< October 17	October 19 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Verrai 00:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mussy[edit]

WP is not a dictionary, probably original research. WP:NOT Tiptoety 22:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete-Go to Urban Dictionary to post something like this! Yourname 22:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom foreverDEAD 22:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Uncited neologism (fails WP:NEO), unverifiable and probably original research to boot. Dylan 22:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very Urabn Dictionary-ish. Thanks, Codelyoko193 _Talk Contributions 23:45, 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 The result is delete as original research and made up material.--Alasdair 13:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dodgy night[edit]

Contested prod. This seems like something that was made up, and a google search for "Dodgy night"+greyhounds gives no relevant hits. Darksun 22:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC) Darksun 22:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as uncited and probably original research. Dylan 22:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - i have also done a google search and found on first page of results a reference back in 2004 in oxford mail http://archive.oxfordmail.net/2000/4/21/78562.html suggest article could be better worded with more references & external contacts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.32.16.50 (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's more of a general piece about greyhound racing (that happens to use the term 'dodgy'), and has very little to do with the contents of this article. The entire article is complete WP:OR lacking in sources and sounds like the activities of a small group of pub friends. Wikipedia is not the place for it. Darksun 02:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. Bearian 20:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any reason for saying keep, per WP:NOREASON? Darksun 11:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A good read, but not a single source. It's clearly a drinking game among a group of friends. The sources added to the article so far back up the claims that: (1) greyhound racing has been described as "dodgy" in England (2) Australian greyhound betting works as described. Not a single mention of the article subject, and if it was at all widespread there'd be a newsworthy police crackdown for the stolen ashtrays alone. Thomjakobsen 15:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced, per Thomjakobsen. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:40, 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 Speedy revert. — iridescent 22:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JSC[edit]

This reeks of a hoax to me - the street gangs of rural Gloucestershire? No relevant ghits (the matches are all false-positives). I strongly recommend restoring it to this legitimate version of the page. — iridescent 22:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I've done so. While technically this should be debated, I'm WP:IAR'ing here as a debate on this is just silly — iridescent 22:13, 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 keep because:

(1) The references cited in Autumn_Kelly#References are sufficient to establish a presumption of Autumn Kelly's notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline AND

(2) Five established users supported retention of the article, while no established users supported deletion. The two registered users who did support deletion have new accounts and few edits. John254 03:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autumn Kelly[edit]

Delete: Peter Phillips' fiance does not merit her own article Crazylikeafoxx 21:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a tough one. She has achieved notability, one could judge, because of her fiance. But we don't need to judge. The basis for her notability in wikipedia is not because of her fiance, it is because there are multiple non trivial reliable sources. Which are in the article. Notable.Obina 21:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This marriage may be the occasion upon which the British Parliament drops the penalty for members of the Royal Family who marry Roman Catholics. Therefore, I think she merits her own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greggrass (talk • contribs) 22:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The possibility that some penalty might be changed in the future based on a wedding that hasn't even happened yet does not make someone notable Worldfamousdirector 22:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:BIO as having multiple secondary sources. Dylan 22:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as I don't think she's notable except in the strict sense (per Obina). Her fiance is a commoner at his parents' wishes and she will still be a commoner after marrying him whether he remains in line or not. Notability not being inherited I don't normally think we should accord the spouse, let alone fiancee, of a royal relative with notability. That's obviously not the way Fleet Street will play it, though. --Dhartung | Talk 00:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Delete While she has been mentioned in reliable sources I don't know that she meets the WP:BIO requirement of being the subject of the articals. WP:BIO also says If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted and so far she is subject of only one possible event which is her engagement. If she marries she may become notable but right now I don't think she is and instead she should be part of Peter Phillips entry Worldfamousdirector 04:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You have already voted once at the top. Should you be voting again. Your text above should be at the top with the nomination. --UpDown 07:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What? I did not vote more than once. I'm not voting again. WHy should my text be at the top with the nomination? Worldfamousdirector 07:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry getting confused with editors names, I saw to red-user names and didn't read proberly.--UpDown 07:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - She will be soon be married to the grandson of the monarch, thats notable enough to be honest. There are many references for her, which are reliable and varied. I find the above comment odd "If she marries", well their engagement has been publicly announced and for a Royal in modern times there is little chance to have an engagement announced to British 'royalty' but then not to happen. At the time of her marriage and after she will come to more public prominence and deleting the article would make no sense. Wikipedia must recognise that some people are only notable for who they are married or related to (and thats all royals really); this doesn't mean they are any the less notable than a TV celebrity or something. --UpDown 07:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even if the marriage were to be unexpectedly called off this person still meets WP:BIO requirements. Yamaguchi先生 02:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question On what basis do you feel she meets WP:BIO requirements? Worldfamousdirector 03:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because she has received media attention in the UK, and if the marriage was called off it would be a first for modern British royalty.--UpDown 16:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I see four articals about Peter Phillips and one about her which is a profile in what looks like an entertainment tabloid. She's only being covered at all because of Peter and even at that, the coverage of her is minimal. If the marriage was called off because of her and it was the first time for modern British royalty then I would say she should definitely deserve her own page but you have yourself said that would never ever happen. Earlier you said you think she deserves her own page simplly because she'll marry the gandson of a monarch. On that basis I completely disagree. Marrying somebody in itself does not meet WP:BIO or warrent a separate biography. Worldfamousdirector 19:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well there we disagree. The whole Royal Family are famous because of who they are related to and who they marry. Diana became famous because of who she married, as did Fergie, Sophie and so on. Autumn Kelly is notable as the future wife of the Queen's grandson, and to delete this before they are married seems especially illogical. --UpDown 10:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If Kate Middleton deserves her own article, and she is not engaged to Prince William, Autumn Kelly deserves her own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.201.241.74 (talk) 13:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Easy resolution: Delete both Kate Middleton and Autumn Kelly!!216.194.3.196 19:18, 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. - Mailer Diablo 20:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eclipse (Warriors)[edit]

WP:NOT#CRYSTAL pretty much summarizes this. All that is known is the author and a working title. --~|ET|~(^{Talk|Contribs}) 20:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Would be okay as a forthcoming book if there were any solid details about it, but as far as I can tell, there aren't. This can be sufficiently covered as a one-liner in the main series article. Dylan 23:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the previous editor said, this can be merged into the main series article and an article can be made after the book comes out or if more details are revealed that would provide sufficient info for an article. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 00:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Much of this book has been relvealed at book signings that haven't been written down and so we don't have any definite sources that say the book exsits. This souldn be delted entirley and not merged, because there are no sources for the book. ~ Bella Swan 17:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability.--Gavin Collins 00:42, 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 The result is delete.--Alasdair 13:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

800 football wins club[edit]

Its a list. Its unreferenced. Its redundant with NCAA Football Win-Loss Records. Google has zero-non wikipedia hits on "800 football wins club". Its entire purpose seems to stem from a Texas fan who dropped editing the page after they also lost two games KelleyCook 20:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this like the WP:100 for football? ;) (And no, obviously, this is not an appropriate article and should be deleted.) --B 20:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely. Delete. ↔NMajdan•talk 21:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only uncited, there's no evidence that 800 wins is used as a benchmark by anyone, making the topic original research as well. Dylan 23:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant and arbitrary. Cogswobble talk 00:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete made up one day. JJL 17:48, 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 20:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy James[edit]

Non-notable, no statement of awards or encyclopedic significance. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added him because he is linked to Zac Posen, and is a prominent celebrity fashion designer. Fuzzybuddy 22:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability, and only one self-published source. Nice website, though. Dylan 23:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a "prominent" fashion designer would have some actual press. I looked and found none. --Dhartung | Talk 01:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unable to find reliable sources -- Whpq 16:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - *who*? They don't even know the year of when this poor soul was born. Mindraker 17:36, 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 merge. We cannot delete and merge, as the article history must be preserved. W.marsh 21:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Factory (Code Lyoko)[edit]

Non-notable fictional place, with no sources. Thanks, Codelyoko193 _Talk Contributions 20:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Code: WIKI--victor falk 00:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ~~Should I just do that now? It won't take me very long. Thanks, Codelyoko193 _Talk Contributions 00:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)~~ Never mind, I like the suggestions to merge as well. Thanks, Codelyoko193 _Talk Contributions 21:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge info. to Code Lyoko. JJL 01:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Delete and merge. No assertion of notability made since notability isn't inherited and no sources can be found at present. Seraphim ^Whipp 18:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable location. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 21:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge→Lyoko. Should appear in the 'overview' section of the Lyoko article. No reason for a stand-alone article on this matter. The matter of deleting the entire information set around Lyoko as a fictional place should take place there rather than piecemeal (IMHO). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:34, 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. - Mailer Diablo 20:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bin Ball[edit]

Original listed for speedy deletion and proposed deletion. Game looks to be something made up in an office one day. Wildthing61476 20:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete junk. Creator can't contest speedies merely by removing the tag unlike prod's. JuJube 21:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP. I actually prodded this myself before I realised that the AfD notice had been removed (again) by the creator. Cosmo0 19:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 00:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wildthing61476. Reads like something made up in an office one day after a liquid lunch. --Gavin Collins 00:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete nn unencyclopedic thing made up in an office one day. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 01:44, 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. Redirect optional. - Mailer Diablo 20:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kadic Junior High School[edit]

Non-notable article about a place in a TV show, with no sources. Thanks, Codelyoko193 _Talk Contributions 19:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- fails WP:FICTION in my opinion. It's largely a plot summary. The only real-world context given is that a real school was used to model the fictional one - this (improperly sourced) fact could easily be mentioned somewhere else, if it's relevant at all. --B. Wolterding 21:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Non-notable fictional school. Masaruemoto 03:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Code Lyoko and merge any iseful info. there. JJL 13:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, no sources available. Seraphim ^Whipp 23:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination, it does not meet standards for WP:FICTION in my opinion. Yamaguchi先生 02:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Code Lyoko. The info about the real school can be easily inserted into the main article. The rest of the article, such as the descriptions of the boiler room, cafeteria, etc., doesn't seem distinctive enough to bother merging. --Kyoko 17:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Code Lyoko. Salvage info and merge. Mindraker 18:49, 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 ... perhaps notability will be achieved in the future. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One Common Unity[edit]

Contested speedy. I'm not entirely sure if this is notable or not, shows a lot of Google hits but they aren't independent sources - they're sponsorships, wikis, directories etc. if anyone can find any good strong independent sources, I'll gladly retract this - but sadly I can't find any I'm happy with. Remember that sources need to be reliable and independent, and the group needs to be the sole subject of the source (ideally). Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 19:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Would these be good sources?

- http://www.washington.org/index.cfm?ID=13719&Page=0&blnShowBack=False&idContentType=480&IDPG=0

- http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/102352/index.php

- http://golden-butterfly.com/svimc/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by One Common Unity (talk • contribs) 19:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly not. This one is a community forum that nayone can post in, this one is a "post your own article" style site, and this one, although closer than the rest, is still only an advert for an event. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 19:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are no links from any reputable sources for this organization but there is one from the Washington Post but that just shows that an event from the said orgainzation [1]. I think that this organization is notable but only to those who live in the Washington DC area--WriterListener 19:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no reputable sources, then it can't really be included. This is not a reliable source; although the organistion may be "notable" in the broad sense of the word, it's not WP:N notable. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 20:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable, independent sources of information available. Fails WP:CORP. Article was created by a COI editor who is also improperly participating in this AfD. Per WP:COI, One Common Unity doesn't get a say in this discussion. - Jehochman ^Talk 06:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is no prohibition on somebody with a conflict of interest participating in an AFD. They just should exercise caution when doing so. -- Whpq 16:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources. the sources provided are not really reliable. -- Whpq 16:26, 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→National Poetry Slam --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National poetry slam results[edit]

I've CSDed the main poetry slam page, but I can't justify CSDing this too. It's a non-notable poetry slam that seems to be run by a commercial organisation. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 19:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge winners (not finalists) to National Poetry Slam, which is easily sourceable and should be kept. --Dhartung | Talk 19:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge winners (and finalists) to National Poetry Slam - many former finalists and winners notable and important for slam's ongoing credibility disputes. further, poetry slam incorporated (PSI) is not a commercial organization, they are a nonprofit run by member dues and grants from places like the National Endowment for the Arts (whose logo is found at the bottom of the PSI website). The vast majority of people in the poetry slam community would say that this is the most notable poetry slam there is. i created the national poetry slam webpage to give context for this results page, as well as linked to the wikis of its finalists to give a deeper sense of the contributions of these artists.--Pregnantbuffalo 20:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both why on earth should Wikipedia be hosting the results of a poetry slam? IF the event itself is notable and verifiable using reliable sources (and that's a big "if"), it can have an article. But a big text dump list of people who participated? No way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have boldly redirected to National Poetry Slam because everything in this article was already there. Otto4711 01:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i suppose the article itself doesn't make it clear/verifiable yet, but NPS is widely regarded in the growing performance poetry/slam movement as the biggest/most credible poetry slam one can compete in as well as the most prominant national conference devoted solely to slam. the list of past winners is not a list of participants, but the top place finishers out a field of hundreds of participants. the initial page for the national poetry slam is meant to be a longer article once other slam community members begin contributing salient information to it. the results were a natural beginning point to what will surely be a more richly textured, informative page.--Pregnantbuffalo 17:02, 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 no consensus. Anyone can redirect this as an editorial decision, and someone probably should, if this article isn't getting expanded or the section in Azores isn't getting reduced, per summary style. W.marsh 21:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Azores[edit]

The entirety of this article has been copied, not by me, into the article on Azores. JVC 18:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's not a reason for deletion. You can always just merge it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. JVC has it backward. It was in the Azores article first, then copied over verbatim. There have been no significant edits since, so there is nothing in the edit history worth keeping. Clarityfiend 20:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a substantial article (if unreferenced) and Azores itself should contain only a summary linking to this article. This is exactly what ((tl|main}] exists for. --Dhartung | Talk 20:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why? The Azores article isn't very long. Clarityfiend 20:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would think that this is how most "History of ____" articles start -- the main article's History section is copied out and then expanded upon. No need to delete, unless the content violates policy in some other way. It's certainly a reasonably notable topic. Dylan 23:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Or, I should add, if there's no active work on this branch, it could be merged back to Azores until someone decides to substantially expand it such that it's too massive for the main article. Dylan 23:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong redirect to Azores#History. That should be obvious, really, when the content is an exact copy. An article can always be created when/if the section becomes too large--victor falk 00:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like an ordinary spinoff following our usual Wikipedia:Summary style.--Yannick 05:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read both the article and the history section of "Azores"? They're identical. It was copypasted 6 months ago, and then nothing happened, not a single edit until this afd.--victor falk 05:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:25, 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: After searching the archives of the newspapers mentioned by Mr. Elias, searching the company website for any evidence of press mentions, and conducting a number of additional searches of internet resources, I can find no evidence to back up claims of the company being reported on widely in the popular press as mentioned below. This does not preclude re-creation at a future date when reliable secondary sources (not marquees or ticket venues or directories) become available or are otherwise cited where the company is the primary topic or subject of reporting. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three Twins Entertainment[edit]

Non-notable and promotional. Attempts to make less promotional have been reverted by the original author and notability tags removed without evidence of notability offered. I can find no independent reliable sources with significant content about the organization or the artists they claim to represent. Recommending deletion. SiobhanHansa 18:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete No notability, no sourcing, just peacockery and braggadocio. --Orange Mike 18:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 00:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as reads like an advertorial: "Our mission is to evoke a positive constructive message." --Gavin Collins 00:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertising.--Torchwood Who? 15:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT Delete Allow me to address each of the following:

1. "I can find no independent reliable sources with significant content about the organization or the artists they claim to represent. Recommending deletion." My response to this is... 'DO you SiobhanHansa have access to or have an account with or have you questioned either Pollstar or Celebrity Access or even Contact Any Celebrity. These three companies have on record not only the artists that I exclusively represent (i.e. Vickie Guillory, Marthia Sides and others), but they have published several articles available to subscribers of those publications. 2. Moreover, the quote that states "Our mission is to evoke a positive constructive message." was taken from an interview that was published in 2004 in many periodicals including the Chicago Sun Times, the New York Times, The LA Times, The Denver Post, and the Corpus Christi Caller--Threetwinsent 23:39, 21 October 2007 3. As for the 'peacockery and braggadocio' comment made by Orangemike. Peacockery means selfconsiousness and braggadocio means boasting or bragging. If the entry that I made was analized, I clearly admit that the decisions that were made for Three Twins Entertainment, Inc.'s record label division for instance were due to lack of financing because of the thievery of Melissa Dori Dye. My lawyer has requested that I not say much more [redacted]

Feel free to contact me for the contact information of my attorney.

Thank you.

John Elias

P.S. Please let me know if there is any way I can be of service to you in your research.

Delete - no reliable sources provided, and none findable in searching. -- Whpq 16:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Advertisement. Mindraker 18:56, 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 00:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuelan Grand Prix[edit]

No reliable sources claim that this event is going to take place. Unless reliable sources are found (Autosport, ITV F1, Formula1.com, BBC etc.) this article in its current state looks like a hoax. Davnel03 18:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hoax. Readro 19:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Apparent Hoax. Only external info I could find appeared to be sourced from the Wikipedia article. Nothing on any of the main Formula One news websites. AlexJ 19:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Guroadrunner 23:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. 4u1e 11:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination as an apparent hoax. Yamaguchi先生 02:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blatant hoax/marketing stunt. No verifiable source for this article exists that I can find. Pyrop e 15:24, 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 to haiku. This was up for A1 (no context), but seeing as the haiku page already has a section on random haiku, I'm boldly redirecting this to haiku instead. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random haiku[edit]

This information might warrant a section in Haiku, but certainly not its own article. Treygdor 18:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed there's already a section in Haiku about this. How silly. as the new article's nascent author, I acknowledge its candidacy for deletion Httpwebwitch 18:41, 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 21:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsequitur (group)[edit]

non notable student group ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless RS can be produced to establish and verify notability, the article subject seems quite non-notable. MURGH ^disc. 18:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, becasue of no sources. UnitedStatesian 19:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:49, 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 Keep --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hasland Junior School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Completing unfinished nom, I abstain. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close; Bad faith nom. Considering the IP address that started the AFD has only made unconstructive edits to the article, adding excessive citation needed tags (adding these to facts like the location of the school or other obviously true statements is just disruptive), delinking dates, etc. The same user who vandalized a related article here (compare with that vandal's other edit here, the same disruptive edits as the IP who started this AFD. Masaruemoto 20:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes the IP may have went a little overboard with the cite tags, I am not seeing anything notable about the school. The article reads like an advertisement for the school, and nothing else. If there is an article on the school district it belongs to, redirect there. TJ Spyke 00:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If this had been nominated in good faith, with a reasonable rationale (or any rationale), I would probably have said "delete" as well (that's why I suggested "Speedy close" instead of "Speedy keep"). I can't support a nomination by a user that appears to be vandal on principal. Masaruemoto 03:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How can an article like this, rated B class, even be considered for deletion? Schumi555 14:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The article is well written, informative (I've never understood how an educational institution article can be criticized as an "advert") This article has 20 references, it's well cited. A vandal has continuously added "citation needed" tags to ridiculous parts of the article (like location and date of opening), for the most part, unnecessarily. As a comparison, Song X on Album Y by Band Z is more of an advert, generally only citing in-universe sources and band webpages, but they consistently stay because they are viciously defended by biased fans. This is about a school folks, albeit a junior school. Let it stay. It doesn't have a wiki-fan base like the pop culture cruft that plagues this place. It isn't recentivism, it is not an advert, and it belongs on Wikipedia because it meets and exceeds each "policy hurdle" needed to stay. Sourced, verifiable, thorough, organized, photoed nonstub - an exceptional article amongst much schoolcruft. I would think this would have been nominated for a GA, not an AfD. ~~The first nom was a bad faith nom~~, there is no need to revisit. Keeper | 76 15:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC) Striking my last sentence there. The first nom by finngall was not bad faith, just a little quick, and I apologize for that comment. The nomination was withdrawn by Finngall though because the article was improved, not because the nom was bad faith. Since that time, it has been vandalized several times by an unregistered user and shouldn't have been renominated from the log without really looking at the previous AfD. Even without the nom withdrawal, the consensus was most certainly leaning towards keep once the article was sourced and expanded. Keeper | 76 15:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Seems to be very well written, informative and well worth inclusion on English Wikipedia. It certainly seems notable. Kevin 16:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close. There is no need to complete nominations made in bad faith. Yamaguchi先生 02:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I thinkthe school is non-notable, and in fact could be speedily delete for failingto assert same. But the nomination appears to have been made in bad faith, and so this should possibly be closed. I don't know what rules apply here. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:44, 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. DS 22:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pumpkin riots of 1923[edit]

This seems to be some sort of hoax. Google search for "Pumpkin riots" yields nothing on it and no sources can be found. Seems to never have occured. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete silly vandalism, doesn't even rise to the level of "hoax". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smash them there pumpkins. WP:HOAX. --Evb-wiki 18:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disarm (see? Cause that's an SP song...anybody?) per above. I'm pretty sure Smashing Pumpkins got their name someplace else. Bring on the Halloween vandals!--Sethacus 18:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only source is a "Sioux Falls Historical Society" site, and a WHOIS search shows that the domain was registered just a week ago. Presuming it's a halloween-related hoax, since an event like this (four days of rioting, five dead, hundreds arrested?) would have generated further coverage. Thomjakobsen 18:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Carve out of Wikipedia and bake into a pie. BJAODN-worthy, perhaps, but utterly false. --Dhartung | Talk 20:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Site is a hoax, since the Minnehaha County Historical Society is the real historical agency in Sioux Falls. Why would a historical society ever cite a negative event in their city's history, especially just above their entry on tourism, or ask that you download Netscape 4 for a site started a week ago? The site looks as high-tech as the Hamster Dance. Nate 21:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mentioned on The Colbert Report October 18, 2007. Hmmmm.--Evb-wiki 03:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, I just watched the intro monolouge. I think we've been Colberted...Nate 05:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, nothing on Google. Can we say 'hoax'? Ealdgyth | Talk 03:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ahhhh, Halloween, what a lovely time of year: The leaves turn gold and red, the air is crisp and cool, the sky is often a gorgeous shade of blue, the moon is inspiring, and the silly articles insert themselves in full costume! Ariel♥Gold 17:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too bad it's such a great hoax. Bearian 20:53, 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--JForget 00:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pentagonized[edit]

Seems to be nonsensical but not quite nonsensical enough for CSD... Input? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - I disagee. ((db-nonsense)). Failing that it's either a stupid WP:dicdef or a WP:NN WP:NEO. --Evb-wiki 18:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but not speedy. While silly, it doesn't meet the definition of patent nonsense. I've removed the speedy tag. --Fabrictramp 20:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google search show pentagonize (assuming that this is its root word) in a non-English language and as a Bush criticism neologism "to be influenced by the The Pentagon" (not a good definition but you get the point right?) Even then it fails WP:NEO. Delete the illustration too--Lenticel ^(talk) 20:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nice work on the flashing outline, but basically only used rarely as a neologism relating to The Pentagon. --Dhartung | Talk 20:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Evb-wiki. Very creative. Bearian 20:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense, not notable..... -RiverHockey 18:18, 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 speedy deleted by User:GRBerry as copyvio, per CSD G12. Non-admin closure. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stories of Strength: The World of Growth Disorders[edit]

Previously deleted as prod, now back. No assertion of notability, and the article is written like an ad. Acroterion _(talk) 17:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I speedied it sometime before it came here. I couldn't see any assertion of notability nor WP:RSs. Text seems taken from press release or somesuch. Pig^man 21:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a copyvio taken from a press release as suspected by User:Pigman. Also ((db-spam)) would be just as appropriate. Now tagged as a speedy. -- Whpq 16:39, 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. (Nomination withdrawn, and there are no requests to delete.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Landover Baptist Church‎[edit]

This article is unencyclopedic and has next to no reliable sources on the internet. The page looks pretty controversial and lacks any verifiability at all. Most of the article is ~~original research and~~ unreliable information. The article is not a notable subject either. The sunder king 17:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a famous parody site, subject of a great deal of kerfluffle over the years. I don't see where all the supposed "original research" is lurking, either. --Orange Mike 17:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users summary "I like the article, don't get rid of it". The sunder king 17:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's both false and uncivil, sunderking! --Orange Mike 18:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd be very surprised if there weren't plenty of WP:RS and WP:V for an article on this parody and satire site. It's been around for several years. I note that G-hits on the exact name is 140,000. Apparently from "American Atheist Magazine" is this article. From the Charlotte Observer is this. Unfortunately they are both paid services so I can't read them. I got them from this Google News search list of 23 stories. Pig^man 17:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as noteworthy as any other articles in Joke religion category.Racepacket 17:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to having a published book from a major publisher. Not many parody websites besides maybe The Onion can make that claim. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One other article I found on google news and which can be read for free is from TheForce.Net. So together with the pay-per-view articles and the book, should pass WP:WEB. --Allefant 19:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - media coverage and publication of the book indicate a reasonable level of notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, and sourced. I say keep. Atomic Religione 22:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close- whilst I didn't know much about the site itself, I am withdrawing because it seems to have got people to find sources and improve the article itself. It no longer in my opinion warrants the deletion criteria, thank you for your help. The sunder king 10:56, 19

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Mahrra[edit]

This article seems to be totally self-promotion and of a non-notable individual. Hesitant to csd. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent sources to establish notability. On a side note, why would anyone name their company "Fail"?--Sethacus 17:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete what part of the article is the claim of notability again? I can't find one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete not noteworthy and might be self-promotional.Racepacket 17:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete lacks substance and most definitely self-promotional. Vijinho 19:21, 18 October 2007 (GMT)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April inez[edit]

Vanity article with no independent sources to indicate that this singer is in any way notable. Cap'n Walker 16:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Maybe I'm missing something. I'm not seeing any assertion of notability.--Sethacus 16:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. There's something approaching a claim to notability there, but it's so weak that a speedy wouldn't be out of the question. Bfigura ^(talk) 16:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete self-taught musician who plays at bars and similar establishments, mostly in one town too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No assertion of WP:NOTE and no WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 19:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MUSIC suggests two albums, lots of media coverage, national touring, major awards, etc... none of which are even remotely mentioned in this article. Speedy delete A7. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:24, 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. For the second time today. DS 04:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

L.I.F.E political party[edit]

Pretty evidently a hoax Orange Mike 16:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoax. I would also add WP:NOT for things made up in school one day as the creator's only other contributions have been "inside" information on Caerleon Comprehensive School.--Sethacus 16:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And vandalism.... --Orange Mike 17:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt ... like the previous editor said, Wikipedia is not for things made up one day ... a two day old political party is by definition "non-notable" ... too bad it doesn't qualify as a speedy delete (A7). —72.75.79.128 (talk · contribs) 22:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fast "It's only by sheer luck this article hasn't been deleted yet" when an artictle asks for its own deletion, you know what to do. Also obvious hoax. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 23:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like I said to begin with delete it! Yourname 00:44, 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. Secret ^sup 04:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Lacy[edit]

Vanity article with no independent sources to establish that this folksinger/filmmaker is in any way notable. Cap'n Walker 16:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 22 distinct ghits on "Emily Lacy" folksinger, all promotional in nature. Nothing in any of the notable music sites, either.--Sethacus 16:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:Music Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I felt that I had accomplished enough to be referenced here, as several musicians have themselves indexed for historical purposes here. I was not trying to make a "vanity-driven" site, I was trying to provide historical reference to my work. If the wikipedia gods want this deleted, then go for it. The last thing I wanted to do was make someone mad, I am a humble folksinger and song collector. -Emily Lacy

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Piper[edit]

Contested prod. Non notable jounalist who is standing for a local political office. No other claim to notability offered. The article reads like a promotion piece down to the 'for more info see www...'. Fails WP:BIO and is probably spam. Nuttah68 16:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete If not speedy. The contributions of the author of the article revolve around the subject. That said, this is a good candidate for spam.--Sethacus 16:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice campaign brochure. Speedy delete as failing WP:BIO - there's no indication that he's received third-party coverage of a level to prove notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Tony. Phgao 04:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO and is a campaign ad. --Cheeser1 08:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Keep the information in case he wins the election and does something noteworthy, otherwise for the moment, it does seem to be no more than a campaign advertisement. Delete. Mindraker 19:07, 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 Speedy deleted. The Placebo Effect 16:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pia Fajelagutan (Skateboarder)[edit]

Notability not established with reliable sources. Google search for "Pia Fajelagutan" Skateboarder returns 2 unique hits...a friendster profile and a buzznet profile. Prod removed by original author. (Might also be worth noting that Pia Fajelagutan (heavy metal musician) was deleted last week. Metalcore and death metal are listed as interests on the buzznet profile.) --Onorem♠Dil 15:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No reliable sources to establish notability. It's highly unlikely there are two Pia Fajitawhatevers, so this one should suffer the same fate as the previous deleted article.--Sethacus 15:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: blanked by author. --Pak21 15:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now tagged with ((db-blanked)). --Onorem♠Dil 16:01, 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→University of Washington Libraries: I will not do the merger myself at this time, but tag the article for cleanup and for merger. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Washington Libraries/Libraries and Units[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/University of Washington Libraries/Libraries and Units

Very weak delete: consists of list of libraries in the UW system with addresses, phone numbers, contact emails, and summaries of collections. Pictures are included for most, and pics appear to be GFDL-compliant. I'm willing to withdraw this if there's a quick clear consensus that it should be kept. SarekOfVulcan 15:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with University of Washington Libraries. I see no reason to have a bullet list in the main article and then a separate two-three sentences with picture in the separate article. I would replace the bullet list in the main article with the contents of the Libraries and Units page.Racepacket 16:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purge and merge - this verges on a directory, which is one of the things we ain't. Afer merger, maybe keep the most skeletal information, but lose the phone numbers, etc.--Orange Mike 16:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a little. All should "Bow down to Washington" (our school song), but let's not go overboard. Most of the descriptions are stunningly obvious or trivial - the architecture and urban planning library contains material on...architecture and urban planning. D'oh! Clarityfiend 18:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and perhaps keep some of the distinctive material, and a list of the divisions, which shows the extent of the system-- but most of this is material that belongs and no doubt is on the library web site. DGG (talk) 00:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the main article. It looks suspiciously like a pamphlet created by the University of Washington Library System. jonathon 18:37, 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 21:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bret Miles Jr.[edit]

Nom - Non-notable, self-promotional biography. Speedy was contested, so here it is. Rklawton 15:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Weak keep Plenty of articles (motorsport.com, autoracingdaily.com, winchesterspeedway.com) to establish notability. As a newcomer, came in 5th at the 2005 MAX 93.5/96.7 CRA Street Stock race, sponsored by a notable racing association. Get rid of the sappy interviews with mom.--Sethacus 15:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fifth place in one race does not a notable racecar driver make. Rklawton 15:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - True. But,he also took secondin another race this past summer. Perhaps I was overzealous with my astounding keep.--Sethacus 15:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are we now saying that every ASA, ARCA and so forth driver is notable? Smashville 19:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; this is very low-level to mid-level racing, not professional racing; tens of thousands of people drive at these levels most every weekend at small tracks across North America. I honestly can't see how placing second in a race at this level can possibly convey the notability required by WP:BIO, and what appears to be mostly local coverage is what a lot of racers can expect to get. (Believe me on that one, I've given some of them that coverage.) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N and WP:BIO. Call me when he races NASCAR. --Sc straker 00:10, 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 and Salt. The Placebo Effect 01:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The King's Cleaning Service, Inc.[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The King's Cleaning Service, Inc.

WP:SPAM. No independent sources to establish the notability of this local cleaning business. It's apparently been speedily deleted at least once before; probably needs to be salted. Cap'n Walker 15:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I remember this was previously speedily-deleted as spam, but the author has toned it down a lot this time around. Nevertheless, no WP:Verifiability and little notability. Accounting4Taste 15:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - It's still spam. The guy is not taking "not notable" for an answer. --Orange Mike 16:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt I remember this one as well, and it still makes no assertion of notability. Acroterion _(talk) 16:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to below: Maid-Rite, for instance, has been around since 1926, has numerous locations in several states, and has had articles published about them in a major newspaper. The article under consideration is for an organization which is non-notable by Wikipedia's standards. Acroterion _(talk) 03:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the author of this article. I'm not sure how this is considered spam. There is nothing in the article that points the customer towards the website or services of the company. Obviously the companies name is in the writings but that is pretty much unavoidable in every entry made. Granted, this is my first entry from Wikipedia and I am not use to the standards/rules expected of a person. As for notability, I suppose it depends on how Wikipedia defines it. Are there local magazines relevant to the company that have published articles pertaining to them, yes. Are these magazines as credible as TIME, Fortune, or even GQ, no. So I can see how it shall be based on one's perception.

As I was publishing this article, I followed the guideline used by Maid Rite at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maid-Rite .

Any help and info is greatly appreciated.

Delete. The problem is that it's just not notable. If it had a contract to clean the White House, it would still not be worth an article, unless it happened to screw up in some spectacular manner or found incriminating papers that led to Bush's impeachment, something that would make the newspapers sit up and take notice. Clarityfiend 02:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just another cleaning service company. After deleting PR and Wikipedia hits on Google there was one left --- a blog where the person mentions in passing that he works there. jonathon 18:48, 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 21:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cale Ramaker[edit]

Fails WP:BIO, non-notable local television personality Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 15:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Rob Russell 16:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Sc straker 00:19, 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 21:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ripbot264[edit]

Appears to be non-notable software (I'm not terribly knowledgeable in this field, so I can't say for certain). The only references found appear to be internet video forums and how-to's (which I don't think meet WP:RS). A prod has been removed by the author. Bfigura ^(talk) 15:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am at a loss, the software is discussed and listed on the worlds top video sites, it cant actually do much more than this. its achieved prominence in its selective, expert field. Its on par, and is more relevant, than other pieces of software listed in its selective field categories. My concern here is that its being marked down because its major discussion points are on forums, but anyone with any experience of video would know doom9 to be the place in this field. Its a growing piece of software and would be of benefit to the wider internet base to be able to find out about the software via this site, as i have done with other similar pieces of software in the field :) Flidge 22:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep doom9 is the leading video technology forums and is world renown for the software its members produce and the discussion that goes on there. It doesnt get more reliable in this field, if its of note or interest in this area, its on doom9. The guide also is one of the highest google ranks for its field, PSP video encoding. Its a newish piece of software, but its reputation and support is growing daily and is of genuine importance in its set field, h.264 encoding for home console and PC playabck. Flidge 20:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN piece of software.Ridernyc 21:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Flidge has edit the page to remove the AFD template and has just edited this page to remove my delete comment. I have warned and I will try to have him blocked if he messes around again.Ridernyc 04:48, 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--JForget 00:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bomb Iraq[edit]

Delete as per nom foreverDEAD 15:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Rob Russell 16:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No demonstrated notability. • Lawrence Cohen 16:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability shown. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's no "Bomb Iran." --Groggy Dice T | C 18:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dylan 22:42, 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 --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chi Town Productions Presents: The Lost Tapes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Mixtapes are considered to be non-notable per Wikipedia:Notability (music). Daniil Maslyuk 14:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These should be mentioned in the discography at most. They have virtually no potential to expand. Spellcast 14:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Mixtapes cannot inherit notability from the artist. Fails WP:N. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 16:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:55, 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 Nomination withdrawn --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pegs (album)[edit]

Non-notable releases by non-notable artist (whose article was deleted). Precious Roy 13:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Artist's article has been re-created but has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please state in your comments if your decision is contingent upon the artist's article being deleted. Precious Roy 01:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Tag for speedy deletion has been removed by the original tagger after discussion on notability - see discussion page for Pegz. Could you please remove Deletion tags on these album pages? thanks --Korp7 10:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Haha I should have read more closely, it was you who placed the tag for speed deletion there in the first place ;) --Korp7 10:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination Claims of notability made, thus the removal of the speedy deletion tag from the artist's page. Precious Roy 12:37, 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. I would strongly suggest a merge or converting this to a disambiguation page. Mr.Z-man 20:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free and open source software[edit]

Free software is a topic with a detailed article, and open-source software is another related/similar topic with a detailed article. "Free and open source software" refers to these two topics, but isn't a topic in itself. "Free and open source software" has no de facto or de jure definition, no poster boy, not even a website. This probably explains why the article can't get past stub level - there's not much to write about. Insofar as the name is interesting, that topic has a detailed article at alternative terms for free software. Links to this stub article are simply duplicating (poorly) and hiding existing articles which each have tens or 100+ contributors and years of editing. I recommend it be made a redirect (or a disambiguation page). Gronky 13:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing Admin: Please review Talk:Free and open source software, in making your decision on the AfD. Thanks. Lentower 22:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alternative terms for free software as there's no real content here which isn't already there. As a slight aside, I think something done about the title of that page as well ("Terms for free and open-source software"?) --Pak21 13:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per rationale given at Talk:Free and open source software. There's an ongoing discussion to merge free software and open source software (amongst others: the intensely pro-FSF POV alternative terms for free software should probably go as well) into the catch-all FOSS article to avoid the high levels of duplication at the moment. Free software articles in general at moment are strongly weighted in favour of the FSF's position, which is that all permissive software is free software and should be examined in that light. Meanwhile, real-world usage of FOSS/FLOSS etc. has expanded. In light of ongoing discussion in this area, a delete is unwarranted (especially when the nonimator's preferred redirect, alternative terms for free software, is strongly subjective). Chris Cunningham 13:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing discussion? Where? --Gronky 13:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At Talk:Free and open source software#Merge FS + OSS here (note to other editors: such innocent overlooking of precedent, existing discussion and current work is a hallmark of the way these discussions have gone before). Chris Cunningham 13:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That thread died a week ago, and only 4 editors ever chimed in, and there was no mention of it on Talk:Free software or Talk:Open-source software. --Gronky 13:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Week-old discussions aren't "dead". In this case, I suppose you'll have to take my word for it that there's been off-wiki discussion of this merge, but I'm planning on doing more on-wiki soon. Regardless, the point was simply that there has been discussion of a merge, and the preliminary suggestion of AfD met with opposition there, so it would seem ill-judged to go deleting it right now. Chris Cunningham 14:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before going to AfD, it would have been appropriate for Gronky to ask on Talk:Free software, Talk:Open-source software, Talk:Alternative terms for free software, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Free Software for editors to come to Talk:Free and open source software to discuss both the deletion and merger proposals there. Additional attempts at consensus there, might have avoided the overhead of an AfD, including the closing admin's time. Gronky's prematurely going to AfD is an abuse of the AfD process, and he is not acting in good faith. Prediction: Gronky will comment on many other's editor's entries here, when they oppose his subjective POV. Lentower 11:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For now, premature. I'd let the ongoing merger talks work out on their own from people already familiar with the intricacies of the subject matter. • Lawrence Cohen 16:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. —• Lawrence Cohen 16:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I admit to only lurking in the previous discussion, but I agree that it is too soon for an AfD. I'd actually like the "alternative terms" article to be rewritten a bit & this would be a less biased title for that article. --Karnesky 23:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/Keep. WP needs to find a way to merge the Free software, Open-source software articles, as well as simliar pairs of articles from these two movements. They discuss two concepts that are similar. Each is written by partisan editors of two differing camps with different and non-neutral POVs (just go and read each of them!) . This is not good for our encyclopedia, and our readers. This title might not be quite right as the title for the merged article, but it's a good place to start. Lentower 11:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 01:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable neogolism. I see many assertions in the discussions, but no reliable sources being sited as evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins 01:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If WP:NEO isn't a problem for free software or for open source software, how can it possibly be invoked as an issue for an article that merely discusses both entities? (Also note that you added this to the software-related deletions list a second time.) --Karnesky 02:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there are already way way too many useless articles about FS and OSS and combinations thereof. Merge plans can be discussed without creating more. NicM 19:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. No good reason to delete. At worst, redirect somewhere. Editors involved seem to be discussing wider mergers, and they should be left to it. --SmokeyJoe 13:57, 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. Hut 8.5 13:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vita digital productions[edit]

Fails WP:CORP. Tagged ((unreferenced)) since June, but there ain't any references to add: there's nothing in the 50 unique ghits with a reliable nature. MER-C 13:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 01:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MER-C, as article has no reliable sources.--Gavin Collins 01:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (unless new references to reliable sources show otherwise). Does not appear notable.Wikidemo 13:45, 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 20:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Breska[edit]

This article was created by User:Pridedriven, the same name as Ryan Breska's "internet-based distribution company". The "distribution company" is nothing more than Ryan selling goods on eBay, for which this is an advertisement. Ryan's only claim to fame is a prank which is already detailed in the article Utah-BYU rivalry. This man seems to be nothing more than a former college football player with an eBay account; it doesn't seem to meet WP:N, WP:BIO, or WP:NPOV and could violate WP:AB, WP:COI and WP:SPAM. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 13:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This clearly violates WP:AB. Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged. Moreover, the subject has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disintegrate Completely fails BIO, RS, and AB. Committing minor acts of vandalism and not playing for a college football team are his only claims to notability. This is nothing more than a vanity article and could probably be speedied under CSD A7. --Cyrus Andiron 14:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanity article. Images should be deleted as well. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 14:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThis guy is just trying to relive his glory days as a "big man on campus", although backup quarterback for a mediocre team means probably means he was just another face in the crowd. Based on his current employment, he should have studied more and vandalized less. Glennfcowan 15:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Most Inspirational Player" in a year when he had a 14.54 ERA? Sure thing. Clarityfiend 07:35, 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 21:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XsCapacity[edit]

"This new term" doesn't have widespread use. We shouldn't bother with a redirect, because it's an unlikely search term. 95 ghits. MER-C 12:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable neologism --Orange Mike 16:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed, that is a neologism. Carlosguitar 17:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 01:56, 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 21:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xplorer Motorhomes[edit]

Fails WP:CORP. Article is unverifiable with 61 unique ghits. The only hint of third party coverage is this article, which only mentions the company once. MER-C 12:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete agreed, that is a non-notable company. Carlosguitar 17:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - According to The Washington Post, this company was the "designers and builders of the first production motor home" [2] which definitely makes this company notable. --Oakshade 04:32, 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 20:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

X Flag Football[edit]

As an unverifiable article with only 16 unique ghits, we can safely conclude that the subject is merely made up one day. MER-C 12:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is impossible to verify the contents of this article, which is an important policy of Wikipedia. Moreover, there are questions about notability as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I play football every Sunday with my friends at a local park. This really isn't all that different, neither group is notable. --Cyrus Andiron 14:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources have been provided other than the organization's own website. --Metropolitan90 14:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources available, non notable. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources, seems non notable as well. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 00:01, 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--JForget 00:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

East India Company (2008 computer game)[edit]

Article about an unreleased video game fails WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. No sources are given except for the game's own website. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 12:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep : Go here and the announcement here, here, here, here, here and here. All the sources are from popular sites and certainly not a crystal. --SkyWalker 12:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears that reliable sources can be found for this article. This article certainly does not fail WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are some reliable sources and the article is not crystal balling since it can be reasonably assured this game will be released, as opposed to pure speculation. Useight 14:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Skywalker's sources. Someone another 16:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above. • Lawrence Cohen 16:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:18, 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 Keep, withdrawn nomination, sources have been added so article no longer violates WP:CRYSTAL. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Hits (Keith Urban album)[edit]

~~Violation of WP:CRYSTAL; no track listing announced for album, no verifiable info other than release date. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn, no longer in violation of WP:CRYSTAL per sources added. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argh. Stupid Twinkle... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Keith Urban is a notable artist and there are reliable sources indicating that he will be releasing this album in November. I have sourced article. Capitalistroadster 03:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Capitalistroadster 03:18, 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 as essentially original research with no verifiable sources, and with possible issues of neologism and point of view. Can be re-created if it balances POV as noted in policies. Bearian 01:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Provincialism in Romania[edit]

Original research. It's just a bunch of phrases put together without much cohesion anyway. bogdan 10:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to state that the this kind of discrimination is recognized in Romania and as such, there is a non-profit organization to combat it; the rest of the article is pretty much sourced. I don't understand how Bogdan, who is a proud Wallachian, can say that this is OR when I sourced to published material. The sources are credible and the poll that is a part of the sources, was conducted in a professional and intellectual matter. The article has great potential to be expanded and I will do all in power to find credible sources that can add to the material. I also don't think that this material can be included in other articles dealing with similar topics, because the subject is too obscure. --Thus Spake Anittas 10:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, "Provincialism" as a discriminatory practice and a parallel to "racism" is a neologism invented by you. Please see Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. bogdan 11:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is simply untrue and I accuse you of trying to place a bad light on me. --Thus Spake Anittas 11:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anittas, show me a dictionary entry about "provincialism" talking about "discrimination". Here's dictionary.com entry:

narrowness of mind, ignorance, or the like, considered as resulting from lack of exposure to cultural or intellectual activity.
a trait, habit of thought, etc., characteristic of a provincial, a province, or the provinces.
a word, expression, or mode of pronunciation peculiar to a province.
devotion to one's own province before the nation as a whole.

bogdan 11:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong DELETE - Anti-Romanian propaganda made by non-Romanian dude.

All of that develops to some sort of discrimination, which is what has happened in our country. Let us put aside our differences, Bogdan, and start building our country. I know you don't like Moldavians too much, but all I ask from you is to remain openminded. --Thus Spake Anittas 11:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete. The brief rationale of Bogdan is completely correct. The article seems to be the expression of individual frustrations of the author. Dpotop 12:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- Wallachians try to hide the truth, which in this case, is backed up by reliable sources. I think this is very sad. They call the sources for my personal opinion. --Thus Spake Anittas 13:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Anittas, how do you expect to be taken seriously when you keep dismissing the opinions of all Wallachians for no reason other than the fact that they are Wallachian? Unless you're just trying to prove how widespread this "provincialism" is (going the other way though, ironically enough.) By the way, I'm obviously neither Wallachian nor Moldavian, so perhaps you'd be inclined to take my opinions and objections seriously if I were to expound on them a bit more? K. Lásztocska 03:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this phenomenon is essentially unknown in Romania and the author, a well-known promoter of the interests of Moldavia, seems to have an axe to grind with this OR/SYN piece that strings together some random quotes to try and create the appearance of a valid topic. Biruitorul 14:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete -although the phenomenon is present at a lower level of social interaction (of course, americans couldn't know this), there's no study examining it, so it fails WP:SYNTH Anonimu 17:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have betrayed me. --Thus Spake Anittas 17:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just respecting my code d'honneur.Anonimu 17:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Anonimu, I ask that you refrain from baseless, incorrect guessing as to editors' domiciles when they have requested you not do that. Anyway, the sort of cheap, dismissive remark aimed at 300 million people is bound to fall short of its target. Which "americans" might these be? Keith Hitchins? Charles King? Romania isn't Mars, so of course there are Americans who do know the realities of intra-regional rivalry in Romania. Biruitorul 04:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WTF?!?Anonimu 08:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT, WP:SYNTH and WP:COAT. In short, this article is a joke. The "phenomenon" was defined by the author (only too well-known for his theories on the differences between Moldavia and Wallachia), both title and text are whimsical, and the sources cited have no connection whatsoever to what the text is supposed to be about, and have been manipulated by the editor into something they are not (see for example where he cthe text "cites" a queen of Romania, making it seem like she endorses the concept because, in one of her statement, she said Wallachia was at the center of Romanian nationalism). Let me add that all countries have regional rivalries (except perhaps Aruba), but that doesn't make the subject of such articles noteworthy. As for the noteworthy phenomenons in this case, we already have an article. Dahn 17:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:POINT, and others. An encyclopedia is not the place for ranting about perceived anti-Moldavian bias everywhere in Romanian society. K. Lásztocska 18:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

W00f w00f! ;) --Thus Spake Anittas 18:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(torrent of foul Hungarian insults and expletives deleted.) K. Lásztocska 18:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

?!? you're an admin now?Anonimu 19:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think she means that she initially posted insultive language, and thereafter had second thoughts and deleted them before hitting the send button. --Thus Spake Anittas 19:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anittas is right--you see, I think twice before posting insults. Anonimu, no, I'm not an admin, and have no plans to become one in the near future. K. Lásztocska 22:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Anonimu got a little nervous there. LOL! --Thus Spake Anittas 22:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, don't worry, Anonimu, I'd be a merciful and benevolent tyrant. ;-) K. Lásztocska 22:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When members of the family will infiltrate the admin community we'll have POVN instead of NPOV.Anonimu 00:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind pointing out any NPOV violations any of us three has made in mainspace edits? Biruitorul 05:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other two being who? As for you, I just have to look at your one day old editsAnonimu 08:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other two being cabal members Dahn and K. Lastochka. And no, I contest such cheap bluster. If I am a POV-pusher, start an RfC against me, complain to ANI, take it a step further. But you cannot point to such edits; thus, you will not take it to the next level. Biruitorul 21:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, Dahn is just one of those apparently respectable capitalists who hire the mob to do the dirty jobs for them. K. is a real g. If you're so sure report yourself and see what happens.Anonimu 22:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, ya got me! Don't go breakin my kneecaps, I'll squeal--we takes our orders from dis guy. Fnord. K. Lásztocska 03:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should ask the capo to teach you better tactics.Anonimu 08:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's "my woman"! :p --Thus Spake Anittas 22:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I make this promise to you Anittas: the next time you use mainspace to pull a prank or start a forum on your political opinions, and the next insult I see you direct at any other user, I'll be reporting you personally. You have been duly warned not to continue with this nonsense, you have been blocked for a long time in the past over this type of behavior, you continue to be disruptive in every way possible, and WP:AGF has clearly gone stale in your case. If you want to have fun and post various personal theories, have the decency to use some other site. Dahn 01:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand - while I agree that the article is not appropriate in its current state, I think that the concept behind the article is good enough for Wikipedia. "Provincial" allegiances, identities and divisions in Romania are an interesting subject from a cultural studies and sociological perspective, and they need not be restricted to "anti-Moldovan prejudice". Information about Moldovan, Transylvanian, Oltenian and Wallachian stereotypes could also be included, issues regarding identity, etc. The only problem is that I'm not sure if there is enough literature on this subject so it can be backed up with sources. Ronline ✉ 10:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where material is available and the subject is well-defined, I not only encourage articles to be created, I create them. But placing a coathanger where one disruptive editor hangs his grievances to dry, where the sources are misquoted and misinterpreted, and where the subject area is coined ad hoc by a versatile agenda is surely not worth a "keep", let alone an "expand". Dahn 12:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dahn is Batman. --Thus Spake Anittas 18:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you are The Penguin! :-) bogdan 19:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think he's The Joker. Now quick: to the Dahncave! Dahn 19:07, 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 no consensus. W.marsh 21:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solar Sailor Holdings[edit]

This article seems to be about a non-notable company. Thus it appears more as promotion than anything elseCyrilleDunant 11:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article claims that the company is notable, so I'll go with that. The author is an established editor, who doesn't seem likely to have a conflict of interest. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 12:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - established editor still need to adhere to policy. -- Whpq 16:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The claim is unsubstantiated, there are no sources, and the author seems to have a keen interest in renewable energies, which might lead him to get a bit carried away. Rama 14:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A google news search shows that there are stories from the NY Times that appear to be about the company. Unable to review them as they are now pay to view. But it appear that the article could be sourced to demonstrate notability. -- Whpq 16:58, 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 per WP:SNOW and WP:POINT, very obviously the latter. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Orr[edit]

Susan Orr does not have a long enough career to report on here, so this article should not be a part of this wikipedia blog. This article like so many other wikipedia articles is just an attempt to discredit President Bush with lies and half-truths. It should be deleted at once.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Longstood (talk • contribs)

Keep President Bush recently nominated Orr as the head of family planning programming within the Department of Health and Human Services. The fact that she is a critic of birth control has caused attention. This is notable. ∴ Therefore | talk 02:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I agree that this person is notable and should not be deleted. Iamchrisryan 12:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Orr is a nominee for a nationally prominent public office covered by reliable sources. Notable enough. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not grounds for removal. • Gene93k 14:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Agree with Gene93k, complaint seems to be due to not liking sourced facts in article that paint Orr in bad light. Feel free to add positive (sourced) facts if you feel article is unbalanced, or suggest ways to make article NPOV if you feel it is POV. --Zeke pbuh 15:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Absolutely notable. A current Google News search shows 24 hits. A search of the Google News archive review shows an additional 36 results. This article won't be deleted per notability standards. • Lawrence Cohen 16:12, 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 21:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vinnanavada Buddhism[edit]

Original research. worthawholebean _talk^contribs 10:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research alone is not a reason to delete, but this article reads more like an essay; is totally unsourced and un-wikified; and has so many problems with it overall that ain't nothin' gonna fix it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:49, 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 No consensus, defaulting to keep. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Wilno[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Update: Recently created redirects Operacja wileńska, Operacja wilenska, Wilno offensive were listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 October 25 -- Matthead ^discuß! O 16:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 2006 was created article Operation Wilno (for 1919 developments), however soon contributors started to question that article’s name is pure original research and finds no support among English language academic works. And indeed till present day we find no matches even in google books [3], nor in scholar [4] . After discussion article was moved from original research title to Vilna offensive. However soon after move default redirect was recreated as disambiguation page, was included and article dealing with 1944 events, which holds name Operation Ostra Brama. So both articles have distant titles from invented title ‘’Operation Wilno’’. And recent notice directly points that old problems once again became topical. So, there are no reasons why this disambiguation page under invented and POV title should stay. M.K. 10:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my comments, M.K. 10:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Translation of a term popular in Polish historiography (operacja wileńska, which also redirects to this disambig); it stands to reason some people are going to look for it - and it applies to both of the operations in the disambig. That some editors dislike to see the Polish term 'Wilno' is no reason to delete a perfectly harmless disambig.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 12:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HARMLESS is rather useless argument. M0RD00R 16:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 12:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Violates WP:OR. No English equivalent. Neither of the events in 1919, or 1944, were called "Operation Wilno", operacja wileńska, by the Poles either. This is another "special creation" of the Prokonsul's. Dr. Dan 15:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outrageous claim. Just see [5] or printed sources like Żebryk Roman Korab, Operacja Wileńska. Epilog ([6]) for 1944 event. For 1919, try [7] or see for example this term used in this context in WIEM Encyklopedia entry here, this academic article or the title of a chapter in this academic book mentioned [8] (Operacja wileńska w kwietniu 1919 roku: Józefa Piłsudskiego błyskotliwy sukces wojskowy i niepowodzenie polityczne).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Completely harmless disambig which in no way violates any Wikipedia policy. - Darwinek 16:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A perfect example of what disambiguation pages are for, pointing to the correct term.--victor falk 01:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above.--Molobo 01:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the term is correct, means in English "Operation Vilnius", but Lithuanian "Vilnius" is not in common use. It was Polish military operation, since the Polish term "Wilno" (just like Munich in English would be instead of German Muenchen) instead of "Vilnius". Just like the name of operation "Desert Storm" - English words - was American military operation and we don't use Arabic names. greg park avenue 16:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The very best one could say is that it might be a convenient page tool for a member of wikipedia's anglo-phone Polish community in a very confused or senile moment, otherwise, per the very well put arguments of MK and Dr. Dan, has no place in an encyclopedia . Clear delete. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it is a weird entry and should not be there. The purpose of DAB pages is to navigate and take readers to an article they are looking for at the search string. Who would ever enter such combination? Or is this article supposed to DAB between all battles involving Vilnius? In this case, why not add the 1944 Baltic Offensive? I guess because it is never called "Operation Wilno" in any literature. Well, but the events listed there now are not called such either. That pl-wiki has an entry under pl:operacja wileńska does not warrant an corresponding entry at en-wiki. The term's being used in Polish does not make it a notable English term. --Irpen 03:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reason already stated by others. --Jadger 05:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, WP:OR and WP:NEO. The term almost does not exist anywhere but here in Wiki. No multiple reliable sources referencing term "Operation Wilno" were provided. So it fails WP:N by mile.

M0RD00R 10:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per M.K, Dr. Dan and M0RD00R.--Lokyz 10:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above, in contrast to the many generic lithuanian terms all over Wikipedia. Ksenon 11:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment I feel obligation to state more clearer current problem:
a) Apart that name Operation Wilno finds no support in English academic works, it is not accurate translation as well. If as contributor above notes that current name is translation of Polish term operacja wileńska, then English translation should be Vilnian Operation. So it hardly believable that Polish readers will look for the article under Operation Wilno. Notability issue?

b) even so if the current OR title would be move to proper one, there was no military activities which had contemporary codename (even in Polish) Operation Wilno or above formulation. So it is not the same as Operation Barbarossa.

c) redirect of Operacja wileńska was created after the proposed deletion nomination.

d) unrelated Google search hardly proves anything [9] with 1900 (!) maybe needs to be included too?.

e) Disambiguation page, for this moment, is used for unrelated articles' names. M.K. 13:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment - "Operacja Wilno" yields over 8000 hits on Google, mostly in Polish like Wilno, some in English like Wilno Uprising. You're missing the point, M.K., this military enterprise by Polish Home Army was only second in importance to Warsaw Uprising, and I am not talking about the Ghetto Uprising with 800 fighting soldiers only, but tens of thousands. And the title "Operation Wilno" is more suited for English reader than "Operacja wilenska". I even think about creating new category: "Home Army Operations" in relation to Polish Home Army which counted about 2 million souls, more than all US Army during WWII. What do you think, pal? greg park avenue 14:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Operacja Wilno" yields just 9 not 8000 ghits [10] non of which is related to military operations. So WP:OR case is obvious. M0RD00R 14:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Switch to America Online/Netscape [11] greg park avenue 14:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

0 (zero) ghits there [12] M0RD00R 14:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

In Polish language you cannot use quotation marks to get the results of search right. Each noun has eight suffixes, i.e.: Operacja, Operację, Opercją, Operacji, etc. The best proof to show how miserable your search was is: you ain't got even one hit on Wikipedia, and there are many as I showed above - see my ref. no 9 and compare it with your ref. no 8. greg park avenue 14:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This proofs quite the opposite - the term Operacja Wilno and its English translation Operation Wilno does not exists anywhere but here in Wiki because it is pure OR. M0RD00R 15:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. Check out the first 100 entries from 8000. 70% deals with Operation Wilno exclusively; 39 out of the first 40 entries either. So where is the claimed OR of yours? Rather POV, but you cannot change the facts this way, not by using poor argumentation as below regarding "zombie gnomes for Mars". It's good for fifth graders; in Wikipedia you don't impress nobody by this reasoning. The facts about the issue in question already on Internet, many from notable sources, are enough to write a thousand page documentary book plus ten novels, five of which would qualify for Hollywood blockbusters. greg park avenue 17:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your first word neatly sums up the ones following ("zombie gnomes for Mars", "Hollywood blockbusters"). I've seen many search engine hit claims, but these "8000" are as bold and incompetent as possible. Try [13] to make sure that at least both words are included (if not together, which never happens), and that the disputed 1919 time frame is covered, not 1944 (consensus as "Ostra Bama"). -- Matthead ^discuß! O 10:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must commend you on your search, it cross-referenced the topics and narrowed significantly the inquired by you data down to 119 entries (there is of course lots of more without disclosing dates or so), still much more than the other guys are claiming, some of them came out with nothing. That's why we should keep this disambiguation page just for people like them, who don't know how and what to look for. Most military operation refer to the place where the event occured, that's why I vote for the term "Wilno" in the title. "Ostra Brama" is a Polish word reffering to some church in Vilnius and only Polish language speaking folks, and those who read Pan Tadeusz by Adam Mickiewicz, will associate this term with Wilno. Small chance for folks who are not acquaint in Polish literature or military code names. Both events (1919 and 1944) relate to the same place - Wilno, so it should have this disambig. page just like uprisings in Warsaw and Poznan have. What's wrong with Wilno then? And whats wrong with major motion pