exactly the type of information that is good for a list and bad for a category, and while it's not the greatest list in execution, it easily could be much better. Lists allow for sources and explication that categories do not (e.g. what type(s) of guitar a player had learned, or nuances of style). It is unquestionable that left-handed guitarists have been among the most influential rock guitarists and there has been speculation why this is so; there's a whole book about it. --Dhartung | Talk 04:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The book is $350. I've bought 20 or so books to use as references for WP, but this one is too expensive. I'll see if I can get it through inter-library loan to use as a reference. Bubba73 (talk), 15:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - meets WP:NOTE and WP:V. There is a statistically significant increase in the proportion of left-handers (and mixed-handers) in skilled adult instrumentalists, composers and singers as compared with a normal population, and this increase is not a consequence of musical training. Being left-handed or mixed-handed makes someone more likely to be musically talented. This link between handedness and musicality in adults has been well documented in WP:RS; see, for example:
  • John P Aggleton (1994), Handedness and Musical Ability: A Study of Professional Orchestral Players, Composers, and Choir Members, Psychology of Music 22(2):148-156
  - Neparis 22:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I didn't think that musicians playing left handed was particularly special. But after reading the comments by Bubba and the source given by Neparis, I see that it may not be as much of a trivial intersection as I thought. It would be good to see the article cite sources though. Spellcast 18:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Request Please don't delete the article until I've had a chance to expand it. I'll try to do that within a few days. Bubba73 (talk), 19:21, 6 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. Coredesat 03:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atlee Yarrow[edit]

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

This is a repost but having looked at the previous article, this is sufficiently different in its claim of his being the "first person to be expelled from the Socialist Party", that it doesn't qualify for speedy deleted under CSD G4. The ten references are not as they seem: the first four do not mention him at all; the fifth is just a mention; the sixth is to a website which list every person in the country running for office and this candidate's answers to a boilerplate survey sent to all such candidates (accordingly not an independent nor a reliable secondary source); the seventh, eighth and ninth are blogs, and the last supposedly had an article on his appearance at a coffee shop, but which article is not found through that link.

A Google search doesn't turn up anything further that could be seen as significant treatment in any independent, reliable source. He's not a political figure who has ever held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, nor was ever a member of a national, state or provincial legislatures. Accordingly, the subject [still] does not appear to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people).--Fuhghettaboutit 17:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per all of the convincing evidence and rationale given by Fuhghettaboutit. i (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - insufficient reliable sources to establish notability. The only relevant news coverage I could find was this. Note that being the first to be kicked out of the party isn't all that notable considering the resultant non-coverage of the event in the news. -- Whpq 15:55, 5 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. Coredesat 03:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor characters in Scary Movie[edit]

Minor characters in Scary Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a non-notable list of characters that fails WP:FICT. It details minor characters that do not need coverage, so it is essentially indiscriminate information also. TTN 17:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the articles name says it all; this is a list of non-notable characters from a notable movie. TonyBallioni 17:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• As they're not important, they should not have an article. It might be better served redirecting, although I have a sneaking suspicion that has already been tried. i (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, by virtue of being too minor to mention encyclopedically. Axem Titanium 19:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everyone. I can't even believe there's a fanbase for this garbage that cared enough to create this. JuJube 02:46, 4 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. Simply not notable enough. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 13:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Rosa Plaza[edit]

Santa Rosa Plaza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Regional mall, no apparent notability presented in the article or cited. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 21:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No claim of notability (speedable per (CSD/A7). Apparent media coverage regarding notability: "Dog bites man": [4].
  Wikipedia is not a mall directory.--victor falk 22:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - You seemed to have missed all the stories that are directly about the mall that are not of the "dog bites man" variety incidents that took place there. --Oakshade 22:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like Santa Roza Plaza to Offer Microsoft Internet? It's about Santa Roza Plaza, without the shadow of a doubt. But it's still about a dog biting a man.--victor falk 00:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's in depth non-trivial coverage by a secondary reliable source about the mall which easily passes WP:NOTABILITY. By the way, no such WP:MANBITESDOG guideline exists and likely can't as there's too much subjectivity. --Oakshade 00:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is no WP:MANBITESDOG, but there is a policy about common sense.

• Keep - Being a "regional" mall is actually a strong reason to keep it as they are major malls that serve an entire region, not just a small neighborhood. The Press Democrat has written many in depth stories on this mall [5] [6] [7] (and many more [8]) --Oakshade 22:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• See my comment above. Your third link is about crime that takes place at the mall, not about it. And you could have saved yourself the trouble of linking to the same Hated Google Test as I did.--victor falk 00:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I read your comment above and you're either ignoring the non-trivial coverage this topic has received or simply trying to get mall articles deleted (I see you're giving the same cut-and-paste argument on other mall articles AfDs). You seem to have no understanding of Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines and simply don't like malls. If you want to change WP:NOTABILITY, you have to make your argument there, not on a specific article's AfD. --Oakshade 00:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't especially like or dislike malls, but I love wikipedia articles about malls. For instance, I love Country Club Plaza. That's a good article. It tells me more about it than what's its anchors are and wether or not Microsoft offers wifi there. It tells me trivia like it was it was dubbed "Nichol's Folly" because the land bought for it was used for pig farming. It tells me quadrivia like as the first mall designed for automobile shoppers, so it had a major impact on American consumer habits. It is encyclopedic. Unfortunately, I can't see no shadow of that in Santa Rosa Plaza. If anybody truly believes there is the tiniest spark, ((sofixit)). Don't bother about sources, just write; I will change my vote to keep without a single one, as long as it plausible enough not be a hoax.--victor falk 01:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You simply don't like the non-trivial secondary sources about this topic and the fact they establish notability. You're citing only one article that remotely supports your non-existent guideline argument and ignoring the others which are much more deeper in scope about this mall than the Microsoft story anyway. And the argument to delete this article just because it's not as good as another is also non-sensical (I guess that's the fictional WP:NOTASGOODAS guideline). Wikipedia is a never-ending project and it takes time, sometimes a lot of it, for articles on notable topics to improve. --Oakshade 02:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neutral Perhaps its size is sufficient for it being notable. In this case, the article has to be expanded with those claims, and non-subscription sources added.--victor falk 14:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Oakshade.
  Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per abundance or RSs. Too bad they're mostly subscription. - Peregrine Fisher 00:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I see nothing notable enough to keep this. Ridernyc 02:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Simply put, the article fails to demonstrate notability. Also its size is small then the 800,000 sq ft that is generally accepted as granting notability for size. Vegaswikian 21:35, 2 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, Qst 17:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, there are more malls this size near where I live than I have fingers and toes. This mall is no more notable than them. Axem Titanium 19:57, 3 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 Survivor: The Australian Outback per precedent with other contestant articles and since no strong reason to keep was mentioned in the debate. --Polaron | Talk 18:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell Olson[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to have done anything of note other than Survivor, and ample precedent proves that Survivor alone isn't enough for a page. For example, see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacy Kimball, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cassandra Franklin and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Angarita.

