< October 16	October 18 >

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

The result was delete. I will reconsider if sources are found. W.marsh 15:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chavurat HaMashiach[edit]

An article about an organisation that was founded in 2005. Although there are a number of ghits[1] for it, I cannot see any that are independent or reliable sources in the meaning of WP:NOTE. Malcolmxl5 00:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as renamed Chavurat HaMashiach (Messianic Christian congregation). It qualifies for Category:Messianic and Hebrew Christian congregations. IZAK 12:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 12:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. IZAK 12:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment unless there is a need to disambiguate there is a rule against putting unnecessary parenthesis after the title. Jon513 13:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jon513: The need is based on the automatic confusion arising from the Hebrew name of this group, so that this not be confused with a non-Christian synagogue or place of worship. IZAK 19:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete while churches and synagogues may be notable, those that started only a few years ago likely aren't. Unless there are multiple, non-trivial works on the subject the article will go nowhere. Jon513 14:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete: nio evidence of notability presented. Mukadderat 04:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep please source its notability--יודל 17:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As always, to survive a delete vote, sources are required showing evidence of notability. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was The result is keep, since he's notable being an author of major books.--Alasdair 13:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Abrahamson[edit]

WP:NN. Ghits refer to another person with the same name. Brewcrewer 05:59, 10 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, W.marsh 23:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~. This individual is more on the borderline of notability than most AfD's I see here. His two claims to notability are that he was an unsuccessful political candidate for Lieutenant-Governor of a US State (which doesn't confer much notability, AFAIK) and that he has written some books. His corporate affiliation is with a kind of "corporate history" company, where he is paid to research the history of a company and present it back to the company for consideration, and potentially to the public in order to develop a brand. Thus, his co-writing of "Entrepreneurship and the Creation of a Wireless World" was, I believe, done to order by a corporate sponsor and is a kind of self-publishing -- and that, I suggest, ultimately doesn't confer notability. His company is interesting and somewhat unusual but not really notable in the greater scheme of things. If there's more notability that could attach to him for whatever reason, I'd look at my "weak delete" suggestion again. Accounting4Taste 02:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I defer to DGG's accurate assessment of Harvard Business School Press/Cambridge University Press, which same tips the balance for me in the "keep" direction; not even a weak keep, but full-on. Accounting4Taste 21:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His 3 most widely held books are major works, held in many hundreds of public and academic libraries, according to WorldCat. He is not "affiliated" with a corporate history company--he runs it. Some of his works may be sponsored, but clearly not all. Cambridge University press does not publish sponsored works without scholarly merit. Neither does Harvard Business School Press. this isn't self-publication--but publication by two of the most prestigious possible publishers in the field. DGG (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Per Accounting4Taste. --Strothra 22:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article asserts notability as a historian/author. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Espresso Addict 01:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Humayun Kabir Dhali[edit]

Unsourced article. Have not been able to verified any of the awards online.[2][3][4][5] or the famous novel[6]. Note: this appears to be an autobiography but that is not ground for deletion. Nominating as fails WP:NOTE. Withdrawing nomination per comment below. Malcolmxl5 23:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This entry required extensive research because each name can be spelled two or three different ways and the author has chosen an uncommon spelling of various words, it seems. I finally located this, from a Bangladeshi newspaper in 2007, saying that "Humyun Kabir Dhali" received the "Atish Dipankar" Gold Medal for literature. I found an on-line bookstore that seemed to offer four of his books, all fiction (as "Dali" instead of "Dhali"). I found what looked like other citations for other of his books but the language barrier defeated me. On the balance of probabilities, I think he has written a goodly number of novels and received what seems to be a prestigious award, thus meeting WP:Notable. He's not very forthcoming in his own blog, though. Accounting4Taste 02:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- that explanation isgood enough for me, but this needs to be cleaned up badlyJJJ999 05:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. I thank Accounting4Taste for his work on this. There appears to be a problem with transliteration of the name and titles of books and I withdraw my nomination, which will allow the article to be cleaned up and notability to be more thoroughly established. --Malcolmxl5 21:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added the citation I found, cleaned up the language a little and left it as a stub. Accounting4Taste 22:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 04:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exposed: The Climate of Fear[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This is a one-hour TV special which finished in last place in its time slot. Fails WP:N and WP:EPISODE, and is a coatrack for global warming skepticism to boot. Prior AfD closed as no consensus; since then, there has been no additional coverage by third-party reliable sources. This lacks any evidence of significant notability or impact, other than a couple of trivial one-time mentions in partisan sources at the time of its airing. MastCell ^Talk 23:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per nom, as last time William M. Connolley 08:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not disagree in substance, for now, with nom, but I think there are articles existing throughout WP that are far less notable topics than this which still passed the WP:N exam. I'm always concerned about consistency in the enforcement of rules. --Childhood's End 14:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I understand your position - this is far from the worst article or least notable topic covered on Wikipedia. However, the unfortunate fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't really affect the decision to keep or delete this particular article, which should be based on notability criteria. MastCell ^Talk 16:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment This is what concerns me more and more with regard to such AfDs. Technically, yes, the fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS should not affect our decision, but that should be true only if policies are enforced with consistency (i.e. avoiding double-standards, blind to WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT). I see that you also concur that there are worst articles than this one that are maintained throughout WP, and I would hate to see WP:N used again to delete an article that, for some reason, looks like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT for some people. --Childhood's End 20:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You would "hate to see WP:N used to delete an article"? But that's the basis on which articles are supposed to be kept or deleted. I haven't seen anyone express an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument thus far, so I'm not sure where that's coming from. I delete (and nominate) plenty of articles, so don't think this one has been singled out. And you're always welcome to help sweep up other non-notable articles, too. MastCell ^Talk 22:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep — Responding to the comment above: Keeping an article simply because there are examples of other articles that are less-notable but still have articles isn't a reason to keep an article. I don't know the link to the Wikipedia policy at this time, but I read it recently because it came up in the discussion for another article's discussion for deletion. So, this article can't be kept for that reason. However, I think that it would be valid to compare the notability of this article to typical (i.e.: above the bottom) articles about episodes.

I also think that the episode that this article documents should remain because it is an episode of a television series that receives international distribution, it is a significant departure from the normal format of episodes from this program, and it covers a currently-highly-debated topic.

Additionally, I have a personal policy: If it has not been at least six months since the last nomination for deletion, I will automatically vote against the deletion. This comes from an article that I was interested in being nominated for deletion, but failed. It was nominated for deletion again less than a month later, which also failed. It was then nominated again less than a month later, which is why I made this personal policy. It also failed the third deletion, even without my vote, but I think that this is a good rule. If not for my rule, I would have voted against the deletion as per my reasoning in the previous two nominations, as with this article. But my rule will still apply if I think that the article should be deleted, I will vote against the deletion if it has been too soon. I am currently holding up a vote for renaming an article (that I want renamed) because it has been less than six months since it has been renamed.

So, for good reason as well as my personal policy, I vote to keep this article. — Val42 16:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If your main reason for arguing to keep the article is that it had a prior AfD a few months ago, I should mention that the AfD was closed as "no consensus", and therefore a repeat attempt to gauge consensus is reasonable. MastCell ^Talk 16:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But the "no consensus" finding of the previous AfD was at best dubious. The first AfD was a clear Keep... --Childhood's End 20:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny, I saw it as a pretty clear delete. Many of the "keep" !votes were along the lines of "it's notable because it was on TV". Even more relevant, a number of "keep" !votes were based on the idea that "it needs a bit more time", "keep for now", "keep and improve", etc. But you can't improve an article without sources. The fact that there's been no improvement, and no new useable sources, since the "no consensus" a few months ago is actually a very strong argument in favor of deletion. MastCell ^Talk 22:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: <assuming good faith missing of what I said>As I stated above, I have good reasons for keeping this article, though I won't repeat them because you can read them above. However, if this hadn't been the case, I would have voted against the delete because of my personal policy, created for reasons also stated above.</assuming good faith missing of what I said> — Val42 18:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again, I am somewhat sympathetic in substance to your proposal. But the fact that there's been no improvement lately is hardly an argument (shows the article is accurate perhaps), and the fact that there's no new useable sources may just show that this is too soon to call again for a deletion. Give it plenty of time, then you'll have a better case for deletion imo. This is rushed. --Childhood's End 14:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete this episode had a brief "hour of fame" (albeith not one that could be seen in ratings), amongst the sceptics. I haven't seen it referenced since. So: delete per nom. --Kim D. Petersen 18:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete nonnnotable. Mukadderat 04:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep too soon. (SEWilco 03:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- It doesn't show notability and no one's edited it for 2 months. Too soon for what? MastCell ^Talk 03:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now See my reasons above. --Childhood's End 14:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, "keep for now" was the sentiment at the last AfD months ago. There's been no improvement, no new sources to incorporate, and no evidence of notability to turn up, so I'm not sure what keeping it "for now" will accomplish. MastCell ^Talk 18:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It will show what it did not have time to show now; i.e. that it is not notable. That no new sources to incorporate occured in the last weeks is not reliable evidence. But if this is still the case in 6 or 12 months from now, then I'll be the first to support an AfD. Right now, you risk deleting an article about a topic that already got some coverage, and that might or might not get some more later on. --Childhood's End 19:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The show aired in May. It generated a small amount of buzz at the time in a handful of blogs and partisan venues, which rapidly died away. It finished last in its time slot in ratings. That was 5 months ago. It is not notable, and the chance of something non-trivial coming along 5 months after an hourlong bottom-rated episode aired is negligible. I don't see this AfD as "rushed", but if anything, overdue. MastCell ^Talk 22:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - In the (unlikely) event that significant coverage of the episode pops up later, the article can be recreated. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'd likely agree with you if this was the first Afd but it is not. Standard procedure would be to wait longer after the first AfD, and I dont see why you feel so urgently the need to have this article deleted now instead of in a few months. This brings me back to my first comment about how loosely WP:N can be enforced depending on the case. I will say no more. --Childhood's End 13:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm sorry, but you're incorrect on the basics here, as well as what constitutes "standard procedure". The prior AfD was not closed as keep - it was closed as "no consensus". In such a setting, the "standard procedure" I'm familiar with is to wait a few months, give the article and issues time to sort themselves out, and then try again to achieve a consensus to delete or keep. There is absoluetly nothing "urgent" or "rushed" or "loosely enforced" about this, and your implications not only show a misunderstanding of basic deletion policy but also seem designed to cast doubt on my motivations as the nominator, neither of which is helpful here. MastCell ^Talk 18:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Just as a precision here, I did not meant to cast any doubt whatsoever about your motivations. No doubt this is good-faithed. What I said is since WP:N is a policy that is not enforced with consistency (you admitted yourself that there are clearer cases of non-notability throughout WP), and since over this, this article already survived an AfD not so long ago, I think that we ought to wait before a new AfD. WP:N is a blurred policy which can open the way to many subjective calls, and if only for appearances or transparency, cutting this article under WP:N should wait some more time. --Childhood's End 03:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete. not notable. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forever The Sickest Kids[edit]

Contested prod - rather than think of anything new, I'll recycle the prod reason:
Utterly non-notable band. I've cleaned out the worst vanispam & nonsense but this still appears totally unsalvageable; sole "sources" are two myspace pages. Grand total of one release. The only reason I haven't speedied this is the number of people who've worked on it. — iridescent 23:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dont delete this! this band is amazing and if you ever listened to them youd know that. the 'nonsense' was written by the guys in the band and it was funny to anyone who doesnt have a stick up their ass, kthnx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AIM=Jessisgrowlyface (talk • contribs) 21:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you should delete this. First of all, you don't know how big this band will get - they can release more CDs, contribute more musically and tour more. Also, this is one of the only pages on here that made me laugh. So, if not taking it on purely enducational purposes, at least it makes you laugh. This band has enough fans and some will come here, see this, and laugh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.19.188.71 (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even like this band, but I appreciate the entry. One of the great things about WIkipedia is that you can find artwork, tracklisting, or release dates for records by completely obscure bands. In either case, even though I had never heard of this band, they're on a major label, so it's not like they're some dopey local band that just wants their name on the internet. If a band has put out a record, whether self-released or through an independent label, I think it warrants a place on Wikipedia. The fact that this record was put out by a major ought to close any debate whatsover on the subject as it means that there are at least a couple thousand copies of this thing in circulation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.232.72.213 (talk) 13:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails WP:BAND. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 08:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete barring any evidence that it meets criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (music). CDaniel 19:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources -- Whpq 20:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources establishing notability per WP:BAND are provided. Nuttah68 20:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 15:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O. R. Edgington Elementary[edit]

Totally average elementary school, nothing to make it more notable than any other elementary school. Nyttend 22:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete <sarcasm>That's amazing! It's one of seven schools in a district!</sarcasm> Jonathan letters to the editor — things I've written 23:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Northmont City School District per WP:LOCAL. Yamaguchi先生 02:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:REDIRECT and old fashioned common sense. RFerreira 06:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 no consensus to merge evident, but it can still be discussed without the need for an AFD. W.marsh 15:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gaius Julius Caesar I[edit]

Apparently non-notable ancestor of the famous Julius Caesar. Might merit a mention at the article on Julius Caesar, but probably doesn't need his own article. I would gladly withdraw this AFD if someone shows me Gaius is indeed notable and backs it up with history books or journals. Plinth molecular gathered 22:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- he was the great-grandfather of Caesar, a senator in his own right. Given the size of the article (which could be expanded), I think it easily covers noteability.JJJ999 00:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you proof he's a senator. Jbeach56 01:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We can't have an article about every U. S. senator, much less Roman senators who died millenia ago. Cyclopediafixer 14:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — It's stating the obvious, but Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. So I'd say we can have an article about every U.S. senator. This doesn't seem like a valid reason to delete. — RJH (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment We definitely can and should have an article on every current U. S. senator. Should we have an article on an 19th Century U. S. senator who always toed the party line in his votes and who never made the news outside of his state? That's the question I think Cyclopediafixer meant to ask. Robert Happelberg 23:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Robert, United State senators are notable per WP:BIO per defalt, maybe he meant state politicians? Jbeach56 01:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Comment I meant U. S. senators but in retrospect, per Jbeach56, my comment makes more sense for state senators. Though Bob Happ also makes a good analogy to past U. S. senators. Cyclopediafixer 02:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because it's a notable relative of one of history's most important figures and is important to Roman historians. Because Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia we can afford to allow for such articles. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:PAPER, it tells right there that it isn't a reason for keeping. Jbeach56 01:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If we are talking about him more than 2000 years after he died, there is at least some evidence of notability. And yes, we certainly do or will have an article about every U.S. Senator. Newyorkbrad 16:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Brad's reasoning. Anyone seriously think anyone will be discussing Jim Moralés, Sigel (Oh My Goddess!), or Selénia at the dawn of the fifth millennium? --Jack Merridew 16:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep although I am not 100% confident of JJJ999's designation. Partly because of the copious reuse of names in Roman dynasties it can be difficult to determine which Gaius Julius Caesar (for example) is meant in a given reference. If we have a definitive source that he was a senator that should be added. It should also be noted that not all scholarly sources use designations such as "I", "II", etc. because the Romans themselves did not. --Dhartung | Talk 20:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We include members of major legislative bodies of all periods and countries. the very core of our encyclopedia is information about such people as US senators.We have all back to 1789. DGG (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion or evidence of notability. --Strothra 22:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Plinth said he'd be willing to withdraw this AFD if someone showed him the appropriate "history books or journals". Any takers on that offer? Robert Happelberg 23:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note I made a comment on User:Yannismarou talk page, if he can't rescue the article, then there isn't much notabilty. Jbeach56 01:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete article has existed for more than a year, wouldn't it be much better by now? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Age of article doesn't really have to do anything with deleting. Jbeach56 01:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then perhaps redirecting it would be best at this point in time? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Julio-Claudian family tree for now until more info is found, I see no proof that he was a Roman Senator so I don't know how people got that assuption. And also, about brad reasoning, the romans, greeks, etc normally list the geneology of a famous person in their records, so I see nothing special about that. Jbeach56 01:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Jbeach. A one-sentence non-referenced article isn't worth keeping. Majoreditor 02:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply vis Proof- off the top of my head, I can't think of the souce, but I've done a course in Roman History, and in the absence of the time to go research it in the next few days I'd say the following:

a) I'm basically sure it is correct.

b) Nobody really seems to be disputing correctness

c) It would have been astounding if he wasn't a senator, given the way the family dynasties operated, since pretty much everyone else related to him, including Caesar's other g-grandfather, and all their sons, were senators.

So, off the top of my head, I can't tell you if it was Livy or Suetonious or whatever, and I'm too busy to go look right now, but I don't think anyone is questioning the validity in a serious way, and if kept we can give the page to the Roman experts who can fix it up.JJJ999 02:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just expand. Sure it looks pathetic now, but it'll get better as most articles given time do Carter | Talk to me 10:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or merge and redirect as per flawed nomination ("merit a mention at the article on Julius Caesar, but probably doesn't need his own article") --SmokeyJoe 10:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but not because of the supposedly "flawed nomination." The nominator has shown a willingness to admit mistakes, something which clearly sets him apart from fanatical deletionists who will do anything to get stuff deleted, including evidence contrary to their assertions. I will look on GoogleScholar, confident that I will find something contrary to the nominator's assertion that this Roman fellow is indeed notable. Anton Mravcek 23:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Normally, I wouldn't care about the age of an article nominated for AFD. But consider also that in the year since its creation, it hasn't gone beyond stating Gaius I's place in the Caesar family tree. Nor has the threat of deletion spurred anyone to expand the article or add citations (something which sometimes happens with unfair AFD nominations). I do have to agree with Anton that it's good to see the nominator acknowledging the possibility he could be mistaken. The fact that no one has taken up his call to show him the appropriate books or journals shows that Gaius I is not notable. I looked him up on Google Scholar, too. I only got two results: C. Iuli Caesaris De bello gallico libri VII.: Caesar's Gallic war by Caesar & Kelsey, and an article by J. C. Arias. Cromulent Kwyjibo 00:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Newyorkbrad as an historically notable subject worthy of interest. Yamaguchi先生 02:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. Not given in Roman Aristocratic Parties and Families by Friedrich Münzer under his more famous great-grandson. The ancestry given for Julius the Dictator ends at the son of the subject of this article. It's safe to assume that he was a senator, but that just means he was one of 300 men, and possessed enough land/property to qualify for the Senate. Michael Grant doesn't mention him in his biography of Julius Caesar. Suetonius's biography of Julius Caesar is missing the section on Caesar's ancestry, so he's not mentioned there. Not mentioned in Livy's books on the war with Hannibal, and the early history of Rome by Livy ends in 386 BCE. No mention of Caesar's ancestry in Plutarch. Not sure there is anything out there to add to this article beyond the fact that he lived and was the Dictator's great-grandfather. Ealdgyth | Talk 04:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Julio-Claudian family tree. At this point the article only states the name of his father and son. Nothing that could not be included in the family tree. Dimadick 16:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 15:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concord Poetry Center[edit]

Fails WP:ORG. Non-notable local organization. SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 22:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sorry, as it sounds like a neat place. Bearian 23:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 B1atv 17:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC) (non admin closure)[reply]

Encyclopedia Titanica[edit]

Contested prod. Original reason for prod was "Next to no content. Only serves to promote the website in question", which I still believe to be the case. The reason for contesting deletion was "Created to serve the incoming links", given by the article's creator, who mistakenly believed I had nominated it for speedy deletion. This doesn't seem to be a good enough reason for keeping the article, so have brought it to AfD. RFBailey 22:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: having looked it up on Google, I don't believe it passes WP:WEB. By all means use the site as an external link, but that doesn't mean we need an article about the site. --RFBailey 22:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I count 88 internal links to it. See here: [7] Which of the three criteria for deletion from WP:WEB are you quoting from? Please always cite which rule and not just the concept page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Those 88 "internal links" are mostly citations: I'm not sure how they demonstrate notability.

As for "which rules", I can't see that it satisfies any of the three:

Apart from "this" (PDF)., I can't find any evidence of the site being the subject of multiple non-trivial published works;
I can't see that it has won a well-known and independent award;
It doesn't appear to be distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators either.

--RFBailey 02:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest Keeping While specialized, the website in question is a non-profit website with significant trafic and with scientific significance. I added some content to the wikipedia entry as well.Kevin Borland, Esq. 22:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Although it's true that there are links to the Encylopedia Titanica in other Wikipedia articles, it's an example of the type of research tool that became feasible with high-speed internet, like Wikipedia, or imdb.com, or so many others. As Kborland correctly notes, it's non-profit, although that shouldn't be the criterion. Frankly, I'd like to see a category for web-based encyclopedias, whether they're privately edited (as in this case) or user-edited (as in the Wikipedia and other wikis that follow the same format). There's no such thing as too many research sites. Mandsford 01:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, but do we need to have Wikipedia articles about all of them? --RFBailey 02:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, if it is used 88 times in Wikipedia as a reference, it should have an article so people can judge the reliability of the site. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- as a stub at least. Has reference merit.JJJ999 05:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A thoroughly extensive website that has been covered in this article with ample reliable and verifiable sources to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn 06:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable and verifiable information from reliable sources. Pedro : Chat 12:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article can use work, but then again, most of them can. "Almost no content" in an article created less than 2 months ago isn't a valid argument for deletion, the article can and will grow. It's a very well referenced and documented site which IS the source for reliable Titanic information and its notability is growing and will continue to do so. Personally, I'd much rather see WP time taken in expanding these types of articles than discussing whether to get rid of them. Wildhartlivie 03:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--JForget 23:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq War Crimes[edit]

Unreferenced article that breaches WP:SOAP. The article also breaches the spirit of WP:BLP in that it makes a series of allegations against living people without adequate sourcing to back them up. Sources are cited but not in a manner that would enable them to be easily checked.

The article also appears to me to be original research by synthesis, where a series of claims, linked are then used to support a further unsourced claim. Mattinbgn\^talk 22:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom foreverDEAD 23:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bollocks from beginning to end. Nick mallory 00:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gist of the article-- Australia attacked Iraq two days before the deadline set in the 2003 ultimatum. Author argues that Australian prime minister, foreign minister and defense minister may have committed war crimes and that they lied. Sources are listed for statements, although author hasn't learned the < ref > and < /ref > form, quotes are taken from interviews. Looks argumentative, POV and beyond cleanup Mandsford 01:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While a useful article could well be written on Iraq war crimes, it should be based on relevant tribunals rather than editors own opinions. Capitalistroadster 02:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete- hoax, or nonsense. Either way.JJJ999 05:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely original research and synthesis, this article argues views that, as far as I can tell, are completely ridiculous and not worth of mention in this encyclopedia. Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia isn't for your original research, and this article contradicts that. ~ Sebi _[talk] 08:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 10:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research based soapboxing; even if it could be cleaned up and the opinions could be sourced (which I doubt could be done) it would still be essentially a POV fork of 2003 invasion of Iraq or similar. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 12:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to not be very credible and unlikely. At the most, if it had credible sources and was worth an inclusion on Wikipedia, I would say to merge somewhere in Iraq War or 2003 invasion of Iraq. Kevin 14:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hard delete - Unless an NPOV can be found, this can be in neither mainspace nor in userspace, so if the author chooses to userfy this, there it should be deleted forthwith as well per nom and per WP:SOAP.--WaltCip 03:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. See also the closing statement by Xoloz of the most recent Wikinfo AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (5th nomination), which I feel is closely related. W.marsh 15:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiChristian[edit]

Article on same topic was prodded back in July. Only cites one independent source, the wikimedia list of largest wikis. Is being the 63rd largest wiki notable? I don't think so, and I'm not sure citing wikimedia falls under WP:RS. There is no other independent media coverage cited. No awards or recognitions. Fails WP:WEB. Andrew c ^[talk] 22:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that it fails WP:WEB. Notable idea, and great and all, but not notable by standards here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like Marshall McLuhan once said, the medium is the message. Whether you realize it or not, you're living in the Golden Age of Wiki, an informational system that came about only after the technology was in place. Arguably, all of the offshoots of the original concept --- good, bad and ugly --- are notable without somebody taking a popularity survey. There's a lot more data storage involved in creating and maintaining a wiki- than posting a personal webpage, and their notablility grows in time. We're living through history and 90 percent of you aren't aware of it. Mandsford 01:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, so what does this explanation of your !vote have to do with our standards? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Mansford votes to keep it, I think I'm going to die of not-surprise. Not one thing he said addresses notability.JJJ999 05:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Your delete rationale consists solely of an ad hominem attack on another contributor and is exceedingly unhelpful. Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please, Jembot, don't die on account of me... :P Mandsford 15:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I think this is a valid article. There are plenty of other wikis (see List of wikis) that exist including A Million Penguins, WikiFur, International Music Score Library Project, Lostpedia, LyricWiki, Memory Alpha, Wookieepedia, ZineWiki, Wikia, Wiktionary, Scholarpedia, Wikibooks and so the list continues. So, why should the WikiChristian article be deleted? If it should, then for consistency, so should all of the others. --Graham Grove 13:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is generally understood that "other crap exists" shouldn't be a valid deletion argument. I personally do not have control over all of wikipedia content, and I suggest that each article be discusses on it's own merit individually and in isolation. Saying that other wiki articles exist does not address my WP:WEB notability concerns regarding this specific article. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, the other articles aren't crap, so good articles can indeed be written about notable wikis. This one is sufficiently well established to keep. DGG (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That other crap should go too, and if this is kept it is a condemnation of wikipedia. The people in favour have not one iota of merit to their arguments, they just like/are involved in the self aggrandising content. Ugh.JJJ999 05:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well some of those cited articles DO cite sources, and DO establish notability. I wouldn't mind keeping this article at all if it was at the same level as some of those other ones. That said, just because it is possible to write an article about a notable wiki and bring it up to wikipedia standards does not mean EVERY wiki qualifies. Like I said, each wiki needs to be examined individually, and no one has addressed the notability and sourcing issues of THIS particular wiki. If other users believe this article can be brought up to the same caliber as Lostpedia, which sites 25 sources, that sites multiple, independent sources such as businessweek.com, the St. Petersburg Times, wired.com, and ABC.com, has won awards like the Hugo Cup, been featured on Sci-Fi.com, etc, then I urge these editors to quickly mention the awards this wiki has won, and mention the multiple independent sources that confirm the notability of this wiki. If not, this individual wiki does not meet WP:WEB and should be deleted. Not every wiki is equal in notability.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the lack of reliable third party sources about this website. If others have the same problem they may be nominated for deletion as well. Yamaguchi先生 02:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete uinless independent reliable sources establishing notability per WP:WEB are provided. Nuttah68 21:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Biggest of its type, which alone makes it notable. Wikimedia is a WP:RS for stats. Bearian 23:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No reliable and significant third party sources, a stats page doesn't cut it. So far as I can tell, none of the keep arguments are based in policy at all, and some of them practically quote arguments to avoid. RFerreira 06:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Kent Brewer[edit]

Article about pastor and writer was despeedied as asserting notability. Unless the connection with the Phoenix Lights incident conveys notability, I don't see how he meets WP:BIO. I don't see notability in the book offerings. Postmodernism: What You Should Know and Do About It ranked ~1,900,000 at Amazon UFOs: 7 Things You Should Know ranked ~1,800,000 at Amazon. There are many people of the same name. I did not see anything among Google web hits and Google news hits that would support meeting WP:V and WP:BIO. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable autobiography. UFOlogists are bad enough but evangelical UFOlogy seems distinctly unscientific to me. -- RHaworth 06:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn per WP:BIO. Carlossuarez46 04:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion. --Ed (Edgar181) 12:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Underground tribal retro fusion punk techno christian blues[edit]

I suspect this article is a rather silly hoax. Even if it is genuine, there are no independent sources asserting notability; in fact there are no sources at all. Name dropping of bands such as Operator Please does not suffice. Mattinbgn\^talk 22:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. No sources, and a quick look turns up nothing at all. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 22:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: obvious hoax/joke. --RFBailey 23:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable and probable hoax. Capitalistroadster 02:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as an obvious hoax/joke and unverifiable. Probably acceptable for speedy deletion per CSD G1. Alexbrewer ^{talk} 02:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- hoax, not even a funny one.JJJ999 05:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G1: nonsense. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete junk. JuJube 07:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, oh please. Obvious hoax, and shouldn't stay. ~ Sebi _[talk] 08:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX. Funny though. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 09:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, I'd tag it as G1. This is bad, bad, bad. TheLetterM 12:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hut 8.5 10:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Robertson[edit]

No real assertion of notability. Tossing for AFD instead of A7 speedy in case I am missing something. TexasAndroid 21:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete There may be more to this, there may not be. I found this, but I'm not 100% on how important this case was in the history of AIDS-related events. I'd be willing to hear other arguments.--Sethacus 21:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep A news search brings up quite a lot of results, and they're spread out over 1988, 1992, and 2003. They're nearly all pay-per-view, but this AP story claims that "Robertson's struggle made him a symbol of the fight against AIDS discrimination". He won a legal battle to be able to attend regular classes, and while he wasn't the first (that would seem to be Ryan White, whom he befriended), it looks like there's enough coverage to say his case was of enough significance to justify an article. Thomjakobsen 22:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 22:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, per news stories found by Thomjakobsen. He also has a brief obituary at The Body, one of the major HIV/AIDS patient sites: [8]. Espresso Addict 22:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing WP:BIO and per above sources found by others. Stub that can be improved and expanded. Bearian 13:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd like to see some more sources, but this guy seems to be relatively important. - Che Nuevara 20:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 15:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barry A. Johnson[edit]

Can't see as notable, even though he was US Army Public Affairs officer in Iraq. There are several Google News archive hits, that I don't see as related to the Colonel. One related Google Web hit out of 47. Almost forgot. was deprodded February of 1996 without comment. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC) Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN talking head for the DOD. Bearian 23:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neel Burton[edit]

Non-notable figure; autobiography; advertising Valproate 20:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO and WP:SPAM. STORMTRACKER 94 21:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He has apparently authored a medical textbook, Clinical Skills for OSCEs, used by medical students taking their practical exam and I am wondering if he is then likely to be notable in a similar way to Wikipedia:Notability (academics), Example one, An academic who has published [...] a widely used textbook [...] is likely to be notable as an author... --Malcolmxl5 21:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and stubify to remove spam. Meets with notability for academics, per above, and I highly suspect Psychiatry is a widely used textbook as well.--Sethacus 02:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete the books are not notable . Psychiatry is not a major textbooks: it's only 181 pages long ; appropriately, it is held by only 34 libraries out of the hundreds of medical schools. Clinical skills is in only 31. This is below the level for a widely used textbook. Writing elementary textbooks and review books for medical students is not significant authorship. This isn.t notable work in any subject, academic or popular. a writer of a whole series of widely used review books for exams--maybe; a writer of two little ones like this--nonsense. we shouldn't just "wonder" if someone is likely to be notable or "suspect" that something is a widely used textbook, we have sources for notability, like worldCat. DGG (talk) 04:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 11:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Clinical Skills for OSCEs is ranked 33,530 at Amazon.co.uk [9] & Psychiatry is ranked 85,681 [10] and has received one or two independent reviews, which suggests that they are widely used textbooks, even if not widely held in medical libraries (DGG, is your library listing international?). Espresso Addict 22:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I use worldCat, it includes the UK universities & many elsewhere--the holdings listed for Clinical skills are 4 Canadian, 9 US, 7 UK/Ireland, 1 Europe other, 9 Asia/Africa/Australia. It's easy to tell, as if you enter where you are, they come out in order of the geographic distance from there --it does not include most public libraries outside the US and Canada, though, so wouldn't have been valid for an non-academic book of UK interest. DGG (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there was a recent AfD where an Amazon ranking of 17,746 (for a book about as old as Clinical Skills) wasn't persuasive, though that was for the book rather than the author. --Groggy Dice T | C 17:29, 17 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, Espresso Addict 22:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Expresso Addict. Edward321 05:19, 12 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, KrakatoaKatie 21:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (in response to Groggy Dice above). I'm not sure that Islam and Terrorism: What the Quran Really Teaches About Christianity, Violence and the Goals of the Islamic Jihad is a sufficiently similar type of book to act as a comparator. Espresso Addict 22:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject's sole claim to notability is to have written a popular course book. That would suggest the course book itself should be the topic for the article rather than the author. And for the book to be notable we would need reliable sources showing that the book has been significantly written about. WP:BK expressly forbids situations where "self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book", such as book sellers like Amazon. Also, as we all know, WP:BIG is not an argument to use in AfDs. Where is the claim to Neel Burton's notability - and where are the reliable sources to back up that claim? SilkTork *SilkyTalk 22:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment It would have been notable to write a really major textbook--it is another to write a less than 200 page "book" covering all of psychiatry and a exam review book--which is all he has accomplished. I'm sometimes partial to academics but this is below the bar. DGG (talk) 02:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep popular textbook--certainly we can't review its merits based on page length. JJL 13:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent secondary sources discuss the person or either of the books he has written. If the textbook is popular, please show evidence. (Amazon reviews are not sufficient) --SmokeyJoe 13:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 15:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fireland (band)[edit]

Fails to meet notability guidelines, and may very well be self-promotion. If a band of this fame is entitled an article then I can think of about 5000 other metal bands that qualify. (5000 is not an exaggeration, see metal-archives.com) Let it be noted if the band releases a few significant albums that it can be recreated, but as of now Fireland is non-notable and the page is self-promoting.-RiverHockey 21:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- self promotion all right. Scrub it. Now.JJJ999 05:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not myspace.com. TheLetterM 12:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Having examined both sides of the argument presented, I've concluded that the strongest argument lies for closing this debate as "Delete". However, I have taken into account the "Merge" argument, and I believe it could (possibly) be an alternative to deletion, but not at this time. Anthøny ん 19:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sailboat 4 logo[edit]

Content fork. There's a proposal to merge it back with WTMJ-TV, but who's gonna search for that term? Exactly ONE hit on Yahoo--Wikipedia. Blueboy 96 20:33, 11 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, W.marsh 20:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the fork back into the WTMJ-TV article. There is no reason for the fork. I am familiar with the television station and this logo. Royalbroil 04:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the first time I noticed this, and I agree that this isn't needed as the main WTMJ-TV article covers it well enough. The term in the title isn't used casually at all. Nate 06:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely non-notable, no Ghits, no references, not currently in use, no evidence it would be useful for searches nor outcomes, and appears to be spam. Bearian 01:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 15:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THIS ARTICLE WIL NOT BE DELETED

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 15:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SingSing[edit]

Band that fails to establish notability; article doesn't even mention if they had an album or not. Wizardman 19:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The claims in the article with respect to touring would be sufficient under WP:BAND if some citations can be found. Bondegezou 14:11, 12 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, W.marsh 20:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing but OR claims of notability with no independent citations to be found. Cap'n Walker 14:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 10 days and no one agrees with me, I think that's a consensus. Wizardman 15:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parc Omega[edit]

Does not appear to be notable, though it may be if sources are added in. Wizardman 19:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as a possibly notable, but very real place. Independent sources can be added later. Bearian 23:22, 15 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, W.marsh 20:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google gives over 23,000 hits; I'm sure there's something useful in there that could be used for a source. It might have to be trimmed a bit, though. GlassCobra 21:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 00:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nodongle

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

The result was speedy deleted by The undertow (talk · contribs) as spam. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 03:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nodongle[edit]

WP:SPAM No independent sources establishing this software's notability Cap'n Walker 20:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G11 (spam). So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anthøny ん 18:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sacramento County Public Law Library[edit]

Delete one line article about a county law library - no different than 50 others in California (1 per county), and a few thousand elsewhere in the U.S. County facilities are not per se notable - their libraries, law libraries, general hospitals, jails, sherrif's dept., animal control dept., coroners, assessors, auditors, social services dept., dept. of weights and measures, and on and on and on. There are no WP:RSes that give significant coverage to show that this law library is notable Carlossuarez46 20:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probably a notable subject, but after 4 months of no edit activity, it appears that there is no interest in turning this un-notable stub into a notable article. Dbiel ^(Talk) 06:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no different from the 50-plus law libraries in NY, either. 6th largest? NN. Bearian 15:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep. The real, verifiable place, of interest for many peopleane yes per se notable. If nothing to write, an option is to merge somewhere. If nowhere to merge, leave as it is. Mukadderat 04:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 15:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Windsor Baja[edit]

Possibly nn team - suggest merge to University of Windsor or delete.

Probable WP:COI: main contributor is User:UWBaja

Written like an ad and in a non encyclopedic manner. (excessive use of < br / >, uses terms like "our", "we".)

Update: User:UWBaja removed COI and wikify tags from article.

OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 03:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Cleaned up most of the COI/non wiki formated stuff, now just NN. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 21:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge and redirect to University of Windsor. Worth a couple of sentences (at most) there, but definitely not a full article. Clarityfiend 03:51, 11 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, W.marsh 19:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Serious COI problems, and the information isn't worth its own article, if anything. I guess a few sentences could be put in University of Windsor, but I would far from upset if it didn't. GlassCobra 21:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and Rename to CALPHAD (method) B1atv 17:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC) (non admin closure)[reply]

Calculation of phase diagrams[edit]

Unwanted fork of the phase diagram article. (Note. There is an academic journal called CALPHAD which has been on the wanted articles list (as Calphad) for a long time. However despite my advice, the author of this article does not seem to want to create an article about the journal.) -- RHaworth 19:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article doesn't seem to be a fork of the phase diagram article to me. A method for calculating phase diagrams might be notable enough to have an article, given the sources he lists. Could you elaborate on why you want to delete the article?

I do think that "Calculation of phase diagrams" is a bad title for the article in its current state, but that's a minor matter. — Ksero 19:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit that I raised this mainly out of frustration at the authors who, emailed me for advice and then completely ignored the advice given. OK it is not a fork but why cannot it be merged into phase diagram? Or, if it stays separate, what title would Ksero suggest? -- RHaworth 07:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm a bit confused. Is the article about a specific method for calculating phase diagrams, or just generally about the subject of how to calculate phase diagrams? If it's about a specific method, then I think CALPHAD (method) would be a good title. If it's just generally about how to calculate phase diagrams, then I agree that it should be merged into phase diagram — Ksero 09:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be the former - a specific method involving some sort of mathematical modelling of a thermodynamic system. However, the method seems to be confused with the journal in the article, as evidenced by the logo. I agree with Ksero that, if the article is kept, CALPHAD (method) would be a less confusing title, with maybe CALPHAD (journal) for the journal, if it's worth a separate article. Cosmo0 14:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think adding the content of CALPHAD as the part the phase diagram will not be enough at all. Phase diagram is just one of the byproduct of CALPHAD and the importance of CALPHAD is increasing exponentially with the help from many other scientific improvement, such as first-principles calculations based on quantum mechanics calculations. BTW, this is Dongwon Shin from the Pennsylvania State University whose advisor, Zi-Kui Liu, is the current editor of the journal, CALPAHD. I think CALPHAD has reached its maturity with the 30 years' history. --Dwonshin 21:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwonshin (talk • contribs)

Keep. Seems to be a legitimate description of a method, as far as I can tell. However, some of the details (the logo and link to the "official website") clearly belong to the journal and should be removed. Cosmo0 19:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with the condition that it needs to be retitled as discussed above. I don't think that a very specific method for calculating phase diagrams should have the general title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jermor (talk • contribs) 01:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 15:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evergreening[edit]

Cotested prod. A dic def with no scope for referenced expansion Nuttah68 19:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have expended the article and provided some context to document the concept's notability. Better sources are needed, and I'm sure those sources exist. There were supreme court cases in Canada and (I believe) the US as well, which debated the validity of this technique. There may be discussions in legal journals as well. In short, the concept appears to be moderately notable and verifiable, and should be kept. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 19:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well worth expanding this article as there is a lot of info out there. Phgao 03:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 00:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--JForget 23:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfboo[edit]

Fails WP:N; a Google search turns up no relevant hits, and the article has no references. Most likely is something made up in school. --TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 19:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hardly worth wasting the energy needed to write this, clear case of ~~WP:NOT#SCHOOL~~ WP:MADEUP--Jac16888 19:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP. Cosmo0 19:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else so far... Tiddly-Tom 19:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a "worldwide gaming phenomenon" with no Google hits at all? No. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:MADEUP. GlassCobra 21:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - it's obviously made-up - although I kind of like the idea of the game. Llajwa 23:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, maybe a candidate for BJAODN. Sort of reminds me of The Game. Oh, bloody hell, I lost.... --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BJAODN is gone, it got deleted a while back, down to WP:DENY i think--Jac16888 00:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nomination and WP:MADEUP also. Yamaguchi先生 02:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 15:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Walkington[edit]

Contested speedy and prod. A non notable local politician who may one day have a chance at notability if they win an election. Nuttah68 19:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--JForget 23:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elsie Ivancich Dunin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete. Fails WP:PROFTEST and just not notable. Eventhough there are a large number of publications by this individual, there is no evidence that this individual has made a notable or important substantive contribution to their field - quality over quantity. Strothra 19:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Eastern European folk dance ethnology is pretty niche and specific, so it's hard for me to judge what exactly would be a notable or substantive contribution to that field. However, since it is so specialized, it might be safe to say that having as many books published on the subject as she has would be considered a significant contribution as there probably aren't that many people contributing to the field to start with. Additionally, I see that she has won a research award from an organization that publishes a leading research journal on dance. This alone satisfies WP:PROFTEST #6. LaMenta3 19:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per LaMenta3. Looks okay by me. GlassCobra 21:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 22:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator himself says Dunin has published many works on this subject. Second guessing their influence seems a fools errand. Nick mallory 00:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- per LaMenta3 -- did the nominator compare the subjects accomplishments to other dance ethnologists? If so, what were the results? -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 04:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That logic is flawed. The article takes no substantive measures to assert notability of contributions made to the field. The point here is that there is no definition of how the individual's work has advanced the field. There is, however, an award, but it itself doesn't seem notable. The issuing organization is moreso known for its journal publication. Many professors publish, but that doesn't mean they're anything more than your average prof living by the "publish or perish" environment of academia. From reading this article, there is nothing above average about the subject. --Strothra 04:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete There are absolutely no independent secondary sources that establish that any of the subject's publications made any impact. Publishing a few books does not establish notability. --Crusio 07:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Professors do establish notability by publishing books. Seven books is considerably more than the average (only two are necessary for tenure at even the best universities). She furthermore has an award from the major society in her field. She has been a full professor and an extremely important research university with a very strong program in the performing arts and related fields. UCLA has a well established ability to recognize notable professors--I think their standards are somewhat more reliable than our's. The recognition by professional peers is what demonstrates notability. DGG (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG this person meets WP:PROF in my mind. Yamaguchi先生 02:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep once again. Notability has not changed, and article has improved since last afd. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ethnology and particularly ethnomusicology & related fields are very rarely covered in web-accessible media, but she's got at least 37 hits in google scholar under this name, and she appears to have published under a few other variant names. "Dance Abstracts" and various anthropology indexes are probably good resources to build out more research based on her work; I can try to hit the anthro dbs later on but don't have access to dance which is the most likely. --lquilter 12:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability/verifiability established.Mukadderat 04:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 14 days and no objections... if anyone does have a good argument against deletion, let me know on my talk page. W.marsh 15:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swathi Music Festival[edit]

festival that really does not assert notability, but I did not feel it suitable for CSD Phgao 13:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be sources: [11]--Victor falk 04:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC) I think I was a bit rash here...--Victor falk 03:45, 14 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, W.marsh 19:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/47579

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirected to Santa Claus, Indiana. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 20:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

47579[edit]

This zip code does not appear to be particularly notable, and the only claim in the article is unreferenced. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 19:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing worth covering that isn't already in Santa Claus, Indiana, delete. —Verrai 19:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any information worth keeping can be merged into Santa Claus, Indiana, but I don't see any. ZIP codes aren't notable. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 19:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Santa Claus, Indiana. Britannica.com says "Its post office annually remails hundreds of thousands of pieces of Christmas mail...", so it should certainly be mentioned somewhere. Cosmo0 19:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added reference for claim. Cosmo0 19:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- The zip code is already mentioned in the article about Santa Claus, Indiana. There's nothing to merge. —Verrai 19:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Santa Claus, Indiana - which I have already done. Somebody want to close this? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 15:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Mendoza[edit]

contested prod, web editor for an apparently nn tv show; lots of ghits for "Eric Mendoza" but other than the WP entry, the top entries are not this guy - and not by way of reliable sources. Carlossuarez46 14:44, 10 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, W.marsh 19:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The AfD tag was removed on the 11th. I just re-added it. DCEdwards1966 19:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for catching that... technically it was my job to. --W.marsh 19:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, notability is not established. Also note that the creator of this page edited this and the article about the TV show that this person has on his portfolio. --- Tito Pao 17:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the article about the TV show that is currently a red link. --- Tito Pao 00:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 15:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psfk[edit]

apparent non-notable company, supporting links are insufficient or non-functioning; previously deleted under ((db-spam)) - CobaltBlueTony 17:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but remove advertising language. It's a trendspotting blog, apparently. I found lots of assorted blog links, but also a few things that might qualify as reliable sources: Columbia News Service, Trendhunter magazine. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SPAM. --Gavin Collins 22:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GavinCollins. Bearian 15:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's enough reliable source material contained in the following: (1) March 7, 2005 AdWeek, (2) October 1, 2005 Fast Company, (3) December 13, 2005 Denver Post, (4) May 15, 2006 Boston Globe, (5) July 31, 2006 Advertising Age, (6) October 2, 2006 Boston Globe, (7) January 8, 2007 Boston Globe, (8) January 29, 2007 Boston Globe, (9) April 16, 2007 Brand Strategy, (10) April 30, 2007 Boston Globe, (11) May 21, 2007 Boston Globe, (12) June 18, 2007 Boston Globe, (13) June 25, 2007 Boston Globe, (14) July 9, 2007 Brand Strategy, (15) July 30, 2007 Boston Globe, (16) August 20, 2007 Boston Globe. Also, there are two press releases that might contain some usable information: (17) May 29, 2003 PR, (18) June 14, 2007 PR. -- Jreferee t/c 18:18, 17 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, W.marsh 18:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources can be found. None of the above links are about the website. DCEdwards1966 19:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The above links are provided by Psfk, rather than being about Psfk. Such links are not considered to be sources. This company fails both WP:ORG and WP:WEB. The article makes no attempt to assert the notability of the company, merely making the reader aware the company exists. Quote from WP:WEB: "Wikipedians are averse to the use of Wikipedia for advertising, and Wikipedia articles are not advertisements is an official policy of long standing." SilkTork *SilkyTalk 22:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 00:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 15:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin Proehl[edit]

"Councilman-At-Large" from Chillicothe, Ohio. No reliable independent sources to establish notability. Article written by User: Dustinproehl. Cap'n Walker 18:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that he is a major local political figure who has received significant press coverage per WP:BIO. "Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability." Note: the fact that it appears to be an autobiography is not ground for deletion. Lack of notability certainly is though. --Malcolmxl5 19:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added some tags and stubs, so I will be neutral for this AfD. Bearian 15:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 15:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lou Malnati's Pizzeria[edit]

Delete WP:N not asserted. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, I'm pretty sure it's more well-known in Chicago than Mzoli's is in Cape Town. Whether that means that the article should be kept or should be deleted is more than I'd venture to guess. Deor 18:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Seriously? Tony, you're from Chicago, you should know better! And as for notability, Google gives back over 58,000 hits, including links to the Taste of Chicago website, lots of review sites, and plenty of other stuff, like this. In addition, a LexisNexis search found several sources, all of which could be used as sources for the article. Lou's is one of the most well-known pizza places in the Chicago area. GlassCobra 20:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why doesn't someone make the place look notable in the article. The article does not reflect any of this.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-known pizza chain; lots of newspaper articles. Zagalejo^^^ 01:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No one reading the article would believe they are well known. The article as written is about a non-notable entity.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article's been cleaned up a bit. I propose this nomination be withdrawn. GlassCobra 15:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Yes, the article needs cleanup and should be noted as such and should be listed as a stub. It needs to be wikified. There are better ways to ask for notability than simply calling for deletion and while Lou Malnati's notability isn't reflected in the current version of the article, it could easily be added (I may have the time later today). Shsilver 17:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I find it really odd that the "director" of the Chicago Wikiproject somehow thinks this place isn't notable. Perhaps we should delete Charlie Trotter's, Uno, and the Billy Goat while we're at it. Cheers, Skinwalker 21:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Tony never says it isn't notable, just that notability wasn't asserted in the article at the time of nomination, which he has repeated in his comments. Seems to me that there are better ways to add notability to an article than calling for its deletion, but calling for its deletion does seem to be the fastest way to get people to add notability (aside from adding it oneself.Shsilver 13:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't mean to bite. I prefer some quick google searches to probe for notability, rather than an AFD. I too have to question whether AFD'ing a clearly notable topic to improve the article is a legitimate tactic, but I'll assume good faith. Full disclosure: I can't stand Chicago deep-dish pizza. Skinwalker 13:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm from Chicago too, but I'll take a New York-style thin crust over deep-dish any day. GlassCobra 05:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above, it is a well-known pizza franchise. Yamaguchi先生 02:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Tony should have used the notability tag instead (Template:Notability). Nomination should be withdrawn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.109.165.178 (talk) 04:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 15:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Reed[edit]

Fails WP:BIO, non-notable local television personality Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 18:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Current stub is 80% cut-and-paste from employer's website; unlikely anything encyclopedic to be said about this person any time soon. She's a 5pm/10pm anchor in a major market, but I don't know for how long (she's been at the station for 5 years total), and I doubt it's long enough to make someone notable outside Cleveland. --Closeapple 14:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under CSD G11; closing AFD. Shadow1 (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pimp Audio[edit]

This article does not assert the notability of Pimp Audio as a record label. Although it was founded in 2002, they have supposedly only released 4 records, of which neither the records nor artists have articles. The article is also worded like an advertisement, and links to an article about a wrestler under the "Former Artist" section. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 18:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

unfortunatley one of they're former artists was Actually named "THE SHOWSTOPPER" which has nothing to do with the WWE. That artist no longer works for or has any involvement with the label hence why no legal matters have come they're way from the WWE. As for the 4 albums they are under the Upcoming albums section not RELEASED... if you go directly to they're website link you can hear samples from the groups upcoming albums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.16.36.29 (talk • contribs)

i do apoligize for my previous mistake about the upcoming albums. they are under "ALBUMS" but if you read thru the page it has indications that the albums have yet to be released especially with the new hard drive situation--Lovgun7 18:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ive also re read the article and i dont understand how u say its worded like an advertisement ??? when u click to the link to the myspace there is no refference to doing production work outside of Pimp Audio. there are also no "BUY NOW" or "BUY HERE" buttons to click on you search under kanye west, swiss beats, timbaland or any other producer and they have same wording as this article along with release dates for work that they have done if this article is guilty of "advertisment wording" then so is every other music producer on wikipedia. An article for "The R$B In Me" was created but WIKIPEDIA denied it for whatever reason. --Lovgun7 18:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

click on the link to they're website and send a messege to the group they answer all your questions they answer the messeges themselves ...doesnt that fall under all three requirments for reliable sources ??????????--75.16.36.29 19:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i am dissapointed at this point ... i know that nothing i say will save this article and it will end up being deleted after it being up for months just now you people decide to delete a solid and true article ....--Lovgun7 19:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absolutely no indication of meeting the requirements of WP:CORP or WP:MUSIC. Nuttah68 19:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A record label with apparently no albums released and the only artists being the owners of the label is not notable. Cosmo0 20:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:NN and no WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 20:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What gives any of you the right to say its not notable?? obviously mixtapes dont count as official album releases hence why they are not posted. You think Jive,Def jam, interscope released albums a day into being a record label you people obviously lack hip hop knowledge there for you should judge an article without knowing the back story. all the information on the article is official and true regardless of what you geeks think ... call this attacking or whatever helps you feel suprerior to others.--Lovgun7 21:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that you don't understand the meaning of the word notable. No-one is accusing you of 'attacking' or lying, but the fact that something is true doesn't make it worthy of being included in an encyclopedia. And no, Jive, Def Jam & Interscope probably didn't release album a day into being record labels, but they also didn't have entries on Wikipedia a day into being record labels. Cosmo0 22:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you people have artlicles and you people are NOBODIES --Lovgun7 21:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have an article? Cosmo0 22:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N Cap'n Walker 21:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable yet. Trust me, Lovgun7: If there are any nobodies who have articles on Wikipedia, we'll find and delete them. Please feel free to nominate any article that you feel is about a nobody. DOSGuy 16:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

im pretty sure that a day after def jam, jive, and interscope were created wikipedia was non exsistant.....--Lovgun7 17:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defending America for Knowledge and Action[edit]

Organisation which fails WP:ORG Tewfik^Talk 18:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as having 2 independent sources showing possible notability, but needs more cites. (The nom should probably read that instead of which.) Bearian 15:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Weir (If Americans Knew founder)[edit]

Although her organisation If Americans Knew may be notable, it seems that she fails WP:BIO. I am also nominating the cut-and-paste copy Alison Weir (USA). Tewfik^Talk 18:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teesside Athletic F.C.[edit]

Non-notable non-league English football team. This team play at a level below that which has frequently been used as the yardstick of notability in the English Football League system - Level 10. They have never played at Level 10 or above, and appear to have no other over-riding claim of notability. fchd 17:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Malcolmxl5 00:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Qwghlm 18:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sebisthlm 22:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. User:fchd says it all. --Malcolmxl5 21:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 23:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John V. Wright, Jr.[edit]

He sounds like a great guy, but I'm not persuaded that he meets the notability guidelines. There are a few sources provided, and I couldn't find better ones by googling. Prod removed by creator after developing and sourcing the article... I'm just still not convinced, so I'm bringing it to the community. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm in the same boat as the nom. I just can't find anything that passes WP:NOTE.--Sethacus 21:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as a plausible search term. Editorial decision due to low AFD participation. W.marsh 14:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewind Selector[edit]

Unreferenced promo of a nonnotable bootleg album `'Míkka 17:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by User:Jimfbleak. Non-admin closure. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 19:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Borndead[edit]

As at time of nomination: no sources at all, poorly written, and possibly vanity problems. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 17:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete no real information or sources, and VERY poory written Carter | Talk to me 17:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per established precedent at WP:AFD that winners of "Reality TV shows" are notable. Bearian 21:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashlee Holland[edit]

Delete - "actress" is winner of a reality show. No notability. Not notable enough to have article. She may have won a contract but all that technically means is she gets paid base wages for 13 weeks. The information is also poorly sourced and only comes from Ms. Holland's own site but no other outside sources.IrishLass0128 17:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got a great deal of this information off of IMDB. The only info that I got off of her site was her birth year, parents name, and where she was born. [12]. I'm currently adding more information. --Alessandro 18:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Her "resume" on IMBD is self posted (posted by the actress looking for work) and her "profile" [13] officially has nothing. Regardless of where the information came from, it is not reliable sourcing and she is not notable enough to have a page. Music videos and winning a contest do not make you noteworthy enough to have an article on Wikipedia. IrishLass0128 19:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And commercials and movie appearances? --Alessandro 19:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "actress" lacks notability per Wiki guidelines. Her resume is not verifiable as it is put on IMBD for the purpose of gaining employment. To meet notability standards there must be a reason beyond a couple of commercials and music videos and winning a reality show contest. There must also be reliable source information, which there does not appear to be. - CelticGreen 21:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with comment. Commercials? No. Movie appearances? As long as they're notable. One of the problems that I see is that the resume lists "featured" or "principal" roles that aren't listed within the IMDb or in any reliable sources. The problem with using the IMDb as a primary source is, as the nom says, IMDbs can be created by anyone, with a few dollars. They can also be deleted, if someone complains about lack of verifiable roles. Don't laugh. I've seen it happen. If there were reliable, third-party sources to establish featured or principal roles in notable films, then the article would be kept.--Sethacus 21:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case then this page Saaphyri Windsor should be marked for deletion as well...I mean all she did was get kicked off of one reality show and win the other. --Alessandro 23:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that way, you are more than welcome to nominate the page for deletion just as was done with Ashlee's page but mentioning it in this AfD nomination, won't do anything to get it deleted.- CelticGreen 23:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I've marked Saaphyri Windsor for deletion.--Sethacus 01:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sethacus, I agree with both deletions, and added comment regarding above. CelticGreen 01:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The talk page is tagged with the Biography of Living People banner yet fails to meet basics of that project/premise. "External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and in full compliance with Wikipedia official policies and external links guidelines." Even the referenced entries to IMDB are shells. The one for Shout about Music doesn't even contain a synopsis or plot description. How can that qualify as a reference let alone a "high quality" reference? Answer, it cannot. There is essentially no verifiable information contained in the entire article. The references are all IMDB or her personal site which is just her resume. Even if she appears on Days of our Lives it doesn't mean she deserves a page on Wikipedia. Being a soap actress for 13 weeks doesn't denote notability.IrishLass0128 14:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added more references and took off quite a bit that referenced to IMDB. At the time I was not aware that IMDB is not a good source to get information. --Alessandro 17:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are trying, but she still lacks notability. She's a commercial actress that won a reality show on a cable network that not everyone even gets and she's going to be on a show that is scheduled for cancellation in 2009 and currently 8th in the ratings. There is just no notability. It fails the criteria. Further review: Di Media Online's is merely an online talent agency, therefore no notability can be established by including this no can Shout about Music be used, it's a video game and the reference noted is a place to purchase and cannot be used as a reference as there is no indication on that page that the picture is conclusively Ashlee. IrishLass0128 18:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite know what to think of this issue. I mean, we usually create topics on people who have won contests on a (usually very notable) show, as seen with America's Next Top Model, especially if the person is the first to win in the show's history, though the circumstances are probably different with America's Next Top Model...because they get a solid contract as a model. And that show comes on a channel that most people have. IMDB is a good source in some instances, but if I had to say delete to this article, it would be due to there not being references that truly establish her notability, unless her being a winner on this show is deemed notable enough. This article can always be re-created when or if she gets more work, notable work at that. Flyer22 19:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia precedent is that winners of their respective shows are notable enough for wikipages." Here --Alessandro 03:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's opinion is not notable argument. Show citation for the comment, please. CelticGreen 03:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per precedent that reality show winners, as opposed to mere contestants, are notable. This precedent shouldn't be changed without wider discussion. --Groggy Dice T | C 02:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the show she won on is not available to everyone and is not widely known, it didn't even make the Nielsen top 100. If everyone who won every produced reality show had a page the Wikipedia as "good reference" reputation would be diminished.IrishLass0128 13:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Sc straker 18:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anthøny ん 18:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Los Muertos Tambien Lloran[edit]

Delete - non-existent film that is merely mentioned in a few issues of a comic book. Should the creator go through with his thoughts about making it into its own book then re-creation might be in order but for now this is simply not notable. Otto4711 16:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Though as you say, if it does become a spin-off the I would then see it at notable. But at this point, that would be violating WP:CRYSTAL.--SeizureDog 08:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not only not notable, but not even existent. I'd close the AfD myself, but with 3 comments, it's unfair. Anyone else? Bearian 01:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sheesh. JJL 13:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This does not preclude merger, which doesn't require an AFD. W.marsh 14:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Harvest[edit]

Delete - no reliable sources attest to the notability of this code name. At best it merits a sentence or two in the production section of Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi. And before anyone says anything, the fact that Family Guy named an episode after it does not make this any more notable. Otto4711 16:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a quick Google News and LexisNexis search turned up quite a few references, some of which I've added into the article. The notability is there. TheRealFennShysa 17:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google News turns up 21 hits for "Blue Harvest" and when "Family Guy" is filtered it returns five, none of which appear to be about Star Wars. The Wall Street Journal article you linked includes a single sentence mentioning the code name out of a seven-paragraph article about the sale of a movie poster. WP:N requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and "significant coverage" means "sources address the subject directly in detail." A single sentence mention in an article about another topic is not significant coverage. It confirms the existence of the code name, but the existence of the code name is not in question. Mere existence is not notability. Otto4711 17:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otto, you only searched Google News, which only searches recent articles. If you search Google News Archive, you'll find that a search on "Blue Harvest" + "Star Wars" coincidentally also pulls up 21 articles, and none of these have anything to do with Family Guy, since the most recent article in the archives is from 2 years before the episode even aired. DHowell 03:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that has been addressed further down the page. These are not sources that discuss the code name directly in detail. They are mentions of the code name in articles that are about the film. They confirm the existence of the code name but they in no way confirm the notability of it. Saying "Blue Harvest" in a long article about Jedi does not make the article about "Blue Harvest." Would you seriously suggest that this article is under any reasonable definition of the word "about" about the code name? Otto4711 21:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; Seems excessive to have an article about something that is essentially a working title for a film. This is quite common in film-making anyway, and is often the main reason for having a working title (to disguise the real production). Masaruemoto 18:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And how many of these other films' working titles appear on collectible T-shirts and TV episodes named after them? DHowell 03:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems to more than meet notability requirements. There are 21 Ghits, including 4 Ghits from the time of the filming (1981-1983). DCEdwards1966 19:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<sigh> And again, there need to be sources that are substantively about the subject, not just sources that mention it. Of the four Ghits from the time of filming, two of them are duplicates which mention the name, one is a trivia quiz that mentions the name and one (subscription site) also appears simply to mention the name. Of the overall 21 Ghits, several of them are duplicates and they all appear to merely mention the code name as part of a longer article about the film. None of them appear to be about the code name itself. Otto4711 19:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<double sigh> The New York Times article is specifically about the secrecy surrounding the shooting of the movie. I'm not willing to pay $5 to find out what it says, however. DCEdwards1966 20:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which raises WP:V issues. Regardless, that's one source about the general topic of the secrecy surrounding the filming, which includes the words "Blue Harvest" (as opposed to a source specifically about or substantially about the code name). This still doesn't meet WP:N and there is no reason why, as mentioned in the nom, this should be a separate article instead of being included in the production section of the film article. Otto4711 20:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V does not require that sources be free, only that they be available to the general public. We shouldn't be deleting articles because nobody is willing to pay the 5 bucks to access articles, or alternatively just visit one of the many public libraries which have access to The New York Times archives for free. And though the name of the article is "Blue Harvest", "the general topic" of the article includes "the secrecy surrounding the filming" as well as the name itself, so this news article appropriately supports notability for the article. DHowell 03:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And again, the reason why this material can't reside in the film article is...what exactly? Otto4711 21:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the film article is already pretty long and this would be a valid summary style subtopic article. Anyway, does this comment mean you will change your argument from "delete" to "merge and redirect"? This might be a reasonable compromise, but if a merge is to be done, I would make Blue Harvest a disambiguation page to the film and the Family Guy episode, instead of a redirect. DHowell 22:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ROTJ is not so long that it can't absorb an additional sentence or two in the production section about the code name. Otto4711 02:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect A quote from the article - "Around 1997, the website www.blueharvest.com began redirecting web browsers to www.starwars.com " If a redirect is good enough for George Lucas its good enough for me!. A redirect to Return of the Jedi and the merging of relevant information into that article would seem to me to be the best solution. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My only concern with that is that Blue Harvest (Family Guy) really should reside in the Blue Harvest article space, which can't happen with a merge and redirect. Otto4711 03:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consider adding Blue Harvest redirects here; for the Family Guy episode, see Blue Harvest (Family Guy). Alternatively, turn Blue Harvest into a disambiguation page, with links to the Family Guy episode and to Return of the Jedi. Of course there is the third option of moving the Family Guy episode to Blue Harvest with a disambiguation link to Return of the Jedi. I have no preference between the three. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the third option is done, then perhaps Blue Harvest should be moved to Blue Harvest (Return of the Jedi), then merged and redirected to Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi to preserve edit history of the merged content. Then Blue Harvest (Family Guy) could be moved to Blue Harvest. However, this is way outside the scope of this AfD; assuming this AfD is closed as a "keep" or "merge" this can be further discussed in the apporpriate articles' talk pages. DHowell 23:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Belongs in the Jedi article. Even if there is a NYT article about the secrecy about producing Jedi, it is about Jedi. The JPS^{talk to me} 18:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't this an argument for a "merge"? DHowell 22:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a section of Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi, with a disambiguation to the Family Guy episode. Will ^(talk) 16:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second what Sceptre said. The article should be Merged into the articel on Return of the Jedi. There is important info here but it should be on the ROTJ page. --Mr Beale 16:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The notability guideline requires significant coverage in multiple sources. I believe this applies even if no single source has significant coverage; if the coverage across the multiplicity of sources is significant, the subject is notable. Sure, each mention in the news articles or several books by itself might not be significant enough to confer notability, but I do believe that the number of independent reliable sources mentioning this title (including the article's cited references) does amount to significant coverage in total. And yes, the fact that Family Guy named an episode after it does make this more notable, in that it increased media awareness of the name and thus increased the number of reliable sources available. DHowell 03:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial coverage in multiple sources does not equal significant coverage. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't. 100 articles that mention in a single sentence the words "Blue Harvest" don't add up to notability. It adds up to enough to mention it in the main film article. And if the Family Guy episode increases the number of articles that mention the Jedi connection in passing by some number that still doesn't make the code name itself notable. And you're leaving out an important part of the definition, which is that the sources address the subject directly in detail. Again, the mere mention of the code name in a hundred articles, a half-dozen books, whatever, do not address the subject directly in detail. Otto4711 21:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Trivial coverage in multiple sources does not equal significant coverage." That's your opinion. 100 articles which all say the same trivial thing might not equal notability, but 100 articles each saying different things about the subject (one about the Family Guy reference, one about the T-shirts, one about the secrecy surrounding the film, etc.), in my opinion, does indicate notability, even if I acknowledge that each of the individual references are "trivial", which I don't. Of course, you or I alone don't make the rules, that is what consensus is supposed to decide. At the very least, a significant amount of trivial coverage of the name does indicate that "Blue Harvest" is a reasonable search term, which supports a "merge and redirect" or "merge and disambiguate", not "delete". DHowell 22:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the Family Guy article were moved here, which since it's the simplest possible title for the article it should be in this article space, then it will (as it already does) contain a link to ROTJ as the name source and can also have a dab link at the top. "Blue Harvest" does not need to be a dab page because there is only one thing called "Blue Harvest". Otto4711 02:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to some extent. It seems noteworthy enough because of all the references, so a small section should be added (with the main points from this article) into the Episode VI article. Zchris87v 19:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--JForget 23:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beatles relations[edit]

Doesn't seem like a notable topic. If this is a real subject with WP:RS and WP:V, perhaps it should be kept but it needs a different title. I thought it would be about John Lennon's aunt or Paul McC's mum. However it seems like WP:OR. Pig^man 16:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. If not speedied, then delete for failing WP:N and WP:OR. Otto4711 16:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Doesn't look like a notable topic and could be Speedy deleted under that critera. There is also a lack of reliable sources, Verifiability and currently looks like a lot of original research has gone into the article. And the introduction contains, what seems like a slight point of view, like a review almost at the end of the intro paragraph. AngelOfSadness talk 18:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to be WP:OR. DCEdwards1966 19:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Let It Be~~ No delete, really. Unsourced WP:OR. Carlossuarez46 20:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR. Cosmo0 20:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The concept of songs within an album being "related" to each other as part of the whole is not new. Author of the article has noticed that the Beatles did this "a lot". Wait until you hear "Glass Onion" ("Hey, I just noticed that they mentioned 'Fool on the Hill' AND 'Strawberry Fields Forever'!") —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandsford (talk • contribs) 01:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as picayune WP:TRIVIA & WP:OR and per the above. tomasz. 14:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE: Not a notable topic, add to the main beatles article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrmccollough (talk • contribs) 21:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep - the duplicate articles were merged. Non-admin closure. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 20:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Smith (rugby league)[edit]

Duplicate of information held at Lee Smith (rugby league footballer) Julianhall 16:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Appears to be no new information. Tiddly-Tom 19:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can the article on Lee Smith (rugby league footballer) be merged in here. Short titles are better than long ones and there should be a redirect so that the same thing doesn't happen again. Capitalistroadster 02:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That seems to be a better idea than deletion, actually. The Lee Smith (rugby league footballer) article has more information, but i believe that this is a better page name.Julianhall 14:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment so copy the information across, and create a re direct with the other page? Make sure, when copied across, any links to the old page are directed this this one instead. Tiddly-Tom 17:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That definitely seems the best course of action. There are a lot of pages that link to the page that a re-direct would be going on, and i don't understand how to amend some of these. They're all contained within a "squad box" (you can see this on the Lee Smith (rugby league footballer) page for example), which i don't know how to edit.Julianhall 10:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That should not be a problem, you can edit it here Tiddly-Tom 17:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Done, thanks for your help. I've deleted the AfD box from the page, but will leave this open until my changes have been looked at. Cheers.Julianhall 23:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phyllis Santiago[edit]

Unable to find Reliable References. This is a BLP without supporting references. In addition, the assertion of being a member of the Miami Fury failed verification at http://www.miamifuryfootball.com/ssp/roster . Previously ~~((db-bio)) and~~ ((prod)) have been removed by ~~the author and~~ SPAs, which might be sock puppets. Toddstreat1 16:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another article - Phyllis Cross - on the same subject has been deleted twice for lack of notability (the second time shortly before this article was created). Cosmo0 20:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:BIO. This user is a self-publicist and has a history of inserting herself into articles such as List of Puerto Ricans of African descent, List of Puerto Ricans and Jeff Cross (football player). Cosmo0 20:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on several reasons: fails WP:N, WP:BLP, WP:BIO, WP:V, WP:SPAM, and WP:RS. Having been deleted twice before, this creates a res judicata - a case-specific precedent - to delete a third time. Bearian 15:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearian. Carlossuarez46 20:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 14:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful Redemption[edit]

Future album in violation of WP:CRYSTAL Will ^(talk) 21:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. - eo 21:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & re-direct to Chrissy Conway. Bondegezou 14:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
The AfD header was removed on October 13, so I'm relisting in order to give the deletion discussion full exposure. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 16:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RITWAL[edit]

No reliable sources in the article confirm notability, and I was unable to find appropriate sources by googling. Prod removed by creator. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 16:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any on-line source that suggests that any of this material was published; doesn't meet WP:Notable or WP:Verifiable. Accounting4Taste 17:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dabrals[edit]

Pure original research. The article was declined a speedy delete. Looks like an unsourced personal essay. Miranda 16:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR. GlassCobra 20:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This seems to be a soapbox issue for the author, who has had several similar articles speedied recently. andy 22:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The topic itself is notable but not to the extent of deserving its own article. Would fit better as a sub topic in an article about Brahmin Castes in Hindu religion. the following quote will help give a reference to the topic:

Religion: Hindu; Caste: Brahmin - Garhwali: Sub Caste: Dabral

Religion: Hindu: Caste: Hindu - Brahmin Garhwali: Sub-Caste: dabral

There are plenty of references to dabral being a valid sub caste of Brahmin Garhwali Dbiel ^(Talk) 05:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This "list" only contains a summary of characters that was copied from the main article, and a list of minor characters whose article was deleted. This article has no canonical info that isn't in other articles, so it does not need to exist. The Placebo Effect 15:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Pure listcruft Rackabello 17:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary. The main article in conjunction with the navigation template already cover this topic quite well. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The minor character pages are gone, so it no longer has a purpose (as if it even did before.) -Dylan0513 20:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precedent set in first AfD. GlassCobra 20:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Television show and a page for its characters? Seems logical to me. I suggest merging the others. 68.101.22.132 21:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not voting, but we have articles for character in each season of a show (i.e. Smallville characters (season 1)), maybe people should concentrate on those first. Seems odd when people want to delete an article which has all the characters in a show, while other shows have different articles for each season's characters. TJ Spyke 23:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We did have those, but it was decided that a huge list of characters that only appear once was unnecasary and belonged in a seperate Fan Wiki The Placebo Effect 23:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then I hope you nominate ones like the Smallville articles, or at least suggest a merger because it's silly for some shows to have articles for each season of characters while other shows can't even have one article for characters. TJ Spyke 01:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm very hesitant of doing that because thats close to distupting Wikipedia to prove a point The Placebo Effect 01:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's really only a problem if you don't actually believe that's a better way to do things. Of course, if you are concerned with the propriety, you can simply bring up the idea instead of boldly doing it. Nothing wrong with making a suggestion. 68.101.22.132 02:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I think its a notable show and as such the characters seem to be notable. We should keep or at least merge into main article. Kevin 14:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All the notable characters are already in the main article. The Placebo Effect 14:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passed a discussion earlier this year with "keep" and is a good way to organize the characters from the show. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Things can be nominated more than once, a previous AFD keep doesn't show much relevance here. Instead of instantly writing keep, have a real reason. RobJ1981 16:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, MERGE List of Avatar: The Last Airbender major secondary characters into it, and secondarily EDIT Avatar: The Last Airbender#Characters leaving only a list of the main characters article's links with a Main Article template linking to the article being disputed here. This will reduce the size of the main tv show article while allowing for a more expanded, yet summarized article for the characters similar to "List of episodes" articles. The Merge is so that all characters – main, major secondary, and minor – will be found in a single article (this one) to reduce the argument of the article's usefulness as was probably the case with the minor characters' article which was deleted. It would also be more appropriate than listing all of them in the main article. — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 18:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 14:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vee Vee[edit]

PRODs were deleted. Fails WP:MUSIC. Non-notable albums by a somewhat notable band. Jauerback 15:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page, because it's also a non-notable album by the same band:

Keep both per WP:MUSIC#Albums. They are albums by a band that is considered notable enough for Wikipedia. A merge might be appropriate, since the articles aren't much more than track listings. Bláthnaid 23:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lacks reliable sources to establish real world significance or notability. Anyone who wants the material can approach me directly and I will userfy it but this can't survive in the current state. Note to editor below, there is no procedural grounds to delay a clear cut of an article failing clear policies for a wikiproject to be made aware. -- Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shinnok's amulet[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Shinnok's amulet

Delete - fails WP:N, WP:FICT, WP:PLOT. An in-universe description of the game plot that revolves around the amulet. No reliable sources attest to the real-world notability of this fictional item. Otto4711 15:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Major plot element of one of the all-time most successful video game series and the nice-looking article asserts notability by indicating its context in multiple games from this wildly popular series. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you offer a single solitary reliable source that establishes the verifiable notability of this fictional item separate from the game? One? Even a tiny one? No? Then why are you wrongly insisting yet again that because the article looks good it satisfies the objections raised in the nomination? Does substance actually mean anything to you at all? Or do you just look at the pretty pictures and the lovely blocks of text when you make your decision? Otto4711 21:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And another thing...do you have any grasp of the difference between asserting notability and actually being notable? Simply asserting notability gets an article past speedy deletion. The topic must then live up to that assertion of notability through sourcing. "It asserts notability" is irrelevant to an AFD. Otto4711 21:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Being part of something notable, doesn't make the subject automatically notable. RobJ1981 22:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grand Roi. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia... we should strive to be informative to our readers even if they want information about video games. Deleting articles like this makes us less useful an encyclopedia for no good reason. At least turn it into a redirect. --W.marsh 14:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So...the fact that this fails multiple policies and guidelines, what, just doesn't matter? Otto4711 16:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note Article talk page was just (now) tagged for the appropriate Mortal Kombat wikiproject and a message left on their talk page. As a courtesy I feel they should have been notified but I'm not aware what the rules on that with AfDs are (ensuring appropriate wikiprojects are at least in the loop and all). Suggest allowing extra time for their expertise in this area to either answer questions raised in AfD or confirm nn. Benjiboi 20:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common procedures for software development[edit]

This article has been recreated since being deleted via WP:PROD. The reason it was nominated for prod was due to concerns regarding it being a promotional essay. This deletion occurred when the page was at CPSD, from whence it has been moved, as seen in the page history. The page is also tagged as being original research, and to my mind, it is not of encyclopedic standard, nor is an article perhaps plausible on such a topic. Hiding Talk 15:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an essay of original research. Unsourced, and I can't see anything worth merging into related articles (e.g. Software development life cycle, Systems development life cycle) Thomjakobsen 16:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sounds more like it was copied from a book than OR, but in any case it fails WP:NOT#HOWTO. Cosmo0 17:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crimson Turbo[edit]

I don't think this is really notable. At all. But the sentence "...quickly becoming one of the most famous..." might assert notability to the point that CSD would be declined. Rjd0060 14:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:N, no independent sources attesting to notability. Otto4711 15:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:NN fictional superhero with his own e-mail address, but no WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 16:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable in the extreme. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hermans' Shermans[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Hermans' Shermans

Delete - non-existent cartoon noted in passing shots of Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Fails WP:N and WP:FICT. No notability within the film or outside it. Otto4711 14:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quotamid[edit]

No reliable sources on this so doesn't meet Wikipedia:Verifiability, google search shows this term is used only on one particular internet forum. Xyzzyplugh 14:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. If and when usage of this neologism becomes popular enough to meet notability criteria, it can be defined at wiktionary. No need for an encyclopaedia article on the term. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 18:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, this article already been transwikied to Wiktionary, so they'll have to delete it too.--Xyzzyplugh 14:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Patterson[edit]

Basically a lawyer advertisement, posted by the subject. NawlinWiki 14:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:NN lawyer. WP:SPAM. No WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 15:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above, a WP:NN lawyer. The article says he wrote three novels but there's no mention of them having been published by anyone, and I can't find anything that seems relevant in this regard (one novel self-published by a Canadian company might be the same writer). Accounting4Taste 17:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as asserting notability with verifiable claims, but has zero cites, required per WP:BLP. Bearian 17:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Espresso Addict 01:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrei Ivanovitch[edit]

Article does not assert or identify the subjects notability; nothing seems to distinguish him from any of hundreds (thousands?) of other classical pianists. AUTiger » talk 14:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep. Article makes obvious claims of notability per prize wins but cites no WP:RS to back them up. A Google search shows that his records are definitely out there. Article is too promotional for my taste, but if Cincinnati or Montreal wins can be verified, he's definitely notable. • Gene93k 15:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What distinguishes him from other pianists is that he is a world class pianist who could play faster and more precise than the others. If you ever heard him play Liszts 'La Campanella', you would understand what I mean. --89.182.148.191 15:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

La Campanella he's playing really excellent - but you'll ever heared Pictures at an Exhibition played by him ? --D.O.A.BitH 13:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs to WP:CITE independent published sources that say this. I do not doubt that he is great. He may pass the WP:MUSIC standard on his discography alone. The article needs work on sources and NPOV. • Gene93k 15:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I inserted now a few references, which should show you that Andrei Ivanovitch is not a beginner and also not a main-stream pianist. In addition I am convinced after like before that the mass of the work comes from the mass of the involved persons - that is WIKIPEDIA!!! Surely there are sources, which possess a still higher value, than from me used. I can see however for example no membership lists of the Chopin Society, without I am also member there. However, I spoke with him personally! And to my time still the word of a man applied. --D.O.A.BitH 16:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Change to vote above. With verifiable cite of Cincinnati gold medal win, notability is asserted, cited, and verified. Good enough, but article still needs work. • Gene93k 18:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"but article still needs work" - shure, but for this I need very much time or a little bit of help from other peoples.

I prepared an interview with Andrei. At present he is too busy, as soon as the interview is present, relevant contents from it is published also here. Does not function naturally, if the article is deleted.

--D.O.A.BitH 21:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your apparent closeness to the article subject contributed to my nomination; you need to be careful of the appearance of promoting Andrei, it could be seen as an autobiography by proxy. That being said, I am withdrawing the nom per Gene93k's opinion, although the article still needs cleaning up. AUTiger » talk 17:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination per sourced notability claims. AUTiger » talk 17:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 14:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chang Lee[edit]

A Doctor Who character with only one appearance, in the 1996 movie. There's no chance of this character ever having any information that is not in-universe or fandom related. I suggest deletion on the grounds of non-notability. Nydas^(Talk) 14:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only one appearance, does not deserve a separate article. Stuart DD _{contributions} 14:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Companion (Doctor Who) or Doctor Who (1996 film) OZ OO (What?) 15:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doctor Who (1996 film) DonQuixote 23:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doctor Who (1996 film). - NP Chilla 08:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--JForget 23:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra de Scheel[edit]

Apparently this obviously non-notable article needs to be brought here. Alexandra de Scheel is wholly non-notable for the purposes of inclusion on Wikipedia. Whatever makes her notable (it is certainly not apparent) could just as well make the average stranger on the street notable. There is nothing to warrant an article for her and indeed, even real princesses have had their articles deleted (Princess Tatiana of Leiningen, for instance) and this person only has a maternal link to royalty and a tenuous claim of being a very minor noble herself. Until she marries a king or finds a cure for cancer, I can't see any reason for the article. Charles 13:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Isn't attending City University enough to satisfy WP:BIO? --Evb-wiki 15:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm guessing that even if she is a Princess, she's not an important one. Seems like just another college student to me. --Cyrus Andiron 15:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper WP:BIO. Poor thing has to suffer the indignity of being referred to as "Princess Alexandra de Scheele" in the "mass media", then have the author of this article make the SAME MISTAKE!--Sethacus 22:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons given above. Maternal link to the House of Reuss is hardly sufficient to confer notability. Choess 02:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google news for some reason failed to even index a single article from those "mass media" and nothing else hints at notability. --Allefant 09:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. JJL 01:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WikiProject Women in Red/Draft/(Alexandra de Scheel) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThisIsTheIsh (talk • contribs) 04:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I arrived at this page several times after attempting to find more information than the library books contain about Alexandra de Scheel for a school project on her family. She is actually becoming the central focus of the project because she is directly related to so many hugely relevant royals in history (and directly related, from father to mother to father etc). Her great grandparents include Catherine the Great, King Leopold of Belgium, Carlotta Empress of Mexico, all the Romanovs, Saxon-Weimer, Gotha, Queen Victoria, Prince Albert, all the way back to Faulk the King of Jerusulam. I found it interesting that no matter which direction I go back (going only through parent to parent relations, never husband/wife/step children or half children or aunts or uncles or cousins) I found the most important names in history. Howver, I did not think that the blood link was less due to whetrher the parent I went back through was male or female. Of course, it isn't. I am now switching the topic of my school paper to "Sexism of the old ages alive and well today in the new". Even despite the old age ways of being, she can still be found in both the Dutch and British Lines of Succession (and those you don't need to look at the Burke Royal book or other library BOOKS to find her in... that she is even in online, as is her entire family line. You just need to go back /click back from Alexandra de Scheel -DAUGHTER of- Princess Antoinette Reuss
-DAUGHTER of- Prince Heinrich Reuss III
-SON of - Princess Sofie Renata Reuss
-DAUGHTER of- Princess Marie Alexandria Anne Sofia August Helene von Sachsen Weimer Eisenech
-DAUGHTER of- Princess Sofie of the Netherlands
-DAUGHTER of-King Willem II of the Netherlands & Grand Duchess Anna Pavlovna of Russia
-DAUGHTER of Emperor Paul I Tsar of Russia
-SON of Tsar Peter III of Russia and Catherine the Great
She is in both the line of succession Netherlands royal crown
and the line of succession for the British royal throne
due to another great grandparent Countess Augusta Reuss who was the MOTHER of King Ferdinand of Portugal
Leopold of Belgium FATHER of the first King of Belgium King Leopold of Belgium and Carlota Empress of Mexico
the MOTHER of Queen Victoria
Ernest/ Duke of Saxe Coburg and Gotha, FATHER of Prince Albert, as well as the wife of
Grand Duke and Czar Konstantin Pavlovich of Russia(who Alexandra is related to through her great grandfather Paul I, though she is more closely and and direct lineage to the Romanov throne than the Pavlovich dynasty). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:6083:BC00:891B:56C6:37D9:3249 (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/redirect. W.marsh 14:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whiteleaf Public School[edit]

This is a fictional school which one sitcom character talks about having attended, a few times during the series. Every single section of the article takes a "little is actually known about this" stance, and no sources appear to exist outside of the programme scripts. Fails WP:FICT. McGeddon 13:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Green Wing, perhaps merging some of the information to that article. Useight 18:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably better to merge and redirect to Guy Secretan. --McGeddon 17:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, youth team player only, which means there's no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 14:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reece Jones (footballer)[edit]

Is person in any way notable? I am not from the UK, so I don't know what the newspaper coverage of U16 games (that means "under 16", right?) is; if we don't have a chance of getting outside references we should delete the article. Btw, the article has been vandalized several times. The very model of a minor general 13:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 13:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:BIO, has not played in a fully professional league. King of the North East (T/C) 14:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g3, obvious hoax, no sources, I'll take the heat if this station actually exists (but it doesn't, see here). Also, note that creator was blocked as sockpuppet of blocked user (so this is also a g5). NawlinWiki 14:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KOTH-TV[edit]

Speedy declined. Asserted as a WP:HOAX by speedy nominator. Virtually no content. Looks difficult to verify the information. Further discussion please. Pedro : Chat 13:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be a hoax. If it isn't, it's the creator's job to show us some reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Parmar[edit]

This person does not appear to meet the notability criteria. There are sources, but none of them meet the definition of a reliable source, and they don't appear to be independent of the subject. I googled and couldn't find better sources. Prod removed by creator without sources or information added. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I get all of 28 unique Google hits for "Funky Buddha Group" and nothing at all on Google News (including archives). Surprise, surprise. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His films may be notable, but he himself gets no independent coverage.--Sethacus 16:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to have put money into some big films. This doesn't make him notable. The Hollywood reporter external link which is supposed to be an artical about him ends up going to a website with a business card. Worldfamousdirector 03:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 14:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Ferdinand's third album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Franz Ferdinand's third album

This article is pure speculation; there's not even a title, a confirmed release date etc. All it is based upon are snippets from interviews, or performances of unreleased songs live. Many of the article's bullet points - something not encouraged in the manual of style - state that members of the band 'implied' or that fans 'have speculated'. This is not useful or accurate material for an article; a definate release date, confirmed tracklisting or title are at least required, I would expect, for a pre-release article on an album Pretty Green 11:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:CRYSTAL. --Evb-wiki 12:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely going to come out, they've already done pretty significant work. Trim out the excess interview stuff, though. Also, the "possible tracks" smacks of OR a bit. GlassCobra 17:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the way I always find out about a new album by my favorite bands. We'd have to delete around a hundred articles if you delete this one. Also, we can move it once there's a title, and any problems we have (like the bullet points) are easy to change. Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laynethebangs (talk • contribs) 19:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While it's true that much if not most of the article is speculation, that Franz Ferdinand is in fact working on a new album is pretty much certain. The article's existence is acceptable under the criteria of WP:CRYSTAL, so citing that policy is nonsense here: at best, it is an argument to cut the article down. Lockesdonkey 04:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Alex Kapranos has made it clear this album is being made, with constant updates on MySpace and more and more new songs playing live. Therefore this article should be kept, many fans of the band may want to keep updated with the album and quite a lot come to Wikipedia to see what's new. Keep. Paper Back Writer 23 17:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paper Back Writer 23 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abolish Forth Bridge Tolls Party[edit]

Non-notable single-issue political party, which has fielded one candidate in one by election, and won 1.1 percent of the votes. Unlikely to stand again as their raison d'etre has been removed - Forth Bridge Tolls will be scrapped anyway. Delete Jonathan Oldenbuck 11:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletions. —Jonathan Oldenbuck 11:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm sick of seeing many of these minor parties being deleted. Instead, they should actually be kept on wikipedia in some context somewhere, rahter than being completely expunged. --MacRusgail 12:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is listed in List of political parties in Scotland. Perhaps it could have a line or two of narrative there instead. --Malcolmxl5 00:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 1.1% of the vote suggests they weren't seriously attempting to win, and were instead running to generate publicity for their cause. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable minor party. NawlinWiki 14:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This party doesn't meet our notability threshold. • Lawrence Cohen 16:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--JForget 23:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Search LOVE in Google[edit]

Prod removed without comment or improvements. Anti-war and human rights group without WP:RS or assertion of notability. Merely a campaign to have everyone search for the word "love" using Google on Jan. 1, 2009. Delete. Evb-wiki 11:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No assertion of significance. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring the "Google" in its name, is there anywhere in the article that even says what this organisation does, let alone assert notability? Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 13:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable organization. NawlinWiki 14:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this organization doesn't appear to meet any of Wikipedia's relevant inclusion standards. JavaTenor 16:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article doesn't assert notability, nor does it have any reliable sources, only their own website. Useight 18:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete; No assertion of notability. Oh wait, someone already tagged it as a speedy but DGG declined the speedy (there's a surprise). Clearly a CSD A7. Masaruemoto 19:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - to be fair, DGG swap a prod tag for the speedy tag only after the author indicated that he intended to improve it. WP:AGF. --Evb-wiki 20:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnotable group. • Lawrence Cohen 16:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If nothing more is supplied, of course it cant be kept at AfD. Before coming to this page today, I deleted 15 articles that had been nominated for speedy or expired prods, and the day isn't over. I even picked out one or two newly prodded that should have been speedied, and deleted them. Yesterday I deleted 21. My deletion log is public. The average per admin for articles is between 1 and 2--most do other things mainly. My choice is to delete junk articles, while saving those that are possible. DGG (talk) 23:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. -- The Anome 14:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--JForget 23:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donier Tyler[edit]

Non-notable actress. A check of the IMDB page linked in the article shows all roles as uncredited. Google brings back hits from various edit-it-yourself movie websites. GlassCobra 11:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Creator has tried to blank the page, and has also messed with this AfD. GlassCobra 23:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as non-notable; no major roles. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if the makers of the films she was supposedly in didn't think she was important enough to be included in the credits, I don't see why we should include her in an encyclopedia. Furthermore, if *every* role was uncredited, I don't see how it would be possible to verify using reliable sources. Might even be a hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficient notability. NawlinWiki 14:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Strong Delete. Career has been primarily at one theater in the Chicago suburbs. Not notable except maybe in theater society in the Chicago suburbs, if even that. --Closeapple 14:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Since Yellow85 was so adamant, I did a little more looking. With a little search at Donier Tyler at IMDb, it's now clear that this article is WP:Autobiography, which of course makes it WP:COI and all WP:OR also. Definitely non-notable; for example, no sources on the web except her own web page and stock movie credit databases as far as I can see. Absolutely WP:VANITY and appears to exist so that someone can claim they're "on Wikipedia for a reason" to the next sucker just like they're "on imdb for a reason". Anyway, even if it wasn't WP:COI and WP:OR, it's still true that, as Yellow85 said: "you have no idea what she is working on right now" — which means no verifiable evidence of notability from unrelated sources, which means non-notable. --Closeapple 22:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And with that last part in mind: now that I think about it, this should have just been speedied as A7 since the facts in the article itself don't even rise to notability. --Closeapple 22:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Try later, when she has been credited! Greswik 17:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her resume lists her as being an extra in one professional movie (The Break Up). The rest is student film and amdram (and she was a game show contestant). I agree with the anonymous contributor above that she is on IMDB for a reason -- probably that she put herself there. Accounting4Taste 17:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and re-create and get together and have a laugh about it all in a few months, or when she becomes notable, whichever comes first. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 18:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT Delete This is not a hoax. I made this page on Donier because she is an up and coming actress who has been in a lot of media here in Chicago. She is not just known for her theater in the suburbs- she has been in many off-broadway productions here in Chicago as well. She has also been in many commercials both local and nation. She has more work than what is credited on imdb, she just has yet to update her page (actually something I am doing for her). And she is huge in the Chicago independent scene. I don't see why all of you are being so snobby about it, she is on imdb for a reason. People can't get on there unless they are reputable actors and actresses. It's actually all kind of funny, because you have no idea what she is working on right now and how big it is going to make her blow up. So go ahead, delete the page... it will make it even funnier when you all have to add her back in a few more months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellow85 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why? It's not difficult to undelete a page. Not sure what you'd be laughing at, but it would be kind of sad. JuJube 07:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete- non-notable/hoax.JJJ999 05:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Author blanked the page. JuJube 07:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, positively asserts nonnotability (O episodes), see WP:NFT. NawlinWiki 14:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Driven(machinima)[edit]

Previously speedy deleted under non-notable web content and re-created by the same person. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Still no assertion of notability, unsourced, and Ithe article is ambiguous as to whether these videos even exist. Includes the phrase "It was picked up..." but no indication of by whom. Website here, not at link in article, appears to have 2 members. Kateshort forbob 11:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promptly delete – the article even admits that it was made up in school one day, literally states "number of episodes: 0", it is written in the first person, absolutely non-notable, not even a single reliable source, etc. Melsaran (talk) 11:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Quite obviously not notable or even verifiable. —gorgan_almighty 12:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not so much a thing made up in school one day as a thing they were going to make up in school one day but got bored and didn't bother. Wouldn't be notable, verifiable, or encyclopedic either way, of course. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This discussion is a mess, but it's fairly clear that there exists no consensus to delete either of the nominated articles. In fact, I'd almost be inclined to rule a clear "keep" result for Żydokomuna, which seems only tangentially related to the main issue at hand. That said, there does seem to be nearly unanimous agreement that something needs to be done to fix the current duplication of content between The Jewish Bolshevism and Jewish Bolshevism. A sensible suggestion made by Racepacket, Kevin Murray and others, for which there seems to be at least some semblance of consensus, is that the article The Jewish Bolshevism should be cleaned up to only contain information on the pamphlet of that name, with the information of the political epithet and conspiracy theory merged (back) to Jewish Bolshevism insofar as it's not already present there. Once the two subjects have been cleanly separated, their respective notability can then be judged independently if necessary. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Jewish Bolshevism[edit]

Much of this article violates WP:NOR and WP:NOT#LINKS and WP:NOT#GUIDE. This article is essentially a repeat of the contents of Jewish Bolshevism article and a third duplicate article using the Polish name of Żydokomuna. These duplicate articles should be merged into Jewish Bolshevism. The following related article is included in this nomination for the above reasons:

Thanks, IZAK 10:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge to Jewish Bolshevism. IZAK 10:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 11:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Delete the Antisemitic articles Jewish Bolshevism & Żydokomuna. These latter articles are merely Wikipedian efforts to show that there's merit to the Nazi claim that Bolshevism and Jewishness are one. --Ludvikus 12:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge & Delete The Jewish Bolshevism ← Jewish Bolshevism --Ludvikus 13:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge & Delete The Jewish Bolshevism ← Żydokomuna --Ludvikus 13:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is this a POV fork? —gorgan_almighty 12:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Have no idea what you mean. --Ludvikus 13:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - See Wikipedia:Content forking. —gorgan_almighty 14:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it is, and I have already told Ludvikus that this is inadmissible, but he refuses to comply, see my "comment" (no vote) below. `'Míkka 16:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to Jewish Bolshevism and subject to normal cleanup measures. The articles may indeed by anti-semitic, I haven't read closely enough to see. (On first glance I'm not sure where the anti-semitism is, unless it's now considered anti-semitic to mention the prominent role of some Jews in the founding of Soviet communism...!?) But the political epithet is highly notable, indeed, it's vital to understanding how the Nazi ideology prominently linked hatred of Jews with hatred of socialism. It's unfortunate that such articles may be magnets for unsavory POV, however, that doesn't obviate the necessity to cover the term as part of a complete and factual encyclopedia. And the correct title for coverage of that term, per WP:MOS, would be Jewish Bolshevism. <eleland/talkedits> 15:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What's antisemitic is blaming the Jews by these statistics what the far out-numbering many millions of Russians, Ukrainians, Poles, and others, accomplished in maintaining and spreading Bolshevism and Communism. --Ludvikus 15:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course that would be anti-semitic. I'm not sure I saw where that blame is assigned, at least not in Jewish Bolshevism in it's present revision. The article makes it clear that although "A high percentage of ethnic Jews in comparison to the percentage of the total population took an active part in Bolshevik movement...The number of Jews in top administrative positions began to decline soon after 1917. It continued to shrink heavily in the 1930s when Stalin had his old comrades Kamenev and Zinoviev executed...Stalin had eliminated virtually all Jews from very high level government positions." One quoted article notes that "The fact that other minorities were also disproportionately highly represented did not greatly matter [to anti-semites] - there was no tradition of anti-Latvianism in Russia, nor were Latvians found in the very top positions. Nor did it matter that Jews were equally strongly represented among other anti-Communist parties of the left". It seems to treat the term fairly and properly AFAI can see. <eleland/talkedits> 16:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable subject, although I support once suggest split between Jews and communism and Jewish Bolshevism. Please don't nominate multiplie articles for deletion in a single discussion; I have removed AfD tag from Zydokomuna; if you want to delete it create a separate discussion for it or gain consensus for merge on talk. PS. That said, as I suggested on talk of Zydokomuna article, it should probably be splits into Polish Jews and communism and Zydokomuna, and the conspiracy theory/slurr part could be merged into JB.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See my remark below. `'Míkka 16:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. People, you are missing an improtant fact: the article The Jewish Bolshevism is an inadmissible fork by user:Ludvikus of the earlier created article Jewish Bolshevism. I tried to convince Ludvikus that keeping two copies of the same text is not allowed in wikipedia. I was met with extreme vitriolic animosity and accusations that I spread anti-Semtitsm. I left a request for "third opinion", but it was not ignored (I guess everyone is afraid to touch it with a long pole or simply does no care). I request again to join my attempts to remove the duplication of the text. `'Míkka 16:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ouch, you are certainly right that JB and TJB needs to be merged / deforked. Isn't forking a clearly disruptive action? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fork? Fork you Mikka (just kidding). You're misrepresenting my position, which is simply this Jewish Bolshevism → The Jewish Bolshevism. Thereafter, I think that antisemitic explanation (the former article) that there is some merit to saying that Bolshevism is Jewish because "some" or "many" Jews happen to be Bolsheviks. Hey, I've met stupid Poles - but I would never say that being Polish means being Stupid!!! --Ludvikus 16:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - To Ludvikus: You have already been warned NOT to use obscenities and personal attacks! To repeat, kindly see: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The Protocols of Zion (imprints)#Do not use vulgarities: Kindly stop using obscenties/four letter words repeatedly. That is a clear violation of Wikipedia:Civility and the way you are addressing people here comes across as a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Take note. IZAK 17:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're charge is baseless, User IZAK. I expect you to know what "obscenities," "vulgarities," and "four letter words" are. Your reckless accusation that I do that is itself a violation of Wikipedia policy. Please retract you baseless charge that you have made here. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 05:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Um Ludvikus: Can't you read your own words? You wrote the word "SHIT" at least twice at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The Protocols of Zion (imprints)#Comments & Discussions: "There only are all the many different imprints of the same SHIT which too many people believe" and "I'm only interested in identifying the exact imprints of this antisemitic SHIT" and as far as I know the word shit is an obscenity. Then you used this language when talkng to another user at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jewish Bolshevism: "Fork? Fork you Mikka (just kidding). You're misrepresenting my position..." [14] (where you also use a vile ethnic slur: "Hey, I've met stupid Poles - but I would never say that being Polish means being Stupid!!!" [15]) and you seem to think it's funny to say "fork you" clearly intending "fuck you" (since you have to add the disclaimer "just kidding") since these are clear obscenities. No doubt there are many more cases like this 'cause I have just had the great pleasure of meeting you now as an editor. And let me tell you, you cannot fool me with either your claim to innocence (when you deny your own open obscenities) nor with your self-righteousness. Thanks, IZAK 12:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I get dizzy just by looking at all these so called proposals. First, to delete the top article, than to merge another article into yet another article and finally to merge the merged article into a deleted article. Why don’t we just send the whole thing into Deep Space Nine instead and have Captain Janeway sort it out for us. I suggest you read the archived debate of an earlier bad nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Żydokomuna and than think about how difficult to reach is encyclopaedic impartiality among articles relating to history of Eastern Europe. Speaking of User:Ludvikus, I had to contend with his vulgar, repetitious attacks on me regarding yet another article on European affairs just recently.[16][17]. --Poeticbent talk 16:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, to simplify, this is the proposal: Merge both The Jewish Bolshevism and Żydokomuna into the Jewish Bolshevism article (since they duplicate almost all it's ideas and material) and then also redirect the deleted pages (of The Jewish Bolshevism and Żydokomuna) to Jewish Bolshevism, as it's the main topic. Thanks, IZAK 17:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This should be done by reaching consensus for merge on article's talk pages and submitting redirects to WP:RfD, not by trying to delete those articles here. Particularly when we are dealing with several articles, one of which (TJB) is a fork, while another (Z) quite obviously is not.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would keep the main article, and reduce The Jewish Bolshevism to the following stub: "The Jewish Bolshevism, is the title of an antisemitic pamphlet, booklet, or tract (literature) published in London in 1922 and 1923 by the Britons Publishing Society with a forward by German Nazi, Alfred Rosenberg."Racepacket 20:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Merge per Racepacket. Stub The Jewish Bolshevism, and keep the other two, pending a merge discussion. Really, I don't think should have been an issue for AfD. Merges should be dealt with as such. --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and clean up, it all. M0RD00R 07:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 12:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reduce to stub & Merge per Racepacket. —gorgan_almighty 14:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For clarification, I think Zydokomuna is sufficiently different that it can remain a separate article, although I would defer to the WikiProject Poland.Racepacket 14:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominating multiple articles for deletion is not the way to discuss their merging.Biophys 22:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I became involved with this series of articles in response to a request for a Third opinion. It was my opinion that there are two distinct topics worthy of notability: (1) Bolsheviks who are ethnic Jews and (2) a notable pamphlet with the title "The Jewish Bolshevism ". The delineation between the articles might be muddy in the present form, but that is a reason to improve not delete. --Kevin Murray 00:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up, as long as the cleanup is organized, efficient, and doesn't turn into an edit war like the one currently on the page. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 04:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge and clean up. Yahel Guhan 05:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep and add more reliable source.The article is very important and contribute people knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oren.tal (talk • contribs) 15:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep used in political discourse --Molobo 20:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork. Bulldog123 22:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two Reverse Merges: The Jewish Bolshevism ← Jewish Bolshevism & The Jewish Bolshevism ← Żydokomuna

All three items simply involve the antisemitic juxtaposition of Jewishness with Bolshevism, or with Communism, a close cognate of the latter; the Polish term (with the Z simply transliterates as "Jewish Communism"). There is no real political, or any other kind of "theory" (as scientists think of "theory"), except a conspiracy theory, which is really a cognate of "crackpot." So there is not much to say about it contentwise. That's the consequence of its being dubbed by scholars, and those who, as antisemitic. So what that leaves us with is reporting who used, or rather, abused, these expressions. "The Jewish Bolshevism" is a pamphlet which is apparently the only one which used theb term as a title and at the same time elaborated upon it as a topic or "theory" in the non-scientific, and certainly antisemitic, sense. I think therefor we need not dignify the notion by turning it, needlessly, into a Wikipedia Article. It is more than sufficient, as well as sensible, to use that pamphlet, issued by the most notorious antisemitic organization, dedicated to promoting and publicizing antisemitic propangand, The Britons. There is in that also appropriate poetic justice. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 00:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I might as well add here the antisemitic argument all antisemites use with respect to rationalize (unsuccessfully, I might add, from the logical point of view) or support the above view: (1) Jews are more numerous than non-Jews percentage-wise (except in Israel) as subscribers to Bolshevism or Communism. (2) Ipso facto, Bolshevism and Communism are Jewish (whatever that means). Yours truly, --Ludvikus 00:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Accordingly, there is not much to write about except to name the antisemtic texts which embodied this view (and what better, or more appropriarte, text is there than The Jewish Bolshevism. The other thing that's to be done is to list or name the antisemites who subscribed to this fundamentally incoherent view: Alfred Rosenberg, Adolf Hitler, Henry Hamilton Beamish, etc. Yours truly (not me, by the way), --Ludvikus 00:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a tendency, however, to engage here in improper original research. Some editors have consistently tried to write into at least one of these articles and explanation of Why "so many" (POV word, I always ask why not "so few?) were Communists. That's may be an interesting topic for political scientists. But it has no place in an article about an ethnic slur and political epithet. To do so is to act as if there were merit to the charge which needs defending. The situation is quite similar to that of the blood libel. One would not offer a dense. Rather, one argues that the charge is absurd. In a blood libel charge, would one need to show that the defendant was present on Easter Sunday in the home of a Christian family with many witnesses ready to attest thereto? Yours truly, --Ludvikus 01:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep and merge with Jewish Bolshevism & Żydokomuna and Redirect from the other name to the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oren.tal (talk • contribs) 15:53, 20 October 2007
The three articles should be merged into one as they overlap, though it is unclear to me which article should be the main. --MPerel 05:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep nominating articles for deletion should not be the way to get them merged.--יודל 13:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jewish Bolshevism POV fork Avi 14:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge as per Piotrus. Bolshevism is typical Russian term, does not relate to communism or communists of different nationality or ethnicity, and is associated exclusively with something like the "Great October Revolution 1917", applies to Russian peasants and/or workers; Jewish were neither. Also, the Polish term Żydokomuna is not relevant here, it dealt with Polish or Russian communists of Jewish ancestry (mostly atheists), but those who became party members at later time, after the so called "Great Patriotic War" meaning WWII. The very appropriate example regarding Żydokomuna is the cleansing the party of Jewish communists by Władysław Gomułka in 1968 and enforcing them to emigrate to Israel. greg park avenue 16:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: these articles really shouldn't have been nominated for deletion all at once, as it makes achieving consensus on all of them extremely difficult. Since what is requested here is a merger, I'm not even sure AfD was the right place for it. But since it was brought here... my suggestion is to merge The Jewish Bolshevism into Jewish Bolshevism as an unnecessary fork, but keep Zydokomuna, since that article seems to be sufficiently different in its subject and content. Terraxos 17:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well said. Although the argument that TJB is a notable publication - if "forked" with unnecessary content that should be merged back to JW leaving only publication related info in the article - is worth considering, too.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - True. Looking at it in more detail, I think The Jewish Bolshevism does contain enough notable encyclopedic material to exist as a page in its own right. However, it does duplicate some of the material from Jewish Bolshevism, so if it is kept that material should be merged back into its own page. Terraxos 00:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an important chapter of Polish history and I do not see why it should be deleted. The purpose of a free encyclopedia is to describe everything significant. Tymek 23:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Merge per Racepacket. --SmokeyJoe 14:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voodoo (Spice Girls song)[edit]

Declined speedy as WP:CSD#A7 doesn't apply. However WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR do. Recommend delete, but would prefer a wider discussion Pedro : Chat 10:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by nom / WP:WEASEL. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 12:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I know it technically violates WP:CRYSTAL, but the article will undoubtedly be created as soon as the album comes out. This is one of the most successful bands of all time (and the most successful female group), not a two-guys-and-a-myspace-page operation, and even if it's never released as a single there's plenty of precedent for album-only tracks by bands at this level to have their own articles (every Beatles track has its own page). — iridescent 17:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how it meets any of the criteria listed at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Songs, and creation in anticipation of meeting the criteria is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. We don't know if the song will be critically acclaimed, or receive an award, etc. Leebo ^T/C 18:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sai Gunturi[edit]

I have received a request from Sai that his entry be here deleted, I am not sure how Wikipedia usually handles BLP requests like this, but since notability is questionable for Sai in the first place (only one notable event related to him and he is already listed in the National Spelling Bee aricle). I hope that this entry can be deleted without too much hubub. If there is a problem with this line of reasoning, I hope that someone can come up with something that satisfies all parties.-Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 10:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think twinkle killed the old debate, I don't want to break the system further, so could someone move this to WP:AFD Sai Gunturi 2nd nom. Thanks and sorry for the trouble, afd is not my typical hangout.—Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 10:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I believe persons of low or unclear notability (i.e. those not legally considered "public figures") should have the right to have articles on themselves removed if they choose. The request sounds reasonable to me. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems odd that there were no links to the previous or next winners of the Spelling Bee in that article. Based on that, and the lack of any other claim to notability, I see no reason not to delete the article per the subject's wishes... assuming that the nominator is satisfied that the person making the request is indeed Sai Gunturi. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 18:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am satisfied. We have remained in occasional contact since our highschool days. If the deleting admin needs additional confirmation I can provide it. —Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 00:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above reasoning. Bearian 17:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing has changed since my original AfD nomination....Lindentree 02:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The subject's request for removal - assuming that it's true - should not be a basis for its deletion. The appropiate channel for such a request is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Dealing with articles about yourself. --Brewcrewer 02:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this article gets deleted someone ought to take a look at the following Spelling Bee winners with their own articles: Katharine Close; George Abraham Thampy; Nupur Lala; Jody-Anne Maxwell; Rebecca Sealfon; Wendy Guey; Amanda Goad. --Brewcrewer 02:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. --Brewcrewer 02:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. Deor 12:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Bolshevism[edit]

The nominator has reversed the nomination, this should be the main article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jewish Bolshevism for the corrected version of this nomination. Thank you, IZAK 10:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 information not already exisiting in The Protocols of Zion (imprints) has been merged in to this article, thus creating a list of the publication/imprints. All articles listed with the exception of The International Jew(consensus to Keep) are to be redirected to The Protocols of Zion (imprints). I acknowledge that the merge suggestion The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as a list, this provides the list without any significant impact on the featured article. Gnan garra 13:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Protocols of Zion (imprints)[edit]

A note to closing admin: when counting plese keep in mind that user:ludvikus wrote "keep" in bold in at least three different places. Mukadderat 20:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This series of repetitive and duplicate articles violates Wikipedia:Content forking; WP:NOT#REPOSITORY; and cumulatively borders on WP:NOR. There has always been one very good featured article about the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and the articles here could easily be summarized and even WP:LISTified into it, but for some bizarre reason the creator of these "articles" User: Ludvikus seems to think that Wikipedia needs an article about every version of this abominable book that was ever thought of or written in any language. Most of the articles here are just bloated paragraphs with publication information. These "articles" should be combined and merged into the main article The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (minus the bulk of the "publication information" drivel) or transferred to Wikisource (the multiple images of the texts should be transferred to Wikipedia:Wikimedia Commons). Then all the article names here should be redirected to the main The Protocols of the Elders of Zion article. The following related pages are included in this nomination for deletion for the above reasons:

Thank you, IZAK 08:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and/or Move content/s to Wikisource and multiple images to Wikimedia Commons. Sincerely, IZAK 08:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 08:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Please engage in a further discussion on this page's Talk page [18]. --Ludvikus 15:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and redirect. Content forking makes it harder to make a good encyclopaedia. -- Olve 11:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge into one article Editions of the Protocols of the wise men of Zion. The articles are not content forks, since the article limit themselves to the edition they are talking about. It is not OR, as they are well sourced. The problem is that is hard to find which article is the "real" article about all of the works. Merging them all in to one article should solve this problem. Jon513 12:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge. Some of these articles are a mishmash of cross-references to each other and quote farms; they are also OR, notwithstanding quoting a collection of sources. (After all, OR also uses sources.) --Redaktor 13:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: how so? I've seen a lot of people stretch the meaning of "original research" to cover merely assembling material; can you provide an example of the original research you see? -- 192.250.34.161 17:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion --YoavD 13:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and redirect this one. --JewBask 14:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all the imprint articles here to one "editions of" or "imprints of" annotated-list style article, such as JOn513's suggestion of Editions of the Protocols of the wise men of Zion. This book has been so deeply condemned for so long, from almost every quarter, that any publication of it is a significant event. It seems for now that the list, with descriptions, could add rather a lot of text to the main article. If, once the list has been completed, it looks small enough to add to the main article, then it can be merged, but amongst all the duplication and the bulky template, there appears to be some valuable info in the imprint articles, which should be preserved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge/split: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is quite long now and contains its own list of publications of ther Protocols. So as suggested above, create a new article about imprints, editions, translations, etc., old and modern: Versions of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion". (The quotes in the title are essential, indicating that this is a title, not "real" protocols, which do not exist. `'Míkka 17:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: At first I thought that my judgement was going to be either "merge all nominated articles to the main Protocols article" or "merge all nominated articles to a single Editions of the "Protocols of the wise men of Zion" article". However, a little research makes me think that this might be overhasty -- take a look at The International Jew, which contains information about Henry Ford's publication of the Protocols and his subsequent attempts to claim that it had been published in his newspaper without his knowledge. When I thought that merging would probably be the correct decision, it was with the expectation that there would be at most a sentence or two worth saying about any particular edition/printing -- "this edition omits everything after Section XII", for instance, or "this edition changes all references to 'X' to 'Y'", or the like. I think there's reason to doubt that expectation now. -- 192.250.34.161 17:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The International Jew, its authorship by Henry Ford made it extremely notable, and it has been extensively discussed in reliable sources. No vote for everything else, but it looks deletion/merge -worthy. <eleland/talkedits> 19:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: One thing that definitely needs to be done is to clean up the redundant categories on all these individual-edition articles. It looks like Ludvikus mistakenly thought that if an article such as Velikoe v malom i antikhrist is in Category:Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and Category:Protocols of the Elders of Zion is in another category such as Category:Antisemitic publications, that means Velikoe v malom i antikhrist should naturally be in Category:Antisemitic publications. This is unfortunately the exact opposite of the truth: Putting Velikoe v malom i antikhrist in a sub-category of Category:Antisemitic publications (which Category:Protocols of the Elders of Zion is) correctly categorizes the book as an antisemitic publication, without cluttering the parent category with it and every other version of the Protocols. The only exception is The Protocols of the Elders of Zion which, as the main article of Category:Protocols of the Elders of Zion, should belong in all the same parent categories. -- 192.250.34.161 20:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The International Jew, this is a notable work, Henry Ford is infamous for his antisemitism, of which this is probably the zenith. Everything else can be merged into a single group, as mentioned above.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikiroid (talk • contribs) [19]
Merge all to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and redirect. Edward321 23:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one, merge rest Keep the International Jew as ref's and notability seem to be sufficient. Merge the rest into The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Bfigura ^(talk) 01:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The International Jew, Listify the others at The Protocols of the Elders of Zion or Editions of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion". — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 01:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one The International Jew per comments above and Merge the rest into The Protocols of the Elders of Zion or into a new article such as Editions of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion that subsumes the various editions. --MPerel 02:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, except The International Jew, which should be kept. Crazysuit 03:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into new article Editions of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or into the existing The Protocols of Zion (imprints), or a similar name and Redirect them all, and split and move there all relevant info from Main Article, except for The International Jew which we should Keep. All per above arguments. There is no justification IMHO for so many seperate articles about the same thing.

I have also read and strongly disagree with the CounterArgument below, which seems to me to be a bit of an ad hominem attack against the initiator of this VfD, disregarding most arguments by other users, whose views differ somewhat from his and whose opinions I have preferred to User:IZAK's. Nahum 16:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Counterargument

The series of articles proposed for deletion by the deletion nominator herein, (User:IZAK), are

neither Repetitive;
nor Duplicative;
they do not violates Wikipedia:Content forking guidelines;
they do not violate What Wikipedia is not guidelines; and
they do not cumulatively border on No original research prohibitions.
The claim that "[t]here has always been one very good featured article about the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is misleading at best. True, the article has been featured; but that it was "very good" is the mere uninformed opinion of this one editor.
The articles here could not, and cannot now, be easily summarized.
Regarding so-called WP:LISTification, one of the articles does just that - but it too is in the list for deletion.
The accusation that "for some bizarre reason the creator of these "articles" User: Ludvikus seems to think that Wikipedia needs an article about every version of this abominable book that was ever thought of or written in any language" comes from - at best - general ignorance of the subject matter herein.
That "most of the articles here are just bloated paragraphs with publication information" is a conclusory POV. The editor who says this appears unable to digest the fact that there is no such thing as the book - so he disparages the most important facts to be stated - the publication events about this plurality of items.
These "articles" cannot be combined and merged into the already bloated main article The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and accordingly, splitting unavoidable and necessary.
The further disparaging remark regarding the drivel about deleting bulk of the "publication information" is again, at best, a manifestation of extreme ignorance as to the subject matter.
What is asked regarding "transferred to Wikisource (the multiple images of the texts should be transferred to Wikipedia:Wikimedia Commons)" manifests another kind of ignorance at best - what constutes the several marticles themselves.
Regarding the "article names", that these "should be redirected to the main The Protocols of the Elders of Zion article" would create a redundancy at best. The "article names" are the names of the most notoriously important imprints of the diverse books, spread over space and time, which fall under the unfortunate category of the so-called Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Knowledge of these titles has already been acknowledged and absorbed into the main article.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 05:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Unfortunately racism and antisemitism exist. These are terrible things. We have two theoretical choices regarding its products. Destroy, ignore, or hide them under the carpet, hoping that they disappear. Or we can bring them into the light of day, hoping that thereby the rays of sunlight will, through over-exposure, reveal the fraud that these embody. Unfortunately, the former way is either impossible, or unsuccessful. Many Jews in NYC city in and about 1920 believed that if they only worked hard, and kept quiet about the hateful literature which came out of Russia that year, that evil would eventually simply subside into oblivion. Unfortunately, those of us who know, know that that did not happen. In fact, quite the opposite happened resulting in a horrible tragedy for the Jewish people. As Norman Cohn points out, this literature turned into the Warrant for Genocide. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 01:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such book as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This title is the invention of compilers of commentaries on the "literature" which is the subject of the articles now being considered for deletion here. In fact, all these articles are extremely important precisely because they relate to the The Non-Existent Manuscript, a manuscript, nonetheless, which formed the basis of the Warrant for Genocide.
To be continued ... --Ludvikus 03:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously notable. • Lawrence Cohen 16:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In any case keep The International Jew and The Cause of World Unrest' --these two were publications containing more than the Protocols, though based upon it. DGG (talk) 23:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would have liked to Merge, but that would have made the main Protocols article too long. ^ross ^nixon 00:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is a book in its own right, is it not? I'm not an expert, but this book doesn't seem to be a part of the Zion Protocols. — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:43 19 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
Merge per Jon513 et al. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RossNixon. M0RD00R 19:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Will the real "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" please stand up?, or why Merge is not possible.

Not only is it the case that the hypothetical original French language plagiarism, literary forgery, and hoax has not been preserved, but neither is it the case that there exists anywhere we know of the Russian language manuscript (again, see the recent, 2004, scholarly work, The Non-Existent Manuscript).
And still further complicating our lives is the fact that there's no such thing as the Standard work under that (or any other) title. So there is no such thing as the book in this subject area.
What does exist is a plurality of texts, imprints, editions, under various titles.
Even the Form of publication varies: newspaper articles, pamphlets, booklets, books, and even ebooks, internet postings, and films.
Further complicating our lives is the fact that these "Protocols" (for lack of a better name) are always published as a compilation with distinct front matter (Preface, Introduction, etc.), as well as back matter (Conclusion, Appendices, etc.).
And still another complication, is the fact that with each diverse imprint there is most often, an anonymous editor, etc., whose names are only now beginning to come out as a result of scholarship.
And all these facts are essentially true even if we restrict ourselves to productions in the English language alone.
The WP requirement - that all these WP articles be merged would require original research - and that is not permitted by WP guidelines.
However, what amounts to book reports is allowed on WP. What I've done, regarding these articles is simply go to all these imprints and read and examine them each individually. That is certainly in keeping with WP policy. As I understand that, any WP editor is free to read any book or imprint and give a report on that. That kind of stuff does not require any original research.
The current ((Main)) article is already quite long. I do not think it possible to cramp all these most important (though hateful & evil) imprints under one roof - which merging would require.
Splitting (as I understand the WP term) is the only way to go. The model I have in mind is "Philosophy" which acts as the Main article for numerous subordinate articles.

Accordingly, we have no choice but to keep all these distinct articles on this controversial and hateful literature.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 23:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Yidisheryid. Ostap 04:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to either The Protocols of the Elders of Zion or possibly subarticle such as Editions of the Protocols of the wise men of Zion. Unless there are distinctions between the various editions substantive enough to warrant separate treatment, there is little point to having multiple articles. older ≠ wiser 15:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: But there are such substantive distinctions. And the main article here up for deletion is the one you are proposing ("imprints"). I've also tried, repeatedly, to inform editors that to accomplish the Merge requested would require original research. There has not been - ever - a collective study of the English language imprints of these Protocols. And in fact, the study of this "literature" (for lack of a better word) in the Russian language has only been made available to the public in English in 2004: The Non-Existent Manuscript. I do not believe that the editors who are recommending the MERGE of these article are fully aware of the enormous task that requires - besides Original researc. As I keep telling those editors who recommend Merge - that is not possible. At the same time, the different imprints are absolutely important for the following reasons:

1903 - Jews are blamed (with the PSM - acronym for the title in Russian) for conditions in Russia before the 1905 Revolution.
1905-6 - Jews are blamed for the 1905 Revolution in Russia.
1920 - Jews are blamed for Bolshevism, the Russian Revolution, and the Russian Civil War.
1920's-1930 - Jew are blamed for WWI & WWII emerging conditions.
1934 300 page compilation tome - Jews are blamed for everything.

There's too much stuff here to put into a single article. Each text version has a different (evil and antisemitic) history.
As I keep telling the editors who are asking for Merge, each of these imprints has different front matter and back matter (by different anonymous editors, and that really carries and does the antisemitic work. But you can only tell that by going to these, often extremely rare texts. I've done that. No one I know of has. And again, there is no scholarly study focusing on the English language imprints. At the same time, this stuff is extremely subtle, complex, seductive, and apparently persuave to the minds of antisemites.
For all these reasons, it is impossible to Merge the individual distinct and malevolently important imprints.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 17:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete. wikipedia is not a bibliographical catalog. Imagine we start writing articles about each and every edition of each and every book. Mukadderat 04:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, as being redundant and boosting the purported importance of the subject. Redirects after deletion would be fine, if they are likely search terms. Guy (Help!) 13:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep no other book in the world has had so much impact each edition in its own merit and different way. so they are in essence totally difrent books, therefore merit different articles.--יודל 13:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly this vote is an exhalted exaggerration. No doubt, Talmud or Kabbala had more impact. Mukadderat 21:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per Guy's suggestion Avi 14:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The International Jew and The Cause of World Unrest, as they are significantly more notable than the rest due to the Henry Ford connection. Merge the rest into one article entitled 'Editions of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion' (or 'Publications of...', or something similar). While I admire and appreciate the effort that's gone into each one of these articles, they cover substantially similar enough topics that Wikipedia doesn't need an article on every single one. This information would be much easier to read and make sense of if it were all on one page. Terraxos 17:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With all due respect, I do not think this User fully appreciates the difficulty which Merge entails. There has not been a comparative study of these various editions of this hateful antisemitic literature. And these original items are exceedingly rare. Accordingly, who, and, how would such a Merge be accomplished? Remember that the subject matter involves plagiarism, fraud, hoax, etc. So what one ordinarily might view as a triviality, may in fact be a significant ponit upon which the success of the Protocols Myth turns. So any kind of Merge is bound to involve Wikipedia editors in Original Research (prohibited at WP) on this difficult and controversial matter. So the only option we have is Keep all. Accordingly, I strongly urge our User to reconsider his/her recommendaqtion. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 18:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since them are "exceedingly rare", we don't have enough information from reliable sources to make separate articles. An article that consisit only of a title and pointers to library records is not an ancyclopedia article. Since you agree that merge is an invalid solition, the only approach is to delete for lack of notability and verifiability. Mukadderat 20:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - So let's delete the Gutenberg Bible on that ground too, right? You should think of all this as "Satan's Bible" to coin a simile. It turns out, however, not to be a single book at all. All the editions are equally malevolently important. --Ludvikus 20:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please don't use false and deliberately provocative arguments. Gutenberg Bible is considered important by reputable researchers independent of wikipedia and the artcle is based on wealth of sources. And "all editions" are not equally important, even "malevolently". And "malevolently" is not in vocabulary of wikipedia's notablity criteria. Mukadderat 20:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment After being dragged into this discussion I looked into the work of Ludvikus on this topic and I respect his dedication to the subject. I am nothing close to being expert or even somehow read in the subject, however it came to my attention that all these articles are very poorly referenced and footnoted. Since this is very rare topic, the wikipedia artices must be very thoroughly footnoted, otherwise they leave a very strong impresion of Original bibliophile research. I marked all pages accordingly, since I am afraid that the overall decision is swayed towards "merge", and I would object to merging of unsourced information without proper tagging.. Mukadderat 21:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ideal situation for a merge. There's no need for 13 articles on slightly different imprints of the same general publication, and on examination many of them appear to consist only of publishing information that is of little use to readers. While a case can be made that each edition differs from the others in some way, all of these are straightforward variations on a central work that can easily be described in either that article or in a new article Editions of the Protocols of the wise men of Zion (per Jon513). Daniel^C/_T+ 12:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, which is my instinct anyway (I am a "mergetarian" and am proud to have invented that portmonteau). While I respect the creator's dedication to all this work, it needs to be trimmed down. This is, as has been noted above by several users, a perfect case to merge, not to delete. All of them should be placed into a single "imprints" or "editions" article, whatever it may be called. I don't think Henry Ford's involvement in a particular edition(s) makes that especially notable, although I'm not an expert. Bearian 18:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think it stands as a testament to how poorly written these articles are that it took me until now to realize this, but it appears that some of these articles are not even about actual books -- they are about the titles of the books. Someone please take a look at Protocols of the wise men of Zion and tell me if I'm wrong that this is an antire article devoted, not even to an edition or printing, but to a library label. -- 192.250.34.161 20:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. Reasonable merge arguments are made. Unfortunately, there is too much complexity for mergers to be mandated by a failed deletion debate. The information in the thirteen pages needs to be organized, but with care. Leave the details to be worked out by editors involved. --SmokeyJoe 12:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No indication of notability. Canadian Northern became Canadian National around 1917-1919 (see http://www.cn.ca/about/company_information/history/en_AboutOurStory.shtml Birth of Canadian National). Current officers make no mention of any Rothschild http://www.cn.ca/about/investors/directors_officers/company_officers/en_InvOfficers.shtml Nothing else in article asserts any notability at all, so even if this person were real, this article fails WP:CSD#A7. Avi 16:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simon de Rothschild[edit]

This is a stub article with no verifiable information and no sources. It's likely to be a hoax article (much misinformation has been purged from it already) and there's no benefit to keeping it. - Nunh-huh 09:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability. Possibly vanity page. Possibly hoax. —gorgan_almighty 13:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Comment ~~notable member of the Rothschild family; try a web search (should be Meyer?). JJL 14:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)~~ the situation seems to be more complicated than I had realized. I had seen the pseudonyms used at the securities page but hadn't read the whole complaint, and took the Israeli Times article to have established his existence as part of the family. Thanks Llajwa for the info. JJL 18:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calling yourself "Rothschild" does not make you a member of the Rothschild family: the gentleman in question does not appear in any reputable genealogy of that family.- Nunh-huh 17:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did a web search, and I still can't find any "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" as required by WP:N. What sources in particular were you referring to? —gorgan_almighty 15:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I searched Google and found, e.g., [20], [21], [22], [23]. This was enough for me: A pres. and CEO of a large company, involved in a securities action, and a member of a notable and noble family. JJL 16:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's good enough for you, perhaps, but "I read it on the web" is not good enough for a source here, and you seem not to have read these "sources" carefully. The "Baronwatch" website is particularly problematic. You say he's a president and CEO of a large company (but no source); you cite a wiki for the securities action (we don't have articles on everyone involved in a securities action), which mentions the man's many pseudonyms, and the fact that his "companies" don't really seem to be companies - hardly standard practice for someone who is actually CEO of a large company, and you claim he's a member of a noble family, which he is not. - Nunh-huh 17:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is evidence [24] that someone who used the name Simon de Rothschild (along with other names including DEAN GEORGE ROTHSCHILD, D.S.M. ROTHSCHILD, DEAN GEORGE MCDONALD, DAVID MICHAEL COSTELLO, AND SIMON ELAH WEINSTEIN) got in trouble with the Manitoba Securities Commission in 2000.

But no evidence has come to light that anyone named Simon de Rothschild is a prominent businessman in Canada or head of a company called Canadian Northern Railway.

Regarding Simon de Rothschild: a google search yields several sites that clearly draw their text from Wikipedia itself, as well as two others. This one [25] reads like a gag, and certainly is not a verifiable source for our page. This one [26], from the Israel Times, seems at first to be a strong source for our text: it’s from an article dated 2/23/2005, while Simon de Rothschild first entered Wikipedia in February 2006. However, a closer look suggests that the current Israel Times text does not date from 2005. It is an identical text to the correspondingly titled sections of the Wikipedia article Rothschild Family beginning in Spring 2006 [27], not the Wikipedia text as it stood in Feb 2005 [28]. Since the Wikipedia text for Rothschild Family evolved gradually between 2005 and 2006, it seems clear that the Israel Times piece as it stands was cut and pasted from Wikipedia at some point since Spring 2006.

Earlier versions of the Simon de Rothschild page claimed that he was a descendant of Mayer Anschel Rothschild, but the Rothschild Foundation emailed me that there is no such legitimate descendant.

Regarding the Canadian Northern Railway: this is a historic late-nineteenth-century railroad which went out of existence long ago. There does not appear to be any verifiable source that it was ever revived.

The original version of the Simon de Rothschild included all kinds of picaresque details about the person’s alleged misdeeds and accomplishments [29]. At one point someone claiming to be Simon de Rothschild himself wrote on a talk page, complaining about being libeled. There seem to be two likely scenarios: 1. The whole thing is a gag among friends; 2. there is a real Canadian con-man (see the Manitoba Securities Council allegations [30]) who falsely uses the name Simon de Rothschild, but he is not notable or the head of Canadian Northern Railway. Llajwa 18:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't realised the Rothschild family article also contained this apparently bogus and certainly unsourced information, so I've removed it from there; those wishing to see it can visit the revision still containing it. - Nunh-huh 18:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. IZAK 13:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletions. IZAK 13:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 13:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nunh-huh (talk · contribs) concerns seems legitimate. Llajwa (talk · contribs) seems to have done his homework, so it's delete as a violation of WP:HOAX. This is a serious subject, see the main Rothschild family article as well as Category:Rothschild family. Thanks, IZAK 13:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If he's a real Rothschild, then (at the prima-facie level, at least) there is a good chance he is notable; if he is a fraudster using the appellation, then I would suggest he is Wiki-notable, if only so that those looking him up will see that he is, in fact a fraudster. As to the truth of the article, I am content to leave that to experts. -- SockpuppetSamuelson 14:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whether legitimate or a fraud, sources are needed to verify notability and there currently aren't any. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there is one newspaper link I can find that appears to validate that Simon de Rothschild is in fact a member of the Rothschild family and does head the Canadian Northern Railway here, but I find nothing else on him. --MPerel 22:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll read the discussion above, that "newspaper link" is in fact copied from an earlier version of the Wikipedia article. It validates nothing. All the more reason for Wikipedia to stop spreading this misinformation. - Nunh-huh 02:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I somehow missed that when I skimmed over the responses! There's something strange about the Israel Times website anyway, it appears to only have been registered July 2007, so something smells suspicious. --MPerel 01:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the more I look at this the more suspicious it gets. Plus Llajwa has received email from the Rothschild Foundation stating there is no such legitimate descendant, and the Canadian Northern Railway is no longer in existence. --MPerel 01:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, A hoax or truth if it is notable it is a real subject and should be included in the worlds biggest encyclopedia.--יודל 17:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make sense -- to be notable it should be clearly documented as either one or the other! If it's a hoax, we need sources documenting the hoax and its notability. Llajwa 18:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only verifiable information about him seems to be the securities complaint, and that's not sufficient to assert notability. Unless there's actual press coverage about his activities, I don't see that he warrants an article; this is an encyclopedia, not a directory of scammers. Choess 19:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If he's for real ([31] possibly suggests so), then merge data into Rothschild family. Not notable for an article of his own in any case.-- Matthead ^discuß! O 11:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That "reference" is a mirror of Wikipedia's own article. It suggests nothing other than the fact that we are fairly efficient at spreading misinformation. - Nunh-huh 14:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 14:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Convert/LoffAoffD/SoffImp[edit]

Convert/LoffAoffD/SoffImp & Convert/LoffAoffDsSoffImp‎ were mistakes. They were meant to be in the template space. J ɪ m p 07:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7. —gorgan_almighty 13:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 14:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David A. Perdue Elementary School[edit]

nn primary school Phgao 15:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability, and most likely none exists. —gorgan_almighty 13:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is another non notable school. We need a better process for these probable removals. --Stormbay 20:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Houston County Schools, the parent article, per WP:LOCAL. Yamaguchi先生 02:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Houston County Schools per Yamaguchi and WP:REDIRECT as well. RFerreira 08:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 14:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious (Christina Aguilera song)[edit]

This topic is not useful at all, please delete it! Olliyeah 17:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to album article, not notable on its own. Punkmorten 11:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Christina Aguilera (album), as the individual song is not notable enough for its own article. —gorgan_almighty 13:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 14:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Our Way (Christina Aguilera song)[edit]

This topic is unuseful; delete it please! Olliyeah 17:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Back to Basics (Christina Aguilera album), as the individual song is not notable enough for its own article. —gorgan_almighty 13:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. 17Drew 03:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and stubify by removing all original research and unsourced references to living persons. Bearian 19:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religious violence[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Religious terrorism

Appears to be nothing but WP:OR or WP:SYN, possibly WP:DICDEF. The article's own intro admits it's a "term whose use is generally very imprecise. It is commonly encountered in the media and popular discourse to cover a large variety of phenomena." It cites no sources nor could it since it is the editors' original ideas and a synthesis of subjects which are not treated together in a notable way in secondary sources. Its defects can't be fixed and it should be deleted. Mamalujo 01:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep poorly writting page but still the page should exist...Shniken1 12:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Religious violence is clearly a notable topic, so widely covered that this article could be copiously referenced. Parts of the article seem to reflect POV or even to be incorrect, but they can be rephrased or, if necessary, removed. "If [a] page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion" (See WP:DP). Moreover, "If there's anything useful towards a good article, the article should be improved, not deleted" (See WP:NOEFFORT). Valerius 01:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete After searching, I agree that there's no similar page out there, but this is indeed an essay that tries to include everything, with a spectrum of "violence" running from a sacrificial lamb one end, to 9/11 on the other, with the common thread being that religion is used as an excuse for violence. Whoever tries to clean this up has a lot of work ahead of them. Mandsford 02:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Weak because I have no idea how I can help improve the article. Keep per Valerius. I think the article needs an entire Wikiproject to overhaul. I'll ask WP:RELIGION if they can help.--Lenticel ^(talk) 09:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. -- → AA ^(talk) — 10:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No sources are cited and the style (written like an essay) gives clear indications of it being original research and synthesis. → AA ^(talk) — 10:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a bit of POV here as well; I would consider circumcision of someone else to be more "violent" than flagellation of oneself, though both are done in the name of religion Mandsford 15:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stubbify The topic is notable, but Wikipedia article should not cobble together science fiction and other unreliable viewpoints in an original way as this one does. I would stubbify the article and await a better-sourced, more neutral presentation. A future reliable article should identify a thesis -- e.g. that some people claim there is a relationship between religion and violence -- include arguments both for and against that claim, and reliably source and attribute these arguments. An article entitled Democratic party sexual harassment that cobbled together newspaper reports of sexual harassement by Democratic party members and combined it with non-reliably sourced claims that sexual harassment represents a Democratic practice and that Democratic beliefs and ethos tend to promote engaging in it would have similar WP:OR problems. Better to present reliably sourced claims of correlation together with opposing views, as well as reliably sourced information about any specific practices and claims Best, --Shirahadasha 17:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Although WP:BLP addresses only living persons, I believe that articles primarily presenting criticism of others' institutions, beliefs, practices, etc. generally should have heightened reliability and sourcing standards, particularly on controversial matters, to preserve the integrity of the encyclopedia. WP:NOT#CENSORED, but WP:NOT#SOAP either. I am particularly concerned, for example, that the article's only statement specifically mentioning Islam is from a science fiction novel. We cannot afford to be this careless. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The above discussions have not refuted the original research and synthesis criticisms. As such, I think any admin or editor who closes the discussion should disregard those opinions advocating keeping the article. The problem (which no one has yet refuted) is that the article conflates all kinds of unrelated activities: terrorism, ritual mutilation, human and animal sacrifice, and sectarian violence. There is no support whatsoever for this synthesis having been done by anyone other than the editors. I don't believe this grouping of diverse types of acts, treated together, could be found in reliable unbiased sources. They might be treated separately, all of which separate treatement use the phrase "religious violence", but they are not treated together in a notable way. The idea was conceived and cobbled together by the editors and no one else. Without a showing that this conflation of all these diverse types of phenomenon are treated together in a notable way by secondary sources, this article plainly fails based on original research and synthesis not withstanding any number of "votes" to keep it. Mamalujo 17:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly fails original research, possibly other areas too. Springnuts 22:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until there has been a chance to explore the topic further. This is clearly a notable term and a notable topic both in mass culture and in academia. Presently the entry is unreferenced and possibly bordering on WP:OR because of the lack of references. I might agree with the idea of deleting the content and making a stub entry, but I don't think this nomination was the right course of action given that no other course of action was taken first. For instance, the tags about original research and the lack of references only went up after the AfD nomination--see here. I've added several books to the further reading section written on various aspects of this topic by prominent academics. I hope that helps someone get started on improving it.PelleSmith 17:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but perhaps stubbify to remove OR. The topic is certainly notable enough for an article, even if this article presents as many problems as it does. John Carter 22:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Youden Family[edit]

Looking through this I can't see even the basis for a coherent article stub. As far as I can see, their main claim to notability is their distant place in succession to the throne of England. And that isn't the greater "Youden Family", it's obviously only a very particular branch since the article says there are as many as 300,000 Youdens. Pig^man 15:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hoax. These supposed "29th and 30th in line" individuals never existed and if they did would be copiously documented. The urls in the page do not support any of the claims, fails WP:V. --Dhartung | Talk 15:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dhartung. Incredibly bad hoax.--Sethacus 22:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dhartung. This hoax is not even well written, and the purported sources have nothing to do with the subject. --Metropolitan90 06:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above as WP:HOAX. Bearian 17:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calumpang[edit]

Notability in question. Had the clan been famous in all of the Philippines they would surely been notable. However, they were only famous in one island, Negros and is concentrated in one city, Tanjay. Don't bother Google searching, Calumpang is a very common location name. I already searched the clan in Google and there are a very few unrelated hits. They do have some interesting clan members but individually they do not achieve notability by themselves. Even if they do, notability isn't inherited anyway. My suggestion is that the article be transwikied to WikiPilipinas (GFDL Licensed) where the article would be more fitting. --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not as notable as, say, the Ayalas or the ABS-CBN's Lopezes. (For the non-Filipinos out there, the nearest parallel I could ever come up for notable business clans would be, say, the Totschilds (sp?) and the Hilton family). --- Tito Pao 17:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noctis (Band)[edit]

Non-notable band. Fails WP:MUSIC criteria. Its official site is a myspace profile. Keb25 09:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:Music #6: This band Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such. Tag for cleanup and references. I believe a MySpace page is now a recognized reliable "official site", especially for bands. . ♫ Cricket02 14:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change to delete. Did not look at band links closely enough. ♫ Cricket02 15:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't have an opinion on this article, but to claim a MySpace page is a reliable independent source asserting the notability of anything is a nonsense. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. I didn't say anything regarding MySpace as a source to establish notability. I just mean that if a band does indeed have a MySpace page rather than a website, it is not a reason for deletion, as asserted by the nominator. ♫ Cricket02 23:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep because it passes WP:MUSIC based on the drummer's work in other notable bands, but MySpace, while "official", is unreliable, so it needs more cites. Bearian 17:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What other notable bands would that be? The article mentions a lot of bands, but none of them appear to be notable... Fram 13:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- nn band. - Longhair\^talk 22:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't see that they qualify under WP:MUSIC number 6; by the time you check all the links, none of them seem to have been in another band that is notable. Bondegezou —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bondegezou (talk • contribs) 13:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 14:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drummond Money-Coutts[edit]

Non-notable magician. No claim of notability nor reliable sources. Keb25 08:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[32] [33] Apologies for the waffle, but above might well aid notability. Amend as you wish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Regweaver (talk • contribs) 10:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC) ----(Kateshort forbob 11:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC) moved reply below heading) - Removed header; it was messing up the AfD page. GlassCobra 11:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've rewritten the article since nomination to remove the promotional air and incorporated the two references offered. Between the magic, which seems reasonably skilled, publication, news coverage, and performances for celebrities, I think he can reasonably be considered notable. Choess 02:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As now revised, we seem to have just enough notability. Xn4 02:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin Street (Victoria, BC)[edit]

According to Google Maps there is no Franklin Street in Victoria. Canuck85 08:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I too am unable to find evidence that this street exists, but even if it does, the article fails to assert that it is notable in any way. Deor 15:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree completely with the nominator and Deor above; the street (if it exists at all) is referenced within the article about the former mayor, and that's sufficient, I suggest. Accounting4Taste 17:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it exists at all, it certainly doesn't measure up to WP:50k. Grutness...wha? 00:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--JForget 23:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet occupations[edit]

This article is a POV-fork and original synthesis, created by Estonian user Digwuren with long history of disruption (see blocklog: [34]), who also created (and attempted to re-create under other names) already deleted articles Denial of Soviet occupation and Estophobia. I was unable to add a deletion template into the article because it is protected due to permanent edit war. This article is a part of his campaign of creation of numerous POV-forks of existing articles, mostly related to Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact by copying text from them to the new article. The article includes information about various unrelated events throughout XX century from inter-war period until war in Afghanistan to create POV-oriented narrative or to depict them as somewhat related. Some of these events are not generally accepted to be occupations. No evidence presented that there is something in common between these events. We already have numerous articles covering the topic such as Military history of the Soviet Union, Occupation of Baltic states, Soviet invasion of Poland (1939), Soviet occupation of Latvia, Soviet occupation of Estonia, Prague Spring, Soviet war in Afghanistan and many others. Do we really need one more POV-fork consisting of re-compilation of already existing articles? Note the topic is havily occupied by related accounts.--Dojarca 08:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Once again (see 1, 2 and 3), Dojarca nominates an Soviet-related article created by Digwuren for deletion, giving the identity and ethnicity of the creator as the first and main reason for deletion.

As Dojarca kindly pointed out, there are various articles about Soviet occupations, this article serves as an overview of the phenomena. Most readers do not want specific details at first when interested of Soviet occupations, they want a generic overview - and that is what the article is for. If Dojarca is able to come up with specific details that he deems to be POV, then those could be fixed - or the other (properly sourced) viewpoint given. As for "original synthesis", there are almost hundred articles in Google Scholar and close to 300 books in Google Books even for exact search, several articles and books solely dedicated to dealing with phenomena.

Article itself is reasonably well written and referenced (25 references, full third of them scholarly books and many articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals). Many improvements could be made, but I can see no reason to delete it whatsoever.

-- Sander Säde 09:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a compilation from other articles. Hence it is sourced. Nothing unusual. The reason here is that the article is a POV-fork and unnecessary compilation of unrelated events, not your ethnicity.--Dojarca 09:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you kindly note that I am not Digwuren. And why do you mention his nationality - or the creator at all, is it somehow relevant to the deletion in your opinion. Compare it with AfD nomination "Delete Holocaust, because it is created by a Jewish user Hsiwej".

As for claim "sourced, because it is a compilation", then only lede has 5 independent sources, three of them scientific books and one peer-reviewed journal World Politics. And "unrelated events", they all are a part of Soviet Union and its foreign policy. Where else do you plan to give a general overview of specialties of Soviet occupations?

-- Sander Säde 10:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This issue has been discussed in some detail on the talk page of the article see Archive 1: WP:SYNT and the older Archive 1: The neutrality of this article is disputed --Philip Baird Shearer 12:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. This article, as rightly noted by Dojarca, is a copy and paste from various existing WP articles, salted with some more POV by a user with a long standing disruption history. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 14:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has had many contributions by other editors since its creation, so citing the reputation of the article creator has absolutely no relevance. Martintg 19:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the claim original synthesis is factually incorrect. All soviet occupations mentioned in the article are listed in The International Law of Occupation ISBN 0691121303 [35]. In case the title is too POV-sh, the article should be renamed like suggested on the talk page.--Termer 16:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "occupation" of Romania is not mentioned in that book.Anonimu 17:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is, however, mentioned in numerous other reliable sources, so is a legitimate encyclopedic topic. Biruitorul 23:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only a limited number of sources mention it, and moreover, some even explecitely deny it. The feebleness of the term "Soviet occupation", as applied to Romania, should be given expression in the article.Anonimu 00:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the number is limited: it's not infinite! One source denies it, but for no apparent reason and without context. The overwhelming majority accept what is blindingly clear: that an occupation took place. Biruitorul 04:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant less than a dozen sources found on google book search. The fact that google scholar gives only one relevant result for the term is speaking. The one who use it are ignorant of international law (cause the above book written by a specialist doesn't mention it) and/or have a beef with the soviets.Anonimu 07:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just keep strumming away at that one-note harp... There's a whole book on the occupation! It's called Military Occupation and Diplomacy: Soviet Troops in Romania, 1944-1958, by Sergiu Verona. Biruitorul 21:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Interpreting a book by the title shows how interested you are in promoting "facts". 2.The title doesn't support the concept as presented in the article.Anonimu 22:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is the 4th time Dojarca (talk · contribs) repeats the same personal attacks and bogus claims in XfD nominations (1st, 2nd, 3rd), despite being repeatedly asked to tone down the incivilities during the last month. It is time to help Dojarca to reform himself with a block. Colchicum 19:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I strongly object to Dojarca citing the article creator's ethnicity as a factor for deletion. There should be zero-tolerance for this kind of behaviour on Wikipedia, Dojarca was warned about this previously. Martintg 19:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator rationale ("created by bad user X") is not a reason for deletion. Moreover, that kind of argument might be interpreted as a personal attack. A lot of good-faith effort by many editors have been invested in this article. According to WP:Deletion policy, "Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page", which is relevant here.Biophys 20:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since an overview of Soviet occupation, from Afghanistan to Yugoslavia, doesn't seem to be an article (some have cited articles about the Baltic states, Eastern Europe, etc.) this is a good place to start So what if Digwuren has a bit of point of view showing through along with the sourcing and footnotes? I suppose that if I'd lost a loved one in the World Trade Center, it might be hard to conceal my feelings about al-Qaeda. But he or she isn't the only editor who can work on this article. Mandsford 02:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We already have Military history of the Soviet Union--Dojarca 02:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what? We also have Soviet War Crimes. Martintg 03:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Dojarca, I believe this should be a "see also" under both the "World War II" and "Cold War" sections. Will insert (or not) once this issue is decided here. PētersV 13:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Per Sander et al. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 04:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. And advise Dojarca to stop AFD'ing all articles which contain words "soviet" and "occupation" in them. Since when did Personal Attack become valid rationale for deletion anyway? Suva Чего? 10:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what does Speedy keep mean? How is it different from Keep? --Philip Baird Shearer 10:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Speedy keep -- Sander Säde 11:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMO silly terminology. What are your grounds for using Speedy keep? --Philip Baird Shearer 13:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Dojarca's previous three XfD's, linked above. Any AfD that lists ethnicity and identity of the article creator as the first and main reason for deletion should be instantly closed and user removed from Wikipedia until s/he understands that racism has no place on Wikipedia. Nor censorship. -- Sander Säde 14:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 12:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This should be the "parent" article to what are now scattered about as independent (sub-)articles. Per Termer, the list is not a WP:SYNTH compilation--neither is, for example, the source which Termer cites a "nationalist" publication. Title and scope are reliably sourced. PētersV 13:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well-referenced treatment of a phenomenon widely recognised by academic literature. Biruitorul 14:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep Notable, happened, factually verifiable to have happened. If there is a problem with the article content, hash that out. Deletion? Absurdly silly. • Lawrence Cohen 16:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Biruitorul. - Darwinek 16:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PētersV and Biophys — Zalktis 17:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lawrence Cohen--victor falk 23:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very important / notable subject; useful list that has distinct purpose beyond individual sub-topics. Wikidemo 14:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Extremely important article that should detail in full political organisation of occupation, propaganda justification for occupation, terror used to crushed resistance and attempts to deny those events.--Molobo 01:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 16:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of brain tumor patients[edit]

Per the article description: "This list ... includes people who made significant contributions to their chosen field and who had a primary or metastatic brain tumor at some point in their lives."

Per WP:NOT#DIR (5): "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as 'People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y' or 'Restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y'. Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon."

Per WP:NOT (general content criteria): "merely being true or informative does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia."

I'm sorry, and I note it is a featured list and interesting and created with effort... but it just doesn't seem to meet the aims of WP:NOT. Although the people are notable, and the condition is notable, this seems to fall into a list of non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations: "List of people in category X (people who made a notable contribution to their field) and who have condition Y".

WP:INTERESTING, much WP:EFFORT, and possibly of emotional significance for those fighting such conditions ..... but I'd like to double-check whether it's unencyclopedic. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as unencyclopedic. Lists have their place but I don't see this as being useful in any way. It's extremely well written and cited, though - Alison ^❤ 07:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The list being featured means that the consensus of the editors involved in the FL nomination was that this list was not only encyclopedic, but some of Wikipedia's finest. I see a list of notable patients as part of a good encyclopedic treatment of a disease. --Itub 09:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At the risk of stumbling on WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:NOTAGAIN, it may be interesting to note two other related deletion debates on people with epilepsy and people with hepatitis C. In addition to this list and the epilepsy list, there are two other similar featured lists: HIV-positive people and polio survivors. Clearly, its featured status indicates a generally high level of conformance to WP guidelines and policy. In particular, it satisfies WP:LIVING by using only reliable published sources.

The introduction to this list gives the impression that this is a cross-categorizations when in fact, all lists on WP must restrict themselves to notable people. Few of the people in the list are notable solely for having had a brain tumour. This is true of many lists on WP. Featured List examples include Eagle Scouts, Alpha Phi Alpha brothers, and the alumni of Dartmouth College, Athabasca University, Georgia Institute of Technology and Jesus College, Oxford.

Lists of people with a medical condition tend to invoke some WP:IDONTLIKEIT reactions. They appear (usually unsourced) in many medical articles. Guidelines for handling such information have been incorporated into WP:MEDMOS, which encourages editors to spawn off such lists from the main medical article, when they get big enough.

The information can be considered encyclopaedic to at least two audiences, in addition to the casual reader. The first audience is advocacy groups such as charities working with patients or their carers. These groups are keen to find public figures to increase awareness, act as ambassadors and be "an example" to others. Knowing that "you are not alone" is an important psychological help that such groups recognise and so they often publish similar lists on their own web sites, in opening chapters of lay books on the condition, etc. The second audience could loosely be described as journalists, who are writing about the condition but want to find a human angle. Such newspaper/magazine articles often contain the stories of notable individuals, which helps the article come alive. The desire to enliven a dull medical article is not restricted to lay journalists. I know from my research on the epilepsy lists that writers of medical articles and books can't help namedropping and speculating on historical and contemporary figures. I believe this WP list is a useful tool for serious (non-trivia) research, worthy of inclusion in an online and wikilinked encyclopaedia.

Oh, and before anyone suggests replacing it with a category, please see the people with epilepsy deletion discussion. Colin°^Talk 09:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. At the very least, this article should be renamed. "List of brain tumor patients" doesn't inherently imply any required notability. —gorgan_almighty 13:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It used to be List of notable brain tumor patients but was renamed in keeping with WP:NOTE and WP:MOSLIST, which specifically discourages the use of "notable", "famous", etc. in list titles. See also this debate. Colin°^Talk 13:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep this sort of thing seems to be accepted on WP. JJL 14:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Could this list somehow constitute a violation of HIPAA? Smashville 17:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No. The HIPAA concerns the people involved in healthcare who have a responsibility not to leak private health information. Our sources are newspaper obituaries and other public documents, not personal medical records. The information is already "out there". Colin°^Talk 18:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good one, Smash. I got the joke. Regarding this list, Keep per above and below. Celebrities who have battled cancer, Parkinson's, AIDS, brain tumors, etc., aid significantly in the attention that is brought to these misfortunes; often, they're an inspiration to a smaller group, those persons who are fighting the same thing. Mandsford 02:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 22:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well organised and referenced list which provides substantially more information than a category could. Per lucid explanation by Colin, such lists are of use to patients, patient advocate groups & journalists. There seems to be no contravention of the living person policy if the information is wholly sourced from public sources, as quick scan of the references shows to the case here. Espresso Addict 23:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nominator is splitting semantic hairs. The phrase "people who made significant contributions to their chosen field" is almost entirely synonymous with "notable". Only notable people can go on a list of people, and that's not a cross-catorization, but a fundamental requirement of Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Notability. I've removed the phrase which has offended FT2. This nomination is worrisome, because it shows a tendency to delete pages with minor problems rather than simply fix the problems. Ten seconds of editing is all it took to fix the article. AfD should be a last resort after every effort has been made to discuss the problems on an article's talk page, and editing the article to make it policy compliant. Deleting this page would be another example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The Transhumanist 00:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe debate centres on only a "minor problem", though the lead sentence may have been problematic if it makes it appear the list is an arbitrary cross-categorisation. [BTW, the grouping within list does introduce cross-categorisations: Musicians with brain tumours, Writers with brain tumours, etc. However that grouping is done merely for convenience due to length, and the list could simply be rearranged alphabetically or chronologically.] The fact that this and two other similar lists have had and survived AfDs shows the fundamental question of whether such lists belong on WP is not an obvious one. Generally, people-lists whose entry criteria are tangential to the notability of the subjects are discouraged. That doesn't automatically send them to the rubbish heap; each list should be judged on its merits and our guidelines and policy need to be interpreted by humans, not robots. I have no problem with FT2 raising this AfD, which was done in the spirit of "let's discuss" rather than "this list must die". If we are going to debate whether WP should host this material, I can think of no other forum (despite its flaws). Additionally, I don't believe that featured lists and articles should be exempt from AfD. It might imply that such an AfD is unlikely to succeed, but the discussion can be useful. Colin°^Talk 08:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Colin and previous deletion discussions of similar lists. Garion96 (talk) 13:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it please. The George Gerschwin entry was very good in particular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicdd (talk • contribs) 23:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep with request for WP:SNOW. In additon to the the excellent reasons provided by Colin above, I affirm as the creator of this page that the original pre-wiki list (which contained only about 100 sourced listings) was actually sought out by a major brain tumor charity who contacted me with a request to use it for public relations, and that parts of that list - usually appearing in the same order I had assembled the name and mirroring the original descriptions - were reproduced in other sources. There is a demonstrable need for this type of reference information, for the reasons Colin stated plus educational purposes: brain tumors have overtaken leukemia as the leading cause of childhood cancer deaths in the United States so parents and educators have a need to put a human face on the ailment. This list provides a resource for innovative teaching methods for what must surely rank among the most difficult challenges they face. The growth of this list since I started it and the high standards other Wikipedians have maintained are a testament to the wiki process. Durova^Charge! 18:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Durova. This article has over 200 hundred references, a textual introduction asserting notability and placing the list in a context, and is presented and organized well with the table and images. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Espresso Addict 01:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brockway Mountain Drive[edit]

Only apparent claim to notability is to be the "highest road between the Rockies and the Alleghenies", which certainly seems to be an arbitrary standard to me. 9.5 miles long, never part of any numbered highway, no other apparent historical information of note. —Scott5114 ↗ 07:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please do a bit of research before nominating for deletion. Of course a scenic highway may not have been part of a numbered route, since numbered routes are usually the best routes to follow, but it may be notable for being a scenic highway. [36] and [37] include a number of reliable sources that praise its nature as a scenic highway. --NE2 13:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - part of the National Scenic Byway program, and apparently a notable Works Progress Administration and Civilian Conservation Corps project. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - real place, of historical note, and sourced. Bearian 00:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- per Elkman. ----DanTD 22:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - spam. - Mike Rosoft 07:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old skool ent[edit]

Blatant advertising, NN Toddstreat1 07:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard a. peterson[edit]

NN (I couldn't find anything), unsourced BLP Toddstreat1 06:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable biography. Possibly a vanity page. —gorgan_almighty 13:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the Almighty ↑. WP:NN WP:BIO with no WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 16:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, if not a hoax. "A improvement plan was formulated; and at the end of the project, Mr.Peterson retired stating "This time it's for GOOD!"." Puh-LEEZE!--Sethacus 22:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UNSW Programming Competition[edit]

Article asserts no notability. Non-notable competition that exists at an Australian university. No references. Twenty Years 06:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Twenty Years 06:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficiently notable. NawlinWiki 14:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of third party sources. Possibly worth a very brief mention on the University article but not a standalone entry. Capitalistroadster 02:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Worth a one-liner. Agree with that one. Twenty Years 15:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was AFD isn't needed to merge an article. But per WP:MUSIC he seems notable. W.marsh 14:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Arnold[edit]

No sources. Should be merged with 3 Doors Down. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 06:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 13:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trossachs Neighborhood[edit]

Was prod'ed with rationale: nonnotable neighborhood where greater city's article would not benefit with merging of information. Reposted after prior WP:PROD deletion, so bringing here. Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 05:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my statement in the (re)nomination for the prod. Cumulus Clouds 06:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TajOS[edit]

TajOS is not a notable OS. It seems like a personal project by the author which is not known to be used by academia, any technology community, company or group. Awotta 05:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no sources given or to be found. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 10:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —gorgan_almighty 13:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He created an operating system, great. Linus did, but it just made it big after he asked for help on Usenet. This one is new, and we are WP:NOT a means of promotion. Delete. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as all the above. No assertion of significance in the article. Cosmo0 12:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--JForget 23:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redneck monday[edit]

Non-notable activity/event held by a fraternity college group. Keb25 05:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as plainly non-notable. No indication that this activity exists in any reliable sources. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Useight 06:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Canuck85 08:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dang, delete this, y'all. NawlinWiki 14:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:NOT#MADEUP. --Evb-wiki 16:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Useight. GlassCobra 17:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete per nom and useight. User:ChattingwithChapman This is a real interstate event, with cultural relevence in Louisiana —Preceding comment was added at 05:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC) — Chattingwithchapman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Being real is not enough to warrent an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia has minimum standards of notability and saying "Trust me, this is a real thing" is not enough. What we need to see is that the event has been covered EXTENSIVELY (that is, more than just proof of existance) in multiple, INDEPENDENT (that is, entirely unconnected to the event itself) coverage in RELIABLE sources (as defined by the reliable source guidelines), that is sources that are not self-published and exhibit some sort of editorial control like newspapers, journals, books, etc.) If this event has the cultural relevence you CLAIM that it does, than please furnish the sources to verify that it does. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coze[edit]

Non-notable neologism. Was prodded for WP:DICDEF, but tag was removed. Brought here to settle any potential dispute. Bfigura ^(talk) 05:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom for the above reasons. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Bfigura ^(talk) 05:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable term that appears to have been made up by article creator. Edward321 05:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable neologism. NawlinWiki 14:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICDEF Dbiel ^(Talk) 05:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - feel free - I'll leave a note on the article talk page for someone to take this forward. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dulce Domum (Winchester College Song)[edit]

contested prod. Article does not give any references that establish any sort of notability. Looks like a non-notable song unless references that establish notability and back up the claims are made. NOTE: This song has teh same title of another, notable song, so be careful with the google searches.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to that note, the other song of the same name could hardly be considered ' more notable' than this one. It's just a bland, sentimental little hymn that is NEVER, in fact, sung or heard of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.218.126 (talk) 03:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if you really believe so, than you need to read the Wikipedia guideline on notability, which clearly outlines what is the minimum standards required to have an article in Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with how many people care about something. It has to do with how much coverage of the subject exists in independant, reliable sources. Please provide evidence of that coverage, and the article will probably not be deleted. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I think the song could be mentioned in the Winchester College article if it indeed is notable there. Otherwise, an article on its own seems not warranted, but it is at least borderline notable, e.g. it is mentioned in an 1882 newspaper article, an 1862 book by Frederic William Farrar and an 1860 book by William Chappell. --Allefant 09:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A merge somewhere sounds like the best solution. We don't even have an article for the Whiffenpoof Song (although the Yale singing group has one). Would somebody like to start an article on School Songs? Those two, with Gaudeamus Igitur and a lot of the other ones from the studentenlied repertoire might make a good one. -- BPMullins | Talk 18:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge sounds good to me. Bearian 01:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for all the obvious reasons. JJL 13:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I concur that the news search results look like trivial coverage... I will reconsider of course if people find better sources. W.marsh 13:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hurstville Community Hospital[edit]

Although I'm inclined to keep most major hospitals, this one is never going to have enough information to warrant its own article. There are 280 Google hits for this hospital, but most of them are just listings for specialists who work at the hospital. As far as I can see there's never been any notable news or outside reliable source that could justify keeping the page. I'm convinced a better solution is to put in a couple of paragraphs in the Hurstville, New South Wales article, which I have already started to do and which other editors can add to. Merge and redirect is my recommendation. JRG 04:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable hospital. Keb25 04:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —JRG 05:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Google News Archives comes up with some references but none that aren't trivial.[38] Capitalistroadster 05:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 22:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Checking through the page history for NF, there does appear to be a consensus for the current standard on proposed films. This article clearly doesn't meet the guideline so this comes out as a delete. There may be a discussion to be had on the policy but the place to do that is on the guideline talk page and/or the village pump. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oru Naal Podhuma[edit]

Fails WP:NF and from the number of people who have left the project, there's no guarantee that the film will meet its current target production dates. Girolamo Savonarola 04:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unfinished films don't meet WP:MOVIE, and this runs up against Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Accounting4Taste 04:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sourced thoroughly Universal Hero 16:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read WP:NF, because this isn't a sourcing issue - the film fails notability by virtue of having not started production. It's not an editing issue. Girolamo Savonarola 17:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep level of sourcing indicates this meets WP:N. WP:NF seems pretty geared towards deletionism... I felt like placing a ((disputed)) tag on that section, it would seem to needlessly preclude a lot of notable articles. --W.marsh 13:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't about deletionism - we actively encourage article merge/redirects where possible - but rather due to the rampant problems with films which are slated for production and never wind up starting it. It's a matter of crystal-balling that occurs due to the variability of film development, regardless of the extent of sources. This article itself states that it has gone through several changes since its announcement, rotating three heroines and also the director, and it was originally announced over a year ago in substantially different form. In any case, your concerns about the guideline need to be discussed on that guideline's talk page, not here. The guideline had consensus and was not the result of a unilateral edit. Girolamo Savonarola 14:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; no consensus to merge but merging can be further discussed, there was a consensus to merge at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ram Sabnis. W.marsh 13:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Kehoe[edit]

Vanity article about a nonnotable person, spamming for his commercial product. Fashionslide 04:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; Next time you nominate an article for lack of notability, check Google first. There is significant coverage in reliable sources about Kehoe here, here, and most significantly, an eleven page article about Kehoe and his invention Zubbles in Popular Science. Masaruemoto 04:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Links above establish notability. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Zubbles (or weak expand, though I don't think there's enough to warrant a separate article even with the popsci article). Torc2 05:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject in question has invented numerous toys and how can he be not notable? There is also significant coverage on reliable sources for this article as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 06:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Every article linked in the article is about Zubbles. What else has he done that's notable that wouldn't belong in the Zubbles article? Torc2 08:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Zubbles per Torc2. The links found by Jayron32 are good, but they tend to assert notability of Zubbles, not its creator. —gorgan_almighty 13:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep minimally notable. JJL 14:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think there's enough there due to the focus that the sources give to his personal involvement in the invention. He's a bit like Art Fry in that regard. The revolutionary -- per sources -- dye that he's invented has promise for applications that go far beyond the toy. --Dhartung | Talk 16:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence for notability beyond that one invention. Even the popsci article talks about nothing else. DGG (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:BIO due to the abundance of reliable coverage, merging is also an option but not entirely necessary. Yamaguchi先生 02:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/redirect. W.marsh 13:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Sabnis[edit]

No evidence of notability, vanity article for promoting his commercial product. Fashionslide 04:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Zubbles, same with Tim Kehoe. Torc2 05:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Zubbles, per Torc2. —gorgan_almighty 13:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. Resurgent insurgent 16:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AARNet[edit]

Article on a non-notable organisation that appears to fail WP:N and WP:ORG Twenty Years 04:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Twenty Years 04:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Long established academic network with over 300 articles in Google News Archive see [39] and over 600 articles in Google scholar. [40]. It therefore has the sources to warrant an article. Capitalistroadster 05:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- very notable. This organisation played a massive role in the early history of the internet in Australia. - Longhair\^talk 06:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very notable and well known network in Australia. Lots of news articles per capitalistroadster and many more beyond the reach of Google news. - Peripitus (Talk) 06:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- NOTICE I wish to withdraw the AfD. Article is clearly notable. Twenty Years 15:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for now. Something of a shopping list but the journal was closed as a keep and with a mind to avoiding Anglocentrism, I'd be reluctant to delete such a long standing article at the first objection without a clear signal from the community that it should go. Obviously, there are concerns about the article as detailed below but I hope that a reprieve at this stage will add impetus towards its improvement. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Dehbashi[edit]

He might be notable, but this is just a resume. If and when independent evidence of notability is found, feel free to start over. Biruitorul 04:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC) * Delete or reformat so that humans can read it. I confess I cannot face the thought of working my way through a closely-spaced paragraph of 1,569 improperly-punctuated words just to find out if this man ever wrote anything himself other than introductions to other people's work, but it looks as if his main work was as an editor, which doesn't seem to confer notability -- and the article does not seem to assert notability. I'm prepared to do a reasonable amount of research work to find out if something is notable, but this is courting eyestrain for no easily-apparent reason. Accounting4Taste 04:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The same reasoning applies to the journal he edits, Bukhara magazine, which contains the same text dump of publications. I was going to suggest that the material about the editor be moved to the article about the journal, which might have notability. Neither article seems to have exterior references and both seem to be part of a walled garden that defeats attempts to analyze its possible notability with sheer weight of verbiage. Accounting4Taste 04:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As per my comment at the AfD at Bukhara magazine, a big vote of thanks to DGG for skillful work with the pruning shears, which leaves both articles much less daunting. I'm now willing to hold on to both these articles until WikiProject Iran can take them in hand, re-write and wikify. I suspect it might be best to merge this entry with the magazine, but whatever works out will be fine by me. Accounting4Taste 06:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made it a little easier to read. Took only a few minutes. A sort by genre might make more sense, though. DGG (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 16:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Accounting4Taste. The journal page seems a good candidate for AfD, too.... --Crusio 17:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Biruitorul 01:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete particularly per Accounting4Taste. Pig^man 18:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and remove duplication. "Editor" can mean a great many things, and I can't tell from the list. (I probably couldn't tell from the books either--it needs a specialist) . He's been responsible for two Persian language journals. Each of them is in the expected 20 or so major US & UK academic libraries. I imagine they are therefore standard journals. WP is global, and to the extent of the material available to me, it is quite possibly notable. I've notified Wikiproject Iran. The nominator should have done so. DGG (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, no assertion of notability. Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 05:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alloway and Southern Ayrshire Family History Society[edit]

Self-promotion. Clear sign: written in the first person. Biruitorul 04:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I might have tried a speedy delete under (db group), but this article neither asserts notability nor has it. Accounting4Taste 04:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete If it doesn't assert notability, then it does indeed qualify for speedy per A7. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Machin[edit]

Fails WP:PROF. Biruitorul 04:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The work referred to is her Ph.D. thesis, as yet unfinished; she's not even an associate professor. I assume the part about being an accomplished salsa dancer is not on a professional basis. Doesn't meet WP:PROF, WP:BIO, WP:Notable. Accounting4Taste 04:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no context, no notability. NawlinWiki 14:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 16:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. --Crusio 16:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of reliable sources indicating notability. Google Scholar turned up nothing; Google news archive found two different Amanda Machins, neither of whom could be clearly identified with the subject of this article (and neither article casting much notability on the Amanda Machins they mentioned). —David Eppstein 17:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity. JJL 00:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 14:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zubbles[edit]

Speedy keep; This article links to an eleven page article about Zubbles in Popular Science (the same, highly respected Popular Science that's been published for over 130 years). This doesn't just meet WP:N requirements, it exceeds them. Masaruemoto 04:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the article reads like spam, its a clean-up issue not a delete issue. The popular science reference CLEARLY establishes notability. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Merge Tim Kehoe and Ram Sabnis into this article. Torc2 05:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Masaruemoto. Maxa megalon 2000 05:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep media coverage includes WaPo, reader's digest and der Spiegel--victor falk 10:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable, per the reliable secondary sources mentioned in the article. —gorgan_almighty 14:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep but remove or tag WP:CRYSTAL issues. This is a Bollywood-type film actually in production. Bearian 18:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indiralohathil Na Azhagappan[edit]

Fails WP:NF and does not assert notability. Girolamo Savonarola 04:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keeep: Sourced well....Universal Hero 17:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That does not speak to the WP:NF problem. Girolamo Savonarola 18:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but add reliable references If you add some reliable sources this should be OK but I must admit I am also a bit dubious of too many stubs on films in the future particularly if they are not referenced reliably and remember wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. In my experience many stubs in future films never seem to develop much even when they are released. If you can add reliable references to assert notability then there shouldn't be a problem. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 16:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. There's a lot of speculation here, and the entry is mostly about who didn't get film roles. JJL 13:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 16:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Paul Online Rally and Photo Mosaic[edit]

Fails notability guidelines Proper tea is theft 04:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Removed comments that were copied and pasted from article talk page by anon because they broke the formatting; you can view these comments here or here on the talk page. --Proper tea is theft 04:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Delete unless third party sources can be found. May be worth a short mention on Paul's article but not as a standalone article. Capitalistroadster 04:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable References to the Ron Paul Online Rally and Photo Mosaic

( For the wikipedia editors that keeps trying to delete this article because the site is supposedly "not notable". )

There, is that NOTABLE enough for you?

I also NOTE that none of you have bothered to respond to a single point that I've made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.122.156.92 (talk) 04:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making personal attacks, like calling people Nazis for nominating an article for deletion. TJ Spyke 04:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it does become a bit personal when you propose to delete hours of work, with basically zero explanation, and a total refusal to answer any objections raised. In any event, I've retracted the comment. But I do still stand by my formal petition that Wikipedia remove my name from the RSS article if you delete this one. Quite frankly, I wouldn't want to be associated with, or referenced by, this encyclopedia after I've found out how newcomers are treated. It feels like I'm on trial. Well I'm sick of it. Go ahead, delete all you like. Just don't do it "personally" please.

If your article on trial process somehow decides NOT to delete the article (using whatever arbitrary criteria you define and inconsistently apply to make something NOTABLE), please feel free to email me, and I'll be happy to continue updating the article.

Good bye. --200.122.156.92 05:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Godwin's Law appears quite early in this debate. Mike would be proud... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I look at the links one by one: The Washinton Post link contains NO text which talks about this website, thus it seems to easily fail the non-trivial mention part of WP:N and WP:WEB guidelines. The California Chronicle article contains a VERY short blip about it, again seems like a trivial mention. The spirit76 is a blog, and thus not a reliable source. Likewise, Digg is a user edited sight, and do not reliable. The United for Liberty site shows the mosaic for sale. Being availible for purchase does not make something notable. Grandpuzzle.com is again simply advertising the product for sale. Grannymiller is a blog, and thus unreliable. The Spoof also seems rather unreliable. And the TV ad is self-promotional advertising, and thus also cannot be used to establish notability. SO so far, we only have references that establish that the website and mosaic EXIST, but not that they are NOTABLE. If they are notable, there will be NONTRIVIAL writing about the subject appearing in RELIABLE SOURCES. We seem to lack both of these requirements, as yet. I am willing to be convinced otherwise if evidence is provided, though calling me a Nazi isn't a great way to win an arguement. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional, non-notable website. Keb25 05:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or weak merge to Ron Paul. Coverage is trivial and does not meet WP:N. Torc2 05:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Lacks reliable sources, fails to establish notability. Lara❤Love 05:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's see, Wikipedia is not printed, so I guess it is not a reliable source either. Hmmm.... you guys may be on to something after all. Washington Post has an AP Photo that was taken which features the PRINTED mosaic, which was PRINTED in the Ames Tribune based on voluntary contributions. But I guess the AP is an unreliable source, and that was all photoshopped together somehow. Gee, it was pretty big news when a FireFox ad was PRINTED in the New York Times based on voluntary contribs. I'll bet that's covered somewhere in this NON-PRINTED wikipedia unreliable source. GrandPuzzle is working on a CARVED OUT OF WOOD version of the mosaic which you could say is a form of MANUAL PRINTING. Oh, and wait, they are selling PRINTED copies of the poster. But I guess the printer downloaded it from an "unreliable source", so screw that. GrannyMiller and spirt76 blogs are unreliable, right... I guess I should just shutup and get my news from Time Magazine then? or Fox News maybe? Great, looking forward to becoming reliably informed. You say the TV Ad is self-promotional advertising... that's an interesting twist, since the TV Ad is promoting Ron Paul, and was created by a group that has zero ties to either Ron Paul or this Mosaic website. Self-Promotional, hmmmmmmmmmmmmm...... head scratching. Guess I'll have to go find a reliable printed source to explain that logic to me -- clearly nothing else will do.

Convince you? I've no desire to do that. Convince your own self.

The show's over. You can all go back to doing whatever you normally do to entertain yourselves, when you're not playing power games with Wikipedia newcomers, and turning them against the project.

--200.122.156.92 05:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is certainly not a reliable source. Part of its purpose is to guide readers towards reliable sources. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 19:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Jayron. Um, I don't see anyone implying that sources must be printed to show notability. Nor do I see anyone implying that anything printed asserts notability. The anonymous editor commenting here, however, seems to be arguing that essentially anything not printed asserts notability. Odd. Maxa megalon 2000 06:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 13:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chakkara Viyugam[edit]

Fails WP:NF and does not assert notability. Girolamo Savonarola 03:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article does not assert the topic's notability as a film or in general. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 13:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arai Enn 305-il Kadavul[edit]

Fails WP:NF. Girolamo Savonarola 03:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; no indication of notability being asserted. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican Coca Cola[edit]

Originally nominated and deleted under PROD: "not notable; it's one of dozens of varieties of Coca-Cola that don't have their own pages". The PROD was later contested, but I still feel that this is deletable for the original reasons. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason this article is back in the first place is because some guy copied an article and pasted it here. I reverted it back to my version to keep it encyclopedic. And I think this should be kept. In my opinion, either all of the Coke varieties should have their own article, or none of them should. Keep.--jonrev 03:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The main Coca-Cola article can mention the fact that Mexico (and Canada, and possibly elsewhere) still uses sugar instead of HFCS. The rest of the article is unsourced and reads like WP:OR. Torc2 05:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that Mexican Coca Cola is a seperate concept from Coca Cola itself. Indeed, the central contention to notability, that Mexican Coke uses cane sugar rather than HFCS as its primary sweetener isn't that big a deal anyways; since Coca Cola is bottled in the U.S. by independant bottlers who use their own sweeteners it is quite likely that several U.S. bottlers use cane sugar as well See Coca-Cola#Franchised production model. I am certain of it, as I have personally drank sugar-sweetened Coke in Delaware, sold in green glass returnable bottles. I am digressing here, however, since Mexican Coca-Cola is no different than any other Coca Cola in the sense that it is bottled independantly and thus has different formulations from place to place. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Might deserve mention in some other article (with sources), but I don't think the topic is notable enough for its own article. Just as a personal anecdote, I can confirm that it is true that Mexican Coca Cola is sold in Mexican grocery stores and restaurants in the United States, and that it comes in glass bottles. --Itub 09:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any relevant info already not in the main Coke article can be added there. GlassCobra 16:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable unto itself, and the rest is not only OR, it's not even well done OR. Last sentence is blatantly false about CCC trying to stop it - if they are, then why can I buy it by the case at the Walmart in south Everett, Washington? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I removed the line stating that CCC was trying to stop the sale of MexiCoke in the states. If you're curious about the text, read the rev history. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inaccurate anyway. Coca-Cola's flavor changed in 1980, before the 1985 New Coke stunt, when the high fructose corn syrup was substituted for sugar. That sugar is still used by some bottling companies in Mexico (or Hawaii) does not make the product "Mexican", any more than a Pepsi at Taco Bell is Mexican. Mandsford 15:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 13:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic alignment[edit]

This is Original research. It appears to be a college paper. Disputed prod. Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 03:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:DOGBERT--victor falk 10:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 16:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anjaade[edit]

Fails WP:NF, asserts no notability, and has no references. Girolamo Savonarola 03:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep: Sourced Universal Hero 16:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing is wholly irrelevant if it can't meet WP:NF. Girolamo Savonarola 18:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Akbar (film)[edit]

Fails WP:NF Girolamo Savonarola 02:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A movie that has not yet begun shooting doesn't come close to meeting WP:MOVIE. Accounting4Taste 04:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: A relevant quote from the Wikipedia policy at WP:MOVIE: "Films which have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced shooting should not have their own articles. Until then discussion of the film may be included in articles about the film's subject material. Sources need to confirm the start of shooting after shooting has begun. Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles, unless the production itself is notable per notability guidelines. Similarly, films produced in the past, which were either not completed or not distributed, should not have their own articles unless their failure was notable per notability guidelines." I can't see how this movie could possibly qualify for inclusion, given those policy statements. Accounting4Taste 17:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable film. The article virtually has no content. Keb25 05:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Sourced thoroghly. Universal Hero 16:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It still fails WP:NF for future films, which unfortunately is not something that any amount of editing can fix. Girolamo Savonarola 17:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NF with no prejudice against recreation if the project enters production (with general notability requirements met). I suggest userfying for the time being. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 13:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abhiyum Naanum[edit]

~~Fails WP:NF, may have questionable notability, has no references.~~ Issues appear to have been dealt with. Girolamo Savonarola 02:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A film that has not yet begun shooting cannot meet WP:MOVIE (and I find it very difficult to believe that such a film has a "critically acclaimed" storyline without citation -- hell, WITH citation -- pure peacock language). Accounting4Taste 04:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article has been cited thoroughly. Universal Hero 17:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A quote from WP:MOVIE: "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles, unless the production itself is notable per notability guidelines." Accounting4Taste 17:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Be that as it may, I believe that the main issues have been resolved. And given that the film is being made with cast and crew who have their own articles, I'm satisfied for now that it meets notability. Girolamo Savonarola 18:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Four Dragons Casino[edit]

Disputed prod, original concern (which I agree with), was: "nn in-universe place with no sources or real world notability". Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 02:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. JJL 14:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. GlassCobra 16:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable location, already mentioned as the counterpart of a real-life casino in Las Venturas, San Andreas (with several other examples), which seems to be as much as needs to be said. Someone another 08:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 00:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN--Torchwood Who? 15:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 13:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lisle Carter, Jr[edit]

I get 12 G-hits on this name and I'm not certain the hits all refer to the same person. Doesn't meet WP:BIO as far as I can see. Pig^man 02:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He appears to be a washington insider/democratic background player and socialite that has been around for several decades. Needs lots more wikifying and references though. Here are some links I found:

News archives (1950s - 2000s): [41]
President Johnson appointing him Asst Sec of HEW: [42]
He was President of the University of the District of Columbia: [43]
He was President of Washington DC Urban League: [44]
Original President of Children's Defense Fund: [45]
Beach house in Barbados: [46]

--Sc straker 12:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, he was General Counsel of the United Way during the William Aramony scandel [47]. --Sc straker 12:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reason this article was created is kind of bogus (so that some editor could construct a succession box for the CDF position) but there's no reason a good article about this notable person couldn't be written. Wasted Time R 22:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - arguments about motives of editors aside, the consensus is clear and the article has sources. It would, however, benefit from a copyedit. B1atv 22:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC) (Non admin closure)[reply]

Overriding improper non-admin close and closing as delete. --Core desat 23:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum fiction[edit]

Clearly written by the 'inventor' of this new genre UltimateXiphias 02:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree about your speculation about this entry. IF the writer that Publishers Weekly attributed as inventing this genre did make this entry, however, they would be very qualified to do so. More importantly there is a lot of material on the subject that isn't in this entry and should be. Tikka72 08:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. Neologism coined by the author of one novel. No indication that this is a real genre (that would require multiple books by multiple authors) or that the term is widely used. --Itub 09:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this should be deleted because the genre has made its way into the market and culture stream. The Ophiuchi hotline by John Varley has recently been rebilled as (Quantum science fiction). The term is emerging in new titles and saw a master's thesis on it. Also see "quantum fiction and the suspension of disbelief" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikka72 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't deny that this may be an emerging term/genre, but I haven't seen enough sources to justify an article under Wikipedia's policies. If I'm proven wrong, I'll happily change my mind. Something that would help would be if the references were cited properly so that one could look them up. What does "American Library Association 1995" mean, for example? It would also be good if you could give more details regarding the master's thesis you mention. By "quantum fiction and the suspension of disbelief", are you referring to this blog post? If that's the case, I'm afraid that blog posts are not generally regarded as reliable sources. --Itub 07:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point that it needs more references. The one added now -- "Fiction in the Quantum Universe" by Susan Strehle -- is a very comprehensive reference and cogent to the article. Not sure what The American Library Association ref is. Will check it. But the entry should be a Wiki article for sure! This is great stuff.

You clearly haven't read "Fiction In The Quantum Universe" by Susan Strehle either. You should also read "Quantum Enigma" for that matter -- "Physics Encounters Consciousness" (Rosenblum & Kuttner). I'm obviously into this. There are also the films "What the Bleep" and "Down the Rabbits Hole" and Fred Alan Wolfe should also be covered in this entry. I started to enter some of what I perceive as very pertinent and important information.

Sorry I didn't sign earlier. Tikka72 08:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ITub great suggestions and led to more fascinating references and relevance. Will check back when I find the thesis and additional references. Also found the St. Petersburg Times article about quantum fiction from 1996, cited now. very cool. Tikka72 08:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OBJECTION - Do not delete. The reasons are self-evident. The request for deletion is clearly uninformed and seems to have a subjective bias, possibly article requested for deletion by someone who may have a personal tie or grudge or wishes they'd thought of it;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ribofizz (talk • contribs) 09:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably better to comment on the evidence for the notability of this topic in the context of Wikipedia policies and guidelines (such as notability and neologisms), and not on the possible motivations of the requester. And no, the reasons are not self evident, so please elaborate. --Itub 10:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK will list evidence of the notability and my KEEP vote belowRibofizz 13:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is clearly written by the creator of the "genre", whose wikipedia page should also be deleted (or severely edited---it seems inappropriate that the author of a self-published novel that's been thrashed by the science-fiction community has an article longer than Proust's). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.167.237.65 (talk) 10:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP~~ Just read the references and facts on the genre and the novel. IP user 63.167.237.65 misrepresents a book was thrashed by "the sf community" and is more than likely one of the three or four people who tried to get the book banned, have been cyberbullying and vandalizing trying to make it seem that they are the entire SF world. They can be tracked back years, the same few people. The SF community knows very well who these few people are. Check out IP user 63.167.237.65-- blocked for vandalizing multiple times and for libel and slander. Look at the user contributions. The rhetoric is the same in all postings these few people have been making trying to discredit the author, the novel that defined quantum fiction and the innovative and positive response to the genre. Discern between obvious sour grapes (to be nice) and what rings of the fallacious slander of ambitious competitors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ribofizz (talkcontribs) 11:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very strong: The genre was critically noted, specifically by Publishers Weekly in 1996, PW is the leading literary trade magazine, reviewed Bonta's debut novel and introduction to 'quantum fiction' worthy and of note, wrote, quote: "whatever QF is, we need more of it."

The American Library Association celebrated the work, reviewed it in Booklist, acknowledging the innovative genre (NOTE: the review should be cited in this article, it describes it as "genre-bending"), 1996. Those two facts alone qualify it as notable. The coinage of 'quantum fiction' by Bonta's debut novel set a precedent that -- at the time was an unknown and unrealized even though quantum theory appeared in fiction, it did not embrace the factor of actualism, as "Fiction In The Quantum Universe" by Susan Strehle argues. When Bonta came out with it, she was embraced, love, congratulated, and had the backlash that comes with that, ridicule/cyber bullies trying to discourage fans.

Time has since proven an emerging trend, e.g. "what the Bleep", and the titles explored within that context. Even without the additional citations this article needs there is sufficient support for the entry to remain by the trade book reviews by the Library association and Publishers Weekly. The title Flight Quantum fiction was also presented internationally by a professor who was a colleague of David Bohm's -- don't see that citation in this article but it should be and will look it up when I have time.Ribofizz 13:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that these facts are more cogent to the discussion but it also is of note that User 63.167.237.65 has been blocked by Wikipedia multiple times for Vandalism, and that the things repeated are the same 2-note malice tune.

Keep per WP:NEO. It isn't neologism referenced in books, lectures, literary criticisms and articles, at least 9 (nine) of which are cited (so far). Added some. dont ' have time to add all but may come back Alberto5key 16:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum delete keep Will ^(talk) 16:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol :) Alberto5key 16:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears to be a real genre, and is sourced adequately. Authorship of the article is irrelevant, it should be improved if not written NPOV. - Crockspot 15:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Still too NEO for me. Coined as a vehicle for promoting one novel by one (not-that-famous) writer, and largely remains so, despite efforts to retroactively add famous authors to the genre. Though a couple of people are pushing the term, it doesn't seem to have caught on yet. --Groggy Dice T | C 02:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:comment and ~~(Keep)~~

You need to make the distinction between "to promote" vs. "to define".

The novel (plot, technique, dissertation and context) of the defining work of quantum fiction (by the writer who coined it) wasn't a vehicle to promote, it is quantum fiction. Subsequent studies and analysis of the subject (by Wilson Harris, Susan Strehle etc) support, analyze, explore and categorized quantum fiction. The trades reviewing the coining writer's work (American Library Association, Publishers Weekly, etc) in 1995 discuss the hybrid-genre aspects and the new genre. Genre.

They were contributed as sources. Wilson Harris (who I hadn't heard of before either) writes in 2002 he realizes he is writing "quantum fiction". These sources are journalists, poets, literary devotees, peers, different measure than 'famous to the masses'. All are recognized.

The argument that these new citations and more information about the genre were added retroactively isn't Wiki-worthy thinking. All Wikipedia articles are evolving. Additional references, citations and reading resources are contributed out of interest and because of iTUBS recommendation that this article needed them. Ribofizz 08:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Conflict of interest is not a deletion criterion; it appears verifiably notable and is based on published sources.--ragesoss 17:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've struck through all of Ribofizz's redundant votes to reduce confusion. You should only vote once, although you can add additional comments, of course. --Itub 09:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC) *Thank you iTub. I removed your strike through my Comment above. Sorry about the Keep redundancy. I was leaving new Comments, and they stand. Ribofizz 19:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original authors As the original authors of this entry, we'll add one more point of discussion that other contributors cannot address: We are not Vanna Bonta. Take a look at our company website (preciseedit.com), and you will see why this criticism is not likely to be true. Please, in the spirit of making Wikipedia useful and powerful, please check the validity of your criticisms before posting them. (Note: We found that same criticism on the Vanna Bonta entry and addressed it there, as well.) Preciseedit 17:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 13:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Min (entertainer)[edit]

All I'm seeing in this article is promotion. Without any actual accomplishments, this merely lists "buzz" and her association with a few people with notablity. No album, no released singles so far. Doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. Pig^man 02:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like a real up-and-comer, and November is just a couple weeks away. GlassCobra 16:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball if she ends up being a comer and not a goer she can have a page at a later date. This is just self promotion/fan appreciation posting. IrishLass0128 19:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Political Tribute[edit]

spam – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 02:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to tribute. Might be a likely search term--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Not notable at all. GlassCobra 16:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete just another website, no assertion of notability.P4k 04:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don Engelhard: Political Tribute, This is not spam PT is a legit site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.235.152 (talk • contribs) 05:33, October 18, 2007

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

N.B: If the link is still blue, it's because it is now a redirect to Jonathan Homer Lane. I've deleted the disambiguation page, since Homer Lane is the only article that had a blue link.--JForget 00:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Lane[edit]

I don't really understand how this individual is notable by any means necessary. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 02:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete—per CSD A7. Jonathan ^talk \ _{contribs — er} 02:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BIO. Tiptoety 02:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this is on the wrong end of the A7 line. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability. NawlinWiki 14:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination does not pass WP:BIO requirements. Yamaguchi先生 02:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Southern hip hop artists[edit]

Here is a list that is just a linkfarm. I put all members of the list into the Category:Southern hip hop musicians or its subcategories. All the members of the list were musicians, not graffiti artists or something. The list had accumulated many redlinks (=non-notable) or poorly disambiguated links (=list functioned worse than a category). I then redirected the list to the category, and even plopped some text down in the category header. Shortly thereafter, I was reverted. So I'm nominating the list for deletion. Fee Fi Foe Fum 02:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The category does the job better. Thanks for working on it, FFF. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 02:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The problem with these lists is people just add all these non-notable/non-existent artists who'll never have articles. The category serves this purpose and ensures only notable artists are kept. Spellcast 07:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely not need for this article. Like those before me said, category does a much better job. --Alessandro 19:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Watt[edit]

Resume/spam for non notable shopping channel presenter. A lack of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources confirms the lack of notability, and she fails WP:BIO. Has been edited by users Michellewatt and Michelleswatt, but that's probably just a coincidence. Crazysuit 01:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Set phasers to frag - blatantly self-promotional. While there are some minor hits for her [48], most appear to be first-party (i.e., her sites) David Fuchs^(talk) 01:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of external, reliable sources to establish notability. No coincidence, that. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 17:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Borley[edit]

Not notable comedian (24 Unique Google hits, not all related.) who might be picked up by BBC. Part of co-nominated for deletion team, Borley and Churchett gets 2 unique Google hits. Top g hits are Wikipedia. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unverifiable. Crazysuit 01:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. (Applies to both articles.) -- Rob C. alias Alarob 02:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Sc straker 12:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 13:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Alan Meyer[edit]

Very limited evidence of notability. Mention of appearance in local news surrounding shooting. Being arrested for a shooting, however, is insufficient notability by my read. Delete per WP:BIO. TeaDrinker 01:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree, this individual wouldn't remotely meet WP:BIO were it not for the shooting, and he hasn't been convicted of it, which therefore has yet to confer sufficient notability upon him for an article. Accounting4Taste 01:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thanks to Bongwarrior for this -- which confirms me in my opinion. And the article's creator (who posted anonymously above) should read WP:BIO and WP:Notable. Accounting4Taste 16:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a biography that doesn't come close to meeting WP:BIO. Here are some more details [49]. He pled guilty, 90 days in jail, five years probation. Not really noteworthy stuff. --Bongwarrior 06:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that Edward Meyer would have just as much right to be on this as anyone else. He is a War Veteran, Ex-Police Officer, Member of the Masons, Father, Husband etc.... why should this article be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopeursane (talk • contribs) 16:26, October 17, 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete--JForget 00:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IPhone nano[edit]

Contested prod that was endorsed. A clear example of WP:CRYSTAL no sources whatsoever. TonyBallioni 00:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator, it even says "apple has not hinted of an Iphone nano". DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 01:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, the article gives its own reason for deletion. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Accounting4Taste 01:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's obvious junk. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 02:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 06:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure speculation. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Useight 06:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is just speculation. Canuck85 08:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystally. Isn't it snowing as well? --Cyrus Andiron 15:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL. GlassCobra 16:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why should we Delete thee? Let us count the ways: WP:NOR, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:SOURCES, WP:NOT, and possibly WP:HOAX Rackabello 17:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yes, and WP:SNOW, too! Rackabello 17:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL + expression of complete bemusement over what an iPhone shuffle would actually do. Cosmo0 17:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOT#CBALL. This seems like pure speculation. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 18:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Apple rumors community 132.205.99.122 20:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:Verify, WP:OR and possibly more. Alexbrewer ^{talk} 03:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. WP:SNOWBALL? Paul^C/_T+ 17:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 13:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

San Fernando Valley Southern Baptist Association[edit]

Procedural nom; I've declined a speedy on this one. While I don't think it's particularly notable, as it's been up for over a year without objection I'll give time for someone to give reasons to keep it. — iridescent 00:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete This turns up minimal results on Google, but there are a few. To me, this article has minimal potential, but if someone can prove me wrong, I'd vote a keep. —Signed by KoЯnfan71^{My Talk}_{Sign Here!} 00:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Strangely enough, the organization's website has been "disabled", which didn't allow me to research the individual churches to find out if they had Wikipedia articles. If I thought it would be possible to consolidate any and all of those entries onto this page, I'd be suggesting keeping this and deleting them (redirecting the individual churches to this page), but since I can't learn about the individual churches, well, this doesn't meet WP:Notable. Accounting4Taste 01:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-Notable.Corporal Punishment 02:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I included this article in the hope that others would write articles for the remaining local associations of the Southern Baptist Convention in California and link to the articles on the California Southern Baptist Convention page. It didn't work out, so go ahead and delete it. Eugeneacurry 18:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was high-velocity frag. Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 02:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fyo[edit]

If ever I saw an "Indiscernible or unclassifiable topic", this is surely it. I was all set to delete this as G1, but have had a moment of doubt & bringing it over for a second opinion. Maybe there's something lost in translation here. — iridescent 00:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Frag -unless a good editor was suddenly gripped by adspeak... David Fuchs^(talk) 00:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ultra Speedy Delete I take a few issues with this "article," especially the emoticon toward the end. Badly written, and it's not needed in an encyclopedia. Oh, and I like David's "Speedy Frag" up there. Quite creative. —Signed by KoЯnfan71^{My Talk}_{Sign Here!} 00:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By my insidious use, all delete votes will be replaced with 'frag'. David Fuchs^(talk) 01:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find your own delete. I can't see that this meets any of the speedy criteria, but this doesn't have a snowball's chance of being kept. Deor 00:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would suggest this is 100% original research, but that does rather a disservice to the term "research". Perhaps WP:SNOWBALL because Wikipedia is not for something you made up in school one day. Accounting4Taste 00:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fyo is that little voice in your head that tells all the stupid people in this planet not to steal, not to do drugs and not to kill. Let's be on the lookout in case he gets them to sign up and support a "keep". It may be one of the most nicest things on earth, but it's bound to flip out when it hears this article is up for deletion. Thomjakobsen 00:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mega Speedy Delete and disentigrate with a Death star blast Ugh, what IS this? Delete it, fast. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 01:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete As the illegitimare offspring of a self help seminar. Calgary 01:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete As per all above! Tiptoety 02:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G1 - patent nonsense, i.e. "Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever." Hal peridol 02:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per overwhelming unanimy... how did this make it to AfD anyway? JuJube 02:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--JForget 00:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Bitoni[edit]

Undistinguished pornographic actress who doesn't meet WP:PORNBIO; some suggestion that some facts in this article have been copied from that of another actress (see talk page). Accounting4Taste 00:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:PORNBIO and because article is just a list preceded by a paragraph of fanspeak. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 02:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; it's an ad or fan page. JJL 14:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Llajwa 19:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom et al. No WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 20:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Not only is the information incorrect, I do not think that such an article would be productive or necessary. Koryu Obihiro 18:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete though she is hot, the article is worthless and she's not notable. — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:30 19 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 13:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Cornballer[edit]

Fails WP:N hard. A side joke that gets less than 5 minutes of total screentime throughout the entire series.SeizureDog 05:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a running gag that gets a lot more then 5mins. It serves as the plot device for George Bluth Snr being arrested while hiding out in Mexico which leads to him faking his death. This is an important part of the show.Shniken1 05:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Les Cousins Dangereux — Shniken1 13:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent reliable sources about this fictional product. This should be covered in the articles for the episodes per WP:FICT. The material here doesn't warrant an article and it never will. Otto4711 14:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then add reliable sources to the page, don't delete it.Shniken1 14:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, there are no such sources. I cannot add what does not exist. Otto4711 15:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As much as I love Arrested Development...and the Cornballer gags...this is not in the least bit notable. As mentioned above, there aren't any reliable sources. Smashville 17:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as wholly non-notable and unreferenced. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Query - The question of notability in current or near-current pop culture pages seems a little bit blurry. There seems to be a consensus that every episode and every character of every television show merits its own page, which suggest a broad definition of "notable." SeizureDog has challenged a bunch of pages for embedded themes / gags specific episodes, and Shniken1 has defended them. The Cornballer, which I loved, is the only one I'm familiar with, and it seems to be entirely notable if you accept the premise that the minutiae of a tv show should be in Wikipedia at all.

As a thought experiment -- say A described B clinging so some ridiculous piece of technology as "a real cornballer-type situation," and C heard this and did a google search on "cornballer" with the expectation of reaching the appropriate Wikipedia page. This would mean that the concept "Cornballer" had entered the general culture, and if it were true, there would probably be some article in the media commenting on it, and that would be the reliable source for the Wikipedia page. Is that, more or less, the logic? Llajwa 19:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N requires reliable sources that are significantly about the subject. A "comment" about the Cornballer in an article is probably not going to be sufficient to establish notability. Otto4711 22:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And a follow-up to that query: No one seems to question that an individual episode like My Mother, the Car deserves its own page, but the only sources for it are (in this case) a fansite, the Fox website, and WikiQuote. What exactly is the rationale for this, or any other individual episode, being notable? Llajwa 19:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I question the necessity of every episode of every television series needing its own page. WP:EPISODE, the relevant guideline, agrees. The individual episode needs to meet general notability guidelines. If people wanted to get brutal about it, a huge percentage of the pages for individual episodes would be redirected to the show's article or an episode list. The reality of the situation is that there are enough fans of any particular show to manufacture consensus in favor of individual episodes. Just because the reality means that most of the individual episode pages would survive doesn't mean that this page about this particular aspect of the show should stand. Otto4711 22:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I follow your argument. Llajwa 23:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this and Les Cousins Dangereux (and any other such things) to List of running jokes in Arrested Development, or something similar. The cornballer isn't the primary subject of any media mentions that I could find, but it does seem to be mentioned a fair amount as an example of a running gag in various articles about the show. JavaTenor 05:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not so sure about that. Look at the Mooninites from Aqua Teen Hunger Force. Originally they were only mentioned as part of the List of Aqua Teen Hunger Force villains page. But, as they gained prominence within that show, they got their own page. We went through this deletion discussion with that page, but it stayed because it was agreed that they were prominent enough. I think a List of running jokes in Arrested Development page would be good too, and the Cornballer should be mentioned on that page, but it also deserves its own page too. Keep. Gabefarkas 01:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Cornballer is no where near as notable as the Mooninites. Compare Google hits: to 371,000 to 795. Also, the Mooninites at least has the 2007 Boston Mooninite scare to establish real world notability.--SeizureDog 04:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yet. Gabefarkas 05:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 13:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Injun That Could[edit]

Fails WP:N. Article on a film that doesn't exist except as a poster in a film. SeizureDog 05:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, WP:N and WP:FICT. Not notable either within or outside the source material. (forgot to sign) Otto4711 14:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Otto :) Tiddly-Tom 19:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 13:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Medellín (Entourage)[edit]

Fails WP:N. Non-notable film that doesn't exist. Also, majority of the article is a big copyvio.SeizureDog 05:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Again a very notable plot throughout the entire TV show, so what if it is a film within a show, it is notable. Deleting these kinds of pages is not a good idea Shniken1 12:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter if it's notable within the TV show. What matters is if it's notable outside of the TV show, which it's not.--SeizureDog 12:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Les Cousins Dangereux — Shniken1 13:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing Wikipedia:Notability with no "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, no notability and probably a hoax. —Verrai 19:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Munro[edit]

This is (probably) a self-written article about a junior football player. Despite the claim by a father of a team mate on the talk page, Nick Munro is not notable, whether or not he is a hoax. Grahamec 05:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable amateur athlete. May be notable in the future, but isn't currently. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 06:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject was allegedly recognised as the second best junior goalie of the 20th century by FIFA in 2000 - firstly I find it astoundingly unlikely that FIFA would compile a list of the best junior goalies in the first place, and secondly I doubt very much it would include any 7-year olds, and besides the article itself states that he didn't start playing football until 2001, after the alleged list was compiled. And he was inducted into a club's Hall of Fame at age 10? Yeah, right. Article is the creation of an SPA which is clearly the subject, as (apart from the username (Munaz = Munro?)) he uploaded (and botched adding to the article) a picture of the subject called "Me.jpg" ChrisTheDude 07:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that it was the article creator who added the comment to the talk page stating "I know all this to be true" and claiming to be from a father of one of Munro's team-mates.... ChrisTheDude 07:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the editor who originally added the ((prod)), I may be biased, but the article at that time read like a ((hoax)). Now it just looks like a non-notable school-age athlete. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a pro or notable athlete. Canuck85 08:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per my comment on the article Talk page, the article contains many implausible claims, and no references. A hoax seems possible. I left a message for the article creator indicating my doubts and urging him to clarify the situation. As a technical point, I think ((prod)) should be not be applied twice. A contested prod should go to AfD if editors believe the article is still inadequate after the removal. EdJohnston 12:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly not notable, and very possibly a hoax. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - probably a hoax, even if not he is non-notable. GiantSnowman 13:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reeks of hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonnotable (and boastful) junior player. NawlinWiki 15:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, at least he only claimed to be the second best junior goalie of the 20th century..... ;-) ChrisTheDude 15:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, above comments. Pig^man 16:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've been watching this article since it was first created. I didn't add any tags to the article, (but I did replace a ((prod)) tag when the author removed it, as the tag itself says "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to its deletion for any reason." neither of which the author did). I have searched Google, and the website of the team the person supposedly plays for, and can find no confirming information to verify the claims made. No reliable sources are given, and this seems to me to likely be created by someone with very high hopes and dreams, but is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Ariel♥Gold 16:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — Caknuck 00:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaver (The Sopranos)[edit]

Fails WP:N and has been tagged for a month. Also has terrible issues separating fact from fiction. SeizureDog 05:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I've said above and below this is a notable plot point in a notable tv series. It was a subplot througout the show and the movie's production was a metaphor for Chris' life in generalShniken1 12:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And as I've said before, it has to be notable outside of the show to be worthy of inclusion.--SeizureDog 12:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Les Cousins Dangereux — Shniken1 13:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It did generate significant media coverage. There was a mock publicity campaign for it, including an ad in Daily Variety. Secondary coverage: NY Post, Variety. HBO also aired a mock "making of" documentary: [50] [51]. This shows sufficient notability outside of the show itself to justify a separate article. Thomjakobsen 15:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly. Plus this article appears to have no problem seperating fact from fiction as stated... --Shniken1 15:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it does have a movie infobox made to look like that of a real film, which sort of blurs the line. But that's a content issue, rather than a reason for deletion. Thomjakobsen 15:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that SeizureDog has nominated a number of these types of articles for deletion within a few minutes of each other... I find it hard to believe that he has fully researched the articles notablity and if he has any background knowledge on the shows in question --Shniken1 15:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, there is no need to respond to every comment that everyone makes in the AFD. Second, please assume good faith on the part of the nominator. Otto4711 15:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shniken1 (talk · contribs) brought this (and other) non-notable articles to the attention of the nominator in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Les Cousins Dangereux. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I basically went through Category:Fictional films and afd-ed most of the entries there. It takes a lot for a fictional film to be notable enough for inclusion in my opinion, and the article fails to assert its notability. From reading the article, I see just a big in-universe decription of the "film" without giving any reliable sources.--SeizureDog 07:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adequate notability. Colonel Warden 15:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How so? The article has no evidence of having "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." (Wikipedia:Notability). — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I beg to differ. For example, see Entertainment Weekly. I'm not looking for more cites as I've already seen too many spoilers for episodes I've not seen yet. This series is massively popular, has massive mainstream coverage and this AFD proposal is just a killing spree for film-within-a-film references. Dislike of recursive fiction is no reason to delete. Colonel Warden 07:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - But the article has no third-party references, nor any evidence of notability. I'm not arguing that none exists, but that nobody has put them in the article despite this AfD. Both the article itself, as well as the lack of improvement activity only serve to emphasize the failing of Wikipedia inclusion standards at this time. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Third-party references supporting notability have been provided during this discussion. That's all that's required during an AfD: "references exist, but they haven't been added yet" is a fairly minor surmountable problem, not a reason for deletion. Thomjakobsen 17:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as is per failing of Wikipedia:Notability with no Wikipedia:Reliable sources. However should the article be improved to include these necessities, perhaps by Thomjakobsen (talk · contribs) as above, I may warrant a reconsideration. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article maintains it's encyclopedic value. Also, per Thomjakobsen. — The KMan 16:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Article also maintains no reliable third party references, not any specific evidence of real-world notability. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 13:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invisible paint[edit]

Fails WP:N and smacks of WP:OR SeizureDog 05:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a notable plot device used in many forms of english language media. The article is poorly written and has little content but it is still worth whileShniken1 15:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Basically a definition of invisible paint plus a list of examples. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Otto4711 15:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks WP:RS. Does indeed smack of original research. Pig^man 16:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete And I mean really weak. I guess I would change my opinion to keep if references asserting its notability could be provided, but as much as I recognize having heard about it before Wikipedia, I'm not sure whether it can be considered notable enough. --Slarti (19 92) 23:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pig. --Tikiwont 11:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — Caknuck 00:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Horadric Cube[edit]

Non-notable game guide information article. SeizureDog 05:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Diablo II. de Bivort 06:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Excessively detailed info with a touch of game guide. All that's needed is a sentence stating that items can be combined using the cube. Someone another 09:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a notable in-game item and plot device (already covered in plot section of Diablo II) and is one of my favorite items but I think we don't need an article on it. Anyways, lots of external sources (Walkthroughs and Game FAQ's) have this item covered so I think we don't need to put the information here in Wikipedia.--Lenticel ^(talk) 11:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete- per aboveJJJ999 05:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — Caknuck 00:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Les Cousins Dangereux[edit]

Fails WP:N. A fictional film that's only a joke in handful of episodes and never in a major way. SeizureDog 05:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This Afd nomination is incomplete - the article has no Afd tag and the creator has not been notified. Please relist. Skomorokh ^incite 11:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damnit, I knew that would happen to one of these. Tagged and relisted. (Not that it matters)--SeizureDog 12:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, creator hasn't made an edit since March 19, 2006, no point in notifying.--SeizureDog 12:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Keb25 05:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep again this is a major plot device in the show that relates to the relationship between George Michael and Maybe. You have put up a lot of these pages that describe major plot points in very popular TV shows. The shows are very notable and the pages describe major plot devices in the show and are very useful. I think it is much better to have seperate articles for them then to have lengthy sections within each episode description or within the show description page.Shniken1 12:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't supposed to have articles on "plot points" because they aren't notable outside of the show itself. Notability is not inherited.--SeizureDog 12:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are notable outside the show thats my point, they are all major enough plot points that they as notable outside the show as the show itself. Take Back to the Future as an example, it has multiple pages about the movies characters, as does almost all TV shows and movies as well as pages about the time machine and the setting of the movies. This are undisputedly notable outside the movies (the deloren time machine is as notable as the movies themselves). My argument is that this movie with the show as well as Cleaver (The Sopranos) , The Cornballer and Medellín (Entourage) are all imporant and notable plot devices.Shniken1 13:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources that are substantively about the fictional film. This should be covered in the episode articles in which it appears, which it is. There is never going to be enough to warrant a separate article. Otto4711 14:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This film is used throughout a number of episodes and it needs a seperate page to show the significance of the film to the character development of Maybe and George Michael and their relationshipShniken1 14:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, please learn to indent your coments properly to help smooth the flow of the discussion. Secondly, nonsense. There are articles on every episode in which this faux film appears and articles on each of the characters. Per WP:FICT to sustain a separate article you must prove that there are reliable secondary sources. There are not and the film is covered adequately in other articles about the series, the episodes and the characters. Otto4711 15:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources are only needed for non-notable articles, my point is this is notable. Most of the episode articles are very lengthy and do not adequately address the importance of this film to the entire series, only to the individual episodes. This article summarises this film in the context of the show very nicely and should remain. As a comprise would a new article on these running plot elements be better? I don't think so but I'm putting it out there --Shniken1 15:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources are only needed for non-notable articles. This is a non-sequitur. All Wikipedia articles must be on notable subjects. Articles on non-notable subjects should be deleted. As you believe that this subject is notable, please provide independent reliable sources that offer substantive coverage of the fictional film, as required under notability guidelines. Otto4711 15:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't see this as notable. No WP:V or WP:RS. In-universe details which don't meet WP:FICT. Pig^man 16:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as wholly non-notable and unreferenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pd THOR (talk • contribs) 17:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Aww buggerit. It's been a long time since I've made that mistake. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The question of notability in current or near-current pop culture pages seems very blurry. There seems to be a consensus that every episode and every character of every television show merits its own page, which suggests a broad definition of "notable." No one's questioning that the episode this theme comes from, My Mother, the Car deserves its own page, but the only sources for it are a fansite, the Fox website, and WikiQuote -- which would seem to flunk the notability guidelines test that Otto4711 cites above. What is the argument this individual episode is notable, but that what Shniken1 characterizes as a major plot device is not? Llajwa 20:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC) Otto4711's argument (below) makes sense - I retract mine. Llajwa 23:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments in the AFD for The Cornballer above. Your argument here is known as WP:WAX or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Whether the individual episode is notable and/or meets the guidelines set out at WP:EPISODE has no bearing on whether this article should exist. Each article needs to meet policies and guidelines on its own regardless of the status of any other article. I disagree that there is consensus that every episode warrants an article and WP:FICT clearly shows that there is no consensus that every character does. Otto4711 22:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I love the show, but this plays such a minor role that it can easily be incorporated into the main article (in discussion of running jokes) or into George Michael's or Maeby's individual articles. There's such a dearth of information on it (that it's French, that there was a remake, and ten seconds of dialogue) that there's little hope for this ever expanding into real information. Dylan 22:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The only reason there's not much to add to the page lately is because the show was canceled a few years ago. So now the people pushing for Delete are spinning both sides: on one hand, they are claiming that it's ridiculous how every little bit of every new show seems to deserve a page and how the lines are getting blurry, and on the other hand they are claiming it should be deleted because the show is over and thus there's no new information. That's just ridiculous. The movie was one of the most important plot devices in a rather popular TV show and explains a major part of the interaction between two featured characters. There's too much information about it to be rolled up into an existing article. Thus, I vote Keep. Gabefarkas 01:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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