• Delete and recreate as redirect to Survivor: The Australian Outback, game-show contestants do not possess encyclopedic notability. --Stormie 22:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral Hi, guys. I created the article, and didn't know that there had been a decision against game show contestant articles, or even that Olson had already had an article that was deleted, as someone later informed me. I'm kinda fuzzy on the criteria for notability, and created the article because Olson lives in my home town, and I was tired of looking at that red link of his name under the Noteworthy Residents section of the Union City, New Jersey article. I apologize for this matter, but I'm going to steer clear of the vote, since I would probably appear biased. Nightscream 16:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Nothing forbids articles about game show participants, other than the need to establish notability. The sources and claims made here support a claim of notability. If additional sources are added, I will be willing to reconsider my vote. Alansohn 04:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - he hasn't established notability in his other endeavours. -- Whpq 15:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/delete to Survivor: The Australian Outback per consensus This is a Secret ^account 19:19, 6 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. east.718 at 00:30, 11/4/2007

Medieval Combat Society[edit]

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

Non-notable historical reenactment group, only 23 Ghits, none of them significant coverage. Masaruemoto 03:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to [List of historical reenactment groups]] may be worth a single line there. - Peripitus (Talk) 06:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete or redirect as above. I see a sliver of notability here, especially the claim of having appeared on Red Dwarf, but of course that isn't backed up by reliable sources, indeed nor is anything else here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qst 17:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of historical reenactment groups as that is where it belongs. TonyBallioni 18:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Tony. There are only 21 Ghits excluding Wikipedia itself.   jj137 (Talk) 19:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 07:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Schultz[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable graphic designer. Being an editor, or even a "founding member", of even a recognized journal is not notable, IMHO. Even if I'm wrong there, we have no sources for the journal being notable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Previous ((PROD)) restored, as the recreation appears to also contain an appeal of that deletion, which should be automatically restored.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete on the basis of being unable to find secondary sources for either artist or journal. --Sesameball^Talk 18:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 02:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Clubmarx 16:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I am attempting to restore an old entry that someone wrote on me some time ago. I assume it was notable then because it was not challenged or deleted outright, and I have tried to write in the spirit of the original entry. The question of what constitutes "notability" and whether I am "notable" is highly debatable, but I do know that the magazines and periodicals I've been included in are important to the design industry and Designorati.com is fairly well-known as well. Would it help if I cited a few sources where Designorati.com has been listed and mentioned by other (notable, I assume) designers, design pubs and blogs? Jeremyschultz 16:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doesn't meet WP:BIO. Johnbod 03:50, 9 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. Coredesat 03:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Campbell (Scary Movie)[edit]

Cindy Campbell (Scary Movie) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a non-notable character that fails WP:FICT's standards by not having real world information as described in WP:WAF. By failing those, it also fails the general notability guideline and it's two companions. Aside from that, it is built up from unwarrented plot information, and trivial quotes. TTN 16:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete text and redirect to Scary Movie. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Scary Movie.   jj137 (Talk) 17:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• You've gotta love the "quotes" section. I'm somewhat ambivalent about this. She is a character in all four movies. I'm not up on the franchise, but do any other characters have roles in all four? I'd be swayed to keep if there were one or two sources, but at the moment there aren't. So delete for now. i (talk) 19:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What matters is not how many movies she appears in, but rather how many citations there are in reliable sources. I see none, so there is no reason to have an article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I know. I'm saying that there is a good chance she would have sources, and because she is a more important aspect of the series, I'd be more inclined to accept less sources than I normally would. However, we currently lack that, so I said delete for now. i (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy 23:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete holy crap, do we need character articles for every awful parody movie? I have dibs on Dick Steele. JuJube 02:48, 4 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. Coredesat 03:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shorty Meeks (Scary Movie)[edit]

Shorty Meeks (Scary Movie) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a non-notable character that fails WP:FICT's standards by not having real world information as described in WP:WAF. By failing those, it also fails the general notability guideline and it's two companions. Aside from that, it is built up from unwarrented plot information, and trivial quotes. TTN 16:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete text and redirect to Scary Movie. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Scary Movie.   jj137 (Talk) 17:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Unlike Cindy, he is not a key part of the series. So it would take a lot of sources for me to wish to keep the article. So I have no problem redirecting. i (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• How many times does a character have to appear to be a key character? Shorty made 2 appereances maybe 3 in 2008 so I consider him a key character. Music2611 (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The number of appearences of the CHARACTER in the MOVIE has NO BEARING on notability. What we need is appearences of THIS CHARACTER in independant reliable sources (i.e. sources that are not fan blogs, and which also are not made by the producers of the movie). Since the character lacks any coverage by such sources, it is non-notable, no matter HOW MUCH they appear in the movie in question. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete dumb, non-notable character from dumb, non-notable series of films. JuJube 02:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:FICT. No coverage in reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Doctorfluffy 08:24, 7 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. Coredesat 03:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Haze Oil Orgy[edit]

Jenna Haze Oil Orgy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Warning to those of a sensitive disposition or editing from work: page contains a pornographic image. Contested speedy deletion under somewhat dubious circumstances (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rlk89). As "the first Blu-Ray porn film" is, I suppose, a vague assertion of notability - and any prod is bound to be contested - bringing it here. Personally, I don't think "first released in a particular medium" is a sufficient assertion of notability, given the sheer number of different video/film formats there have been over the years (and the fact that the first in any given format will almost certainly vary country-by-country), but others may beg to differ. — iridescent 16:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Claim is unsourced to any independent and reliable sources, without verification to this claim, there is nothing left except an article about an entirely non-notable porn film. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Even if being the first blu-ray porn movie was notable the article contains no verifiable sources that could confirm this claim. TonyBallioni 17:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It seems that there is some truth (SFW) to the claim that it's the first porn movie produced for Blu-Ray. (See also this article (SFW), this one (VERY NSFW), here (SFW) and here (SFW).) It wasn't the first released, as a re-release of Debbie Does Dallas holds that distinction. A fairly quick Google search turns these up, and these aren't all that it turns up. LaMenta3 19:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as said before, first blu-ray porn movie is a not the most notable distinction in the world. Axem Titanium 20:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge & redirect to Jenna Haze, if there is anything to merge not already contained in the mention in Jenna Haze#Pornographic film career. --Stormie 22:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No sources provided to verify claims of notability. • Gene93k 00:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Epbr123 01:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k 01:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Desperately trying to resist the urge to speedy it. Unsupported and highly dubious claim of very minimal notability. I question whether that tidbit would even merit inclusion in a "Trivia" list about the actors or production company and wholeheartedly debate the claim that this in any way warrants an entire article about the fact. AmiDaniel (talk) 08:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the sources found by User:LaMenta3. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added those sources to the article. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am not convinced that even if it were proven to be the first porn film to be released on blu-ray that that would in itself be notable; the first porn film on video was notable as it marked a watershed which changed the course of the industry as anyone who has seen Boogie Nights will know and the first porn film on HD could similarly be considered a watershed moment but the first film on a variant of a format? - this is when it gets less easy to argue. • nancy • 19:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor correction/clarification: This was the first porn film produced for HD; the first one released was a republishing of Debbie Does Dallas. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well referenced first. Adult films may very well establish which HD format is successful. So notability is clearly established. The above deletes are based on no references, but they are now there. Vegaswikian 07:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  No, the above deletes are based upon the belief that being the first pornography film produced for high-definition (not even the first released in HD) is not a distinction of notability. The lack of sources to support this claim was merely an additional reason cited alongside the lacking notability to advocate deletion. AmiDaniel (talk) 08:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the first of anything is notable. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The first cheeseburger I ate? -- AmiDaniel (talk) 08:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  nice try but no, because your not notable. However, the first cheeseburger would be. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Jenna Haze seems like the best option here.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:54, 7 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 with Positive psychology. --Polaron | Talk 22:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elevation (psychology)[edit]

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

Procedural nomination per conversation here. This was transwikied to Wiktionary some months ago and hence ((prod))ded off Wikipedia; however it appears to no longer exist on Wiktionary. (Without wikt sysop powers, I've no way to tell whether it never made it across for some reason, or was deleted after its arrival there.) In light of that, bringing it procedurally to AfD for a consensus as to whether it should remain on Wikipedia, be re-transwikied, merged into another Wikipedia article or deleted. — iridescent 16:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Positive psychology. This seems a valid concept in positive psychology, and thus merits SOME mention that article, but there is not enough information here to merit a separate article. No prejudice to recreating the seperate article if the main article becomes large enough, and this gets enough information to stand alone, but as it stands now, there is little more here than a dictionary definition --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per above. Also it appears not to have made it over Regan123 21:03, 3 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, on the triple. Daniel 13:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela L. Johnson[edit]

Pamela L. Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is liabilist. The information is inaccurate. Dr. Johnson did not "lie" about her application. See the State of New Mexico Board Order. There were not 6 lawsuits. Recommend immediate removal.fix —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaggyLinda (talk • contribs) 16:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a colleague of Dr Johnson's. I have worked with her for many years. She is a competent, conscientious doctor who is very concerned with her patient’s well being. Although she has had difficulties associated with major surgical procedures in the past, she has shifted her practice to a specialty that does not require such procedures, and so should be allowed to practice without continuous harassment. Dr Johnson left the practice of OB/GYN in 2002; she has not done surgery since. The Washington Post article was based on an article written in the Los Alamos Monitor. At the time of the article, Dr Johnson was no longer practicing as an obstetrician/gynecologist; she was undergoing another residency training program in preventive medicine after having decided that she would change her practice specialty. The reporter knew this, but she wrote in the article that Dr Johnson was an obstetrician/gynecologist even though she knew this information to be inaccurate.

The Washington Post article has many erroneous statements. Dr Johnson had applied for her VA, NM and MI licenses before she was aware that she had made an error in her application. She made the same error on all application forms based on the information that she received from her NC attorney. Her North Carolina attorney stated this to the VA Medical Board. It is not true that she moved from state to state to avoid problems with the respective state medical boards. The initial medical board order was not written until after Dr Johnson had completed all of these licensure applications and had been practicing in VA and NM. Anyone could tell this by looking at the dates, but the reporter elected to ignore this information and thus made up her own story about Dr Johnson, adding and deleting information until she had a sensational but erroneous story. Dr Johnson had medical licenses in 4 different states. How many times have you unintentionally made an error on an application form and been punished this aggressively? Dr Johnson has been punished more than 4 times by different medical boards for the same error in her applications. In addition, the patient the Washington Post reporter wrote about, was not Dr Johnson's personal patient, she was a non-paying patient who had surgery done by the resident physicians; Dr Johnson's name was one of the attending names on the chart, along with many other Duke physicians. Dr Johnson talked to the editor of the Washington Post after the article was written and explained how the reporter misinterpreted and twisted the information. I believe the reporter is no longer at the Washington Post....but excessive damage has occurred.

I would highly recommend that this article be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SashaSammy (talk • contribs)

• Delete db-bio, db-attack, take your pick. NN person that lost her medical license and was brought to malpractice. One real media source, BLP magnet. Not improved since last AFD. Don't mind the wall of text above. Clear WP:POINT nomination, but that doesn't make the article any less crappy. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 21:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Although I didn't explicitly !vote during the prior AFD my sentiments were clearly in favor of something like a weak keep. At this point it's clear that Johnson does not meet a continuing coverage test and indeed has very limited attention outside of the one WaPo series. I don't believe she satisfies WP:BIO or WP:BLP1E at this time. Note that I removed about two paragraphs from SashaSammy's post that were clearly libelous against an individual (and basically an ad hominem argument). --Dhartung | Talk 21:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm sure she's a very poor physician - I wouldn’t let her within 10 feet of my pregnant wife. But this is a slanderous attack page. Dr. Johnson will get her just reward/punishment; the wheels turn slowly, but let's not have Wikipedia serve to harm her. Tiptopper 11:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as meeting WP:N and WP:RS, but edit. JJL 23:39, 4 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. If a list article is created and someone wishes to merge, feel free to let me know. Coredesat 03:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BNSF 7687[edit]

BNSF 7687 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. A non notable locomotive.

Also including BNSF 7695 Nuttah68 16:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge and redirect to an UNLINKED list article, maybe List of BNSF locomotives. These and other non-notable locomotives could be merged to a list article per WP:LIST guidelines and Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Merging instructions; that is often how such items are handled. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ack. Not a notable locomotive. There's no need to redirect it. I don't see enough people searching for the term to warrant it. i (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, NN locomotive. Wikipedia is not a directory of rolling stock. There are plenty of railfan websites for this material (though I have no idea if any are wikis, which would be useful). --Dhartung | Talk 21:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:N. Doctorfluffy 23:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment notification left on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains. Slambo (Speak) 23:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; I'm strongly inclined (even as a railfan) to agree with Dhartung above, and I'll add that these days the barriers to starting your own wiki are very low. If there needs to be a wiki to cover this material, one or more of the railfan Web sites should start one. --Tkynerd 00:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There is a fledgling Wiki -- TrainSpotting World -- but even there I wouldn't expect to see sub-stub articles on non-heritage diesels.
    EdJogg 23:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect according to Jayron32's proposal. ----DanTD 05:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per above EdJogg 23:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect per Jayron32's proposal above. --Oakshade 23:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only assertion of notability is the color scheme used to paint the locomotives. If there's something to say about BNSF color schemes, it should probably be mentioned elsewhere. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per CSD A7. --Stormie 22:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Carbajal[edit]

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

The only notable thing about this guy is his father was a Uruguayan soccer player. Canuck85 18:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:BIO. He's a notable athlete by playing for Toronto Croatia, which is professional team in the highest level Canadian soccer league, the Canadian Soccer League. Athletes that play at the highest level in their sport are notable. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was his dad that played for Toronto Croatia. Canuck85 18:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ah. good catch. I misread that. Then he is absolutely non-notable, and this article appears to a borderline A7 speedy. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per CSD A7 by User:Hemlock Martinis. --Stormie 22:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Park Esq[edit]

Edward Park Esq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Obviously untrue, and complete nonsense --J.StuartClarke 16:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Leather Jesus[edit]

Black Leather Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Black Leather Jesus is a noise collective from Houston formed by Richard Ramirez. This 3-line article has been tagged since June 2007. I'm unsure whether they count as "notable" - they did open up for Sonic Youth in their hometown, but the first links that come up in Google are MySpace, and Wikipedia. I'm also suspecting that maybe this article should just be merged into Richard Ramirez. If there's any proof that these guys (or Ramirez) are as "notable" as Orphx or Coil or Merzbow, I'd think we could keep it; but it's not up to me, it's up to Wikipedia. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, but I'll change my mind if someone finds something notable about the group. No notability, not even the assertion thereof. Might qualify for a speedy, but I want to give this one a chance because I like the idea. =^^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As with Dennis, if someone can show this is notable, I'd change my mind. The title should be moved to "Black Leather Jesus (band)"... I thought this would be about a really tacky velvet painting. Mandsford 15:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree on the move -- the title is not ambiguous because, as far as I can see, all Google hits refer to this. There's no need to disambiguate, as this page would just wind up being redirected to the new one. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 15:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice per above. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 15:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as no notability has been asserted,but should the page be kept I agree with Mandsford that it should be moved to Black Leather Jesus (band). TonyBallioni 17:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nothing to indicate notability. Doctorfluffy 23:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete although a redirect to Richard Ramirez would be acceptable. I don't see the rationale for disambiguating a term that has no obvious conflict with an existing article, though. See WP:DAB and WP:NC. --Dhartung | Talk 21:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cepheus Seal[edit]

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

An article on a weapon from a video game. Very little content, article has been tagged "unclear" and "nn" since June, no real-world content. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, very NN. Not even mentioned in the main Soul article. No sources so also fail WP:V. meshach 15:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest Possible Delete as it is not notable in the least bit. The only reason it should be saved from speedy is because it asserts notability by being a weapon from a notable series. TonyBallioni 17:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, clearly non-notable. Doctorfluffy 22:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 14:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gorn Confederation[edit]

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

Heavy in universe plot summary about a fictional race of lizards. Article does not any cite reliable sources as evidence of notability outside the game from which it derives. Gavin Collins 14:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 14:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Adequate notability and sourcing. Colonel Warden 14:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sourcing is NOT adequate. ALL sources are to the works of fiction that contain this group. There are ZERO sources to any independent reliable sources, and thus fails WP:FICT requirements that an article be about a fictional element that has a real world perspective. No evidence that ANY real-world perspective exists for this group, so the article should be deleted. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The references still seem good enough to me, being highly authoritative. But since you're shouting so loudly, I've just been through my piles of dusty magazines to add another one.Colonel Warden 18:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• the sources lack independence which is what is needed; they are to the actual works of fiction rather than to some source unconnected to said works of fiction. if you have those magazines where the subject is discussed, and can provide those references, that would be very helpful. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, violates WP:NOT#PLOT and unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability per WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy 19:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Gorn, Gorn, gone. Unnotable. Clarityfiend 23:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• strong keep - even I remember the Gorn. That was the big dinosaur that Kirk fought, right? He used gunpowder to kill the thing. The fight scene was referenced in an episode of Family Guy. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge per Pinball22. I also think that the Star Fleet Universe pages should be treated as a group since they're presented as part of a series. The universe is shared by more than one game publisher, there ought to be some reliable sources out there. Kmusser 19:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge The information, while appropriate to the notable topics related to Star Fleet Universe, would be better served as a merged article along with the other in universe government pages. It would have been more appropriate to apply a Merge Multiple articles template to the various pages (see WP:MERGE) rather then suggest deletion, which gives little time to create such a page. Please note that Gavin Collins has applied this template to the other articles that would be good candidates for merging with this article and those making their opinion noted here should check out those pages as well. Iarann 17:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Gavin Collins has made a comment on another related page up for deletion that merging is not a good option. [9] I am posting this response because all of these articles are up for deletion for the same reason and are related. Typically when an article is merged, extraneous information is removed and the article is slimmed down and properly cited. When sources are cited, and an article is not considered notable enough by itself, I don't understand why you would oppose merging. Especially when most of these articles you have already tried to delete for the exact same reasons survived (see [10] for the Klingon Empire AfD and [11] for the Romulan Star Empire AfD). I also strongly recommend you take a look at the Nomination section of the Guide to deletion which mentions you should both give thought to merging and "You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth." The article does have references at the bottom of the page, and therefore with cleaning could easily be merged. At the least, if we merged all of these race/government articles into two articles based on the Alliance and Coalition headings they seem to fall under, it would help keep things relevant and notable both to the appropriate subject and Wikipedia guidelines. A lack of inline sources is not enough for deletion, as you well know or you would have used that argument in your original nomination. To go back to your original argument for deletion, if there is no notability outside of the game guide, I do not understand why an article for the game guide itself, which is quite notable, cannot include information related to the governments involved in the game. I noticed there is a history of this (see [12] for an RFC for Gavin Collins) which leads me to some concern to your motives. While I understand a desire to clean up Wikipedia, AfD is not the only solution, nor should it be rushed to. Instead, things like merging and working to clean up articles and cite sources should be emphasized first. Iarann 17:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: That's right, we must delete or merge this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article is 'not Gorn] which covers the appearance of the race in Star Trek but rather about the derived group in the Star Fleet Universe which is rather less notable. I believe that a delete is appropriate because this is already adequately covered in other places but won't strenuously object to a merge to Races of the Star Fleet Universe or a similar article. Eluchil404 22:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted WP:CSD#G3. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Petz (TV Series)[edit]

Petz (TV Series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No sources offered in article to confirm notability (or existance). Gsearch doesn't turn up a series of this name on Cartoon Network, no entry in IMDb. Contested prod. Fabrictramp 14:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, it's a hoax. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:HOAX. Doctorfluffy 19:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete looks like User:Danny Daniel is back yet again. JuJube 02:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avena Lee[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:BIO. Epbr123 14:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k 14:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)*[reply]
• Keep This article does pass WP:BIO. Under this section, it states that pornographic actors are notable if they have been featured in mainstream media multiple times. I think staring in over 100 films is suitable. Icestorm815 20:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mainstream means non-porn. Epbr123 20:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Point taken. Delete That was the only reason I sided for keep. Following points are valid. Icestorm815 04:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Number of appearances as a measure of notability for pornographic actors has been abandoned - for a while this was in the list of "questionable criteria" for notability, then later revised to be "invalid", on the ground that "Pornographic films can be made in a few days, thus performers can appear in dozens of films per year". It does not appear in the current draft of Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria. There is nothing in the Avena Lee articles which offers any assertion that she meets any of the general criteria for notability nor any of the specific criteria for pornographic actors. If she has been featured multiple times in mainstream media and someone can add reliable sources to that affect, then keep. --Stormie 23:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of notability found. No WP:RS cited. • Gene93k 01:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No notability, no coverage, no interest. Valrith 22:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Tabercil 23:50, 6 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 yes, keep. - Mailer Diablo 03:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No[edit]

No (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It is disputed whether or not there should be an article about "no", as some have claimed this is nothing more than a dictionary definition. However, we do currently have an article about "yes". This was originally brought to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, but I'm moving it over here and unredirecting for now so a discussion about the article can occur. I have no opinion. --- RockMFR 13:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete wikipedia is not a dictionary, it is an encyclopedia. This not on only violates WP:Wikipedia is not a Dictionary, it also violates WP:NOT.--SJP 14:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is an article about the meaning, origins and usage of a word. It has no encyclopedic content beyond that traditionally found in an unabridged dictionary (plus some trivia that doesn't really belong in an encyclopedia article either). I see no possibility of expansion past the purely lexical content. Note: Once transwiki is complete, either replace with a soft redirect to the Wiktionary page or return the contents of no (disambiguation) to this location. Rossami (talk) 14:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. IMHO, there is the possibility that the article may develop beyond the lexical definition. --gala.martin (what?) 15:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transfer to wikitionary. This is just a dict def, not an encyclopedia entry. meshach 15:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article goes beyond the definition, and I feel it can also be expanded beyond the lexical context Carter | Talk to me 16:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep does go beyond the dictionary definition, and it is feasible to write a longer article on the subject. Hut 8.5 16:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - since there's an article called yes, why not keep this one? If no is deleted, might as well delete yes. As above said, very commonly used word, also interesting article. Heights^{(Want to talk?)} 01:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While wikipedia is not a dictionary, it does and should contain entries on words where such words can support an encylopedic article. This one is likely to have enough information to be expanded into an encyclopedia article, and such should be kept. Not every word in existance will be able to do this, but this one clearly will, and thus should be kept. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - per Hut.   jj137 (Talk) 17:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Jayron32. Barsportsunlimited 17:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• No to deleting No aka keep, one of the most used words in the English language, this article also has content beyond a dictionary definition and could most definitely be expanded. TonyBallioni 20:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per Jayron32 and the fact that yes has an article.--Cartman005 20:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. On deleting this article, I say no. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 21:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki as dic def which can't be expanded, most of the keep voters had no good reasoning for keeping the article. This is a Secret ^account 21:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. No (to deletion). Yes is clearly fleshed out and interesting. I see no reason why no should not be of similar potential. --Gwern (contribs) 21:16 3 November 2007 (GMT)
• Keep, there is plenty that can be said about words that is not suitable for a dictionary. John Vandenberg 21:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Not the best article but more than a dicdef or dab. --Dhartung | Talk 21:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Has the potential to be expanded more than a dicdef (It has an arts section already, although a culture section would be better). It might become the next thou too bad I can't help develop the article.--Lenticel ^(talk) 22:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per above. The necessary companion to our article on yes. There are doubtlessly famous "no's" in history, and the article has potential for expansion. - Smerdis of Tlön 23:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• ( ﾟ³ﾟ)三№♥ tgies 00:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per almost everyone. JuJube 02:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it's an encyclopedic subject, though what is presently there hardly justifies it. JJL 03:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm the one who made the redirect in the first place. I honestly see nothing here of value. There's the definition of the word, an explination it's a "refusal skill" (can be merged to Just Say No or refusal skills, it's not really about the word "no"), "Political No's" (makes no sense), and "Saying no in the arts" (that's a pop culture trivia section in disguise). Delete this article, move the disambig page back. And I say do the same to yes as well. --UsaSatsui 15:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I just don't know about you! Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:OUTCOMES and almost everyone above. Bearian 19:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Salt This article contravenes WP:NOT as stated by SJP. The article has no primary or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability of the linkage between the essay, songs, television programs or films listed.--Gavin Collins 23:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, being the one who expanded the article to try to make it an encyclopedic article. The current state is not satisfactory but the article has potential. There were new edits last days that I think indicate we together can make it a better article. As far as I can see from the amount of discussion here, there are quite a few people thinking about the article now. Let's say yes to no and edit! --Brz7 02:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 20:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drake Circus Shopping Centre[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Drake Circus Shopping Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Completing nomination for 81.132.102.112. Reason given is "not notable - based mostly on old news stories - inaccurate facts - advertising a shopping mall - incorrect trademark attribution - see discussion page". --- RockMFR 13:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note this may be a bad-faith nomination [13]. ELIMINATORJR 14:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete irrespective of whether it's bad faith, this is a small shopping centre in a not especially big place. Guy (Help!) 14:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete: The sooner this article disappears down the pan the better. Its notability is in question even though the nominator's comment "based mostly on old news stories" means that it has actually had press coverage. The cost of the disruption to WP that this and its associated article (Drake Circus has caused outweighs its usefulness to the project. It most certainly is a bad faith nomination as well as a WP:POINT making exercise, but that doesn't detract from the fact that the place is a nonentity in global terms. ---- WebHamster 15:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Change of mind. After seeing some of the comments here and doing some Google searches (144,000 hits on ""drake circus" -drakecircus.com"). In fact it's looking like it should be the Drake Circus article that's up for AfD, not this one. I couldn't find anything about Drake Circus on Google that wasn't related to the shopping centre. ---- WebHamster 12:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'comment' if i may quote you from a comment you posted on a discussion page 'wikipedia is not google'. In any event on googles first page we have [14] or [15] but as you say wikipedia is not google.81.155.65.71 14:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• - — 81.155.65.71 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I have no idea what your comment is trying to say, but the first link is not an independent source (and so what if some houses are being built there, that is no indicator of notability it just means there was some spare land there) and the second link is about the shopping centre. ---- WebHamster 14:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case you had forgotten this is what you advised another user ... "It looks like your complaint should be with Google not Wikipedia. WP does not control what Google indexes or how it is indexed. Google indexes are not verified by anyone and there is no requirement to do so as it its virtually totally automated. Rather than commit any more faux pas I suggest you click on Drake Circus then click on Drake Circus Shopping Centre and then report back on your findings. Meanwhile it may be prudent to reflect on the fact that Wikipedia is not spelt G-O-O-G-L-E. ---- WebHamster 15:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)" 81.155.65.71 14:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and...? ---- WebHamster 14:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a large number of hits on a search engine are no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Similarly, a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized or not generally sourceable via the internet. One would not expect to find thousands of hits on an ancient Estonian god.81.155.65.71 14:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is why gHits are used contextually. In this context 144,000 hits for what you like to term "just some shops" is contextually relevant. gHits are not used as an absolute source, but they can be a reasonably reliable indicator in extremes. ---- WebHamster 14:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the second link appearing on page 1 of google for 'drake circus' or 'drake circus shopping' is indeed about the shopping centre - that is the shopping centre of the drake circus district - not the shopping mall - please try and understand the two are seperate and apart.81.155.65.71 15:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me as more like "shops in the centre of Drake Circus" rather than as a "shopping centre". This site would not be considered to a WP:RS as the site is provided by one of the local shopkeepers, i.e. Silverstall Jewellers, and is therefore not independent. Regardless, it's irrelevant to this discussion, as is your Google digression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WebHamster (talk • contribs) 15:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

which is a mall - separate and distinct from the shopping centre within the Drake Circus area (also appears on first page of google for drake Circus) - In case you had forgot the drake circus.com site is also provided by a local shopkeeper - albeit possibly a bigger one.Nicole 50dc 15:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: then the vandals will find another article they don't like: "nonentity in global terms" could apply to the vast majority of people/places that are the subject of Wikipedia articles. - Snigbrook 04:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  No comment on the first half, but I agree with the second half of what Snigbrook writes. Consider this, etc. etc. -- Hoary 09:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak and conditional delete Only claim to notability, if any, is its badness; if the opinion that it was an unparallelled atrocity were a published article rather than a website, I would support keeping this. Otherwise: there is a shopping centre; it has had cash flow problems; the neighbours object. Dog bites man. Include in the article on the neighborhood, if at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My condition has been met, so Keep or Merge. On the whole, I would prefer to see much of this condensed into Drake Circus, and some rewritten into an article on the Carbuncles Prize, which would of course keep the picture. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WebHamster and Septentrionalis. Notability is shakey at best and someone needs to take away these bored students' soapbox. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Drake Circus. Sufficient notability but not sure of need for two articles. Snigbrook 03:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the shopping centre seems to be notable, maybe the Drake Circus article should be merged into this and other articles. Snigbrook 22:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  comment: actually the Drake Circus article is useless, as its purpose seems to be an attempt to prove a point that Drake Circus is an area that does not include the adjacent Drake Circus Shopping Centre. Snigbrook 16:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the Drake Circus article is (or will be)an attempt to publish an account of a district that among other things brings together a rich variety of scientific, cultural, academic and historical institutions and values. The mall is not in the same area so you may just as well merge it into an article on Sir Francis Drake or Chipperfield Circus. Its only connection is the similarity of the name (its like merging an article on Paris Hilton into an article on Paris)Nicole 50dc 20:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC) — Nicole 50dc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete its contents are not verified as the 'official' site it refers to contains no or completely different facts. It is completely unheard of outside Plymouth and the references to the BBC links are extremely localized and old news. There also seems to be an issue/dispute over the use of an unlicensed logo/trademark which does inclusion of this article justify. As for 'merge' it is not in the Drake Cicus district and has nothing to with it other than sharing a similar name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.155.198 (talk) 11:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This IP has, rather bizarrely, complained to himself about legal threats; otherwise, his edits are very few and devoted to this shopping centre. -- Hoary 12:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the course of trying to link to their terms and conditions page on their website it was mysteriously taken down and replaced with a pop-up. It then left my original post stranded with no reference. I tried to explain this on my user page but i admit not very well which is why i changed it. For obvious reasons i cannot and will not discuss my correspondence with other third parties. It seems more than a coincidence that their site was being rapidly changed last night/this morning when web archives will confirm that no pages had been updated for nearly a year and it seems obvious that whoever is operating that site is closely monitoring anything said on this site. In any event what has any of this to do with my original post other than your attempts to yet again divert or flame the orginal subject matter being discussed.
      • No, it was just a standard sock-puppet warning for the benefit of whoever closes this AfD. Meanwhile, enjoy your conspiracy theories but don't assume that they interest other people. -- Hoary 23:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: In support of its (unwanted!) notability I've added to the article another link about the "truly awful" design, this one from The Times; and clarified that the Carbuncle Cup is awarded by Building Design, which is "the UKs best-read architectural weekly with a circulation in excess of 25,000, thats 70% of all architects across the UK."[16] --Smalljim 15:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete
  • 1. Its an advert for a few shops and/or a link to blatant commercial promotion such as spudulike
  • 2.Its chief resource is a dubious website which states 'drakecircus is the only covered mall in the south west'. That is untrue as there are many more in , Exeter, or the broadmead at bristoland even another covered shopping mall in plymouth
  • 3.There is little of any encyclopaedic value one can say about it.
  • 4.It disgracefully refers to the war memorial which has nothing whatsoever to do with the mall other than having the misfortune of being in the same city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicole 50dc (talk • contribs) 20:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC) — Nicole 50dc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: As the article is pretty much a stub "unencyclopaedic" isn't necessarily an accurate description. It's "chief resource" is not the website. Only minor details for the info box have been taken directly from the website (floor space, owners/developers, management company). The rest is either from editor input or external news sources.

Having a side-effect of being an advert is not a reason to delete an article. The article is not written in an advertorial manner, there's a difference.

The article does not describe the mall as being the only covered shopping mall in the south-west, the website does that so it has no relevance to this AfD.

I don't know why you choose to use the term "disgraceful" in relation to the war memorial. That's being non-NPOV and has no place on WP. The sentence in question "The new building, designed by Chapman Taylor Partnership and situated behind the ruined Charles Church, preserved as the city's civilian war memorial, has provoked a mixed reception." could hardly be described as being disgraceful.

So it seems that none of your points stand, add to the fact that this is a SPA account then I advise the closing admin to disregard the comments. ---- WebHamster 21:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not written in an advertorial manner "..with a wide range of fillings. It has branches across Britain." on its spudulike stub. Or "It includes such retailers as Next, Primark, Waterstone's, Virgin, Spudulike, Burger King and Schuh, and abuts an enlarged Marks and Spencer.". If you want to turn wikipedia into a shopping directory then fine go ahead. Why is there an article on these few shops anyway? Why not allow any and every shop an article? I’m sure any local shop could dredge up some link to a news item about a shoplifter caught on its premises, or a vandalsim or opening soon or new manager etc etc.Nicole 50dc 12:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly the Spudulike article has no relevance to this AfD per WP:WAX. Secondly, thanks for your permission, I'm sure Jimbo will be so pleased. ---- WebHamster 13:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 5 references, at least two of which are both from RSs and substantial. That's more than most shopping centers. The nomination is apparently a dispute between whether the name applies to the area, the shopping enter, or the university located there. For documentation see the talk page of the article--where the various parties attempt to accuse each other of libel and other legal issues. See further the comments of WebHamster at the user page of one of the people who made the threats. [17]. (he has already been blocked for it by another admin). This should be speedy kept as an obvious bad faith and disruptive nomination. DGG (talk) 00:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The main reference is the drake circus.com site which itself states "The centre is on schedule for completion and due to be open for business on 5th October 2006." Either it is out of date or it is accurate - either way it does not reconcile with any of the facts stated in the article. The other references relate to minor local news which again are out of date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicole 50dc (talk • contribs) 13:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main reference is not official website much as you would like it to be. Your arguments seem very similar to other SPA editors here so it could be a reasonable assumption that there is some sockpuppetry going on. Regardless of that please be aware that from a WP standpoint notability does not have a time limit and doesn't time out, therefore being "old news" is irrelevant. ---- WebHamster 14:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

an encyclopedia is supposed to contain information that is a bit less sensitive to the passage of time than that. A hundred years from now, no one will care that such and such a shopping mall was opened in 2006, but they will care about e.g. the battle of hastings because that was a truly exceptional notable event.Nicole 50dc 16:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per DGG. Article is sourced and appears to meet notability guidelines. Likely disruption is not a reason to delete an article. --Goobergunch|? 06:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Goobergunch. -- Hoary 07:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It is an article on a few shops in a relatively small mall, whose web-site contradicts both itself and any facts stated in the article.81.155.65.71 14:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• - — 81.155.65.71 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. example Tutankhamun

Actually it's an article about a new £200m shopping centre that has received considerable press. What the off-wiki website does or doesn't say is irrelevant to this AfD ---- WebHamster 14:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment It is the chief source upon which you base the article and it is factually wrong and out of date.81.155.65.71 14:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't the chief source. See above ---- WebHamster 14:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

make up your mind! In the discussion pages webhamster said

"I have a reference, now where's yours, see WP:VERIFY: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth? Put up or shut up. The info in the infobox came from the horse's mouth, I wonder which end of the horse yours is coming from?" ---- WebHamster 01:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

“...The official website of the shopping centre is so far the most reliable source (per WP guidelines) we have.” WebHamster 21:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Your incessant contradictions are unneccassirly drawing out this discussion to a point where it becomes as unreadable as the discussion page. Please stop.Nicole 50dc 15:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your incessant trolling, misspelling and using quotes out of context is noted and will no longer be responded to, at least not by me. ---- WebHamster 17:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point made was to draw attention to the various contradictions you keep making. You elected for this article to be deleted - then you changed it to keep it - based on a few Google results which you kept on emphasizing were of no consequence. You kept on and on that drakecircus.com was the official site and now you are saying it is not. Anyone who dares to challenge you is labeled a troll or puppet or whatever and you block them. Why can’t we have a level-headed discussion?81.155.65.71 18:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no contradictions. It's all been spelled out to you in very basic terms. If you can't or won't understand then that's your problem, not mine. What is clear is that you are attempting to steer the discussion away from the fact that there now appears to be some notability much to your chagrin. Your digressions are transparent to the experienced editors here, as is your trolling. If you wish to learn then look at WP:Notability and WP:RS, if you don't then may I suggest you just read the sports page of the Daily Star. BTW, I'm done with your obtuse trolling. ---- WebHamster 19:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• stub it After endless discussion which just seems to go round and round in circles why not move this article into a stub from Shopping_mallsand move the article on Drake_circus into a stub from plymouth maybe review them both in a few months time and if they have not improved then delete them. 81.155.65.71 17:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should understand what a "stub" is before passing comments like this. ---- WebHamster 17:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • I am not as experienced as you in whatever Wikipedia terminology is correct or wrong, but i thought a stub was an article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject. This article only has a few sentences and most of that is simply repeating what is in drakecircus.com.81.155.65.71 17:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It already is pretty much a stub so how do you suggest we "stub" it further? ---- WebHamster 19:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

o.k. so if it is a stub from Drake_circus- My point is to make it a stub from shopping malls81.155.65.71 20:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a "stub from Drake Circus", neither can it be a "stub from shopping mall", it isn't a "stub" from anything. A stub is an individual article containing very little information. It may or may not belong in a category, it may or may not belong to a WikiProject but it doesn't come FROM anything. Does that explain it enough for you? ---- WebHamster 20:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete hey its a shopping mall that opened in 2006 - period - is that really notable? In Texas we have one in every town or city - hardly ground breaking news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.170.3 (talk) 11:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC) — 86.151.170.3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Incidentally, this is a British Telecom IP.[reply]
  • Would that be Texas, Devon you're referring to? BTW, nice edit summary. ---- WebHamster 12:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's not labor the point, Hamster. -- Hoary 12:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • see my discussion page - i note you cannot deny it is just a darn mall - instead just filling this page with yet more of your trolling.

*keep it but remove the links to the shops as to me it looks like an advert for those shops. I think maybe the history of the old shopping mall is more notable than the current mall particularly with reference to concrete cancer, the former occupiers of the office block, the way it acquired planning permission in the first place (i.e. the deal that was struck between P&O and the local council), the old shops that were demolished, the crane that collapsed during construction etc etc. All it needs is more impartial editing. (Less pro-v-anti mall) which hopefully might include reference to the good and the bad impact it has had on the local economy.Nicole 50dc 17:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Change of mind. To be factually accurate the shopping mall is called 'DrakeCircus' as evidenced by their logo and the signage on their building. The reason the developers did not add a space between Drake and Circus was to avoid confusion with the existing shopping centre within the Drake Circus area.Nicole 50dc 20:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And your evidence that they did this is what? Are you sure it's not just a design element? All publicity mentions and every reference to the place on their own website is Drake Circus Shopping Center (c/w space). That doesn't seem to me to be either demonstrating a desire to separate the two or to demonstrate that it's actually "drakecircus Shopping Centre" or are you attempting to show that the lowercase wording is significant too? ---- WebHamster 22:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[18]Please see the banner image of their entrance sign. All the signs throughout their building are similarily labelled 'DrakeCircus'. (I note www.Drake-circus.com. and all other 'Drake-circus' TLD's are still available)Nicole 50dc 22:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same design element as in their logo. You have heard of maintaining design elements across different media haven't you? As regards the TLDs, so what, you will find that most company names in domain names forego the space, the rest of the supposition is an other example of your propensity for WP:SYNTH. I'd recommend that you look for written proof rather than images that contain elements of graphic design. Once again I note the absence of proof for another of your assertions. ---- WebHamster 23:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hamster, on 19:22, 5 November 2007 (see above) you were done with [this SPA's] obtuse trolling. I don't know about you, but I'm still done with it, and I suspect most people are too. -- Hoary 23:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I couldn't find my Yo-yo :P ---- WebHamster 23:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and merge its content back into a trimmed-down Drake Circus from whence it was recently split - see the Drake Circus AfD and my comments on that article's talk page. One article can easily cover the contents of these two minor and related topics. --Smalljim 09:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See above - further research on Drake Circus has persuaded me that it is a notable feature of the city in its own right, though the current article is inaccurate. See my draft rewrite of that article here. So a merge would not be appropriate. --Smalljim 12:19, 8 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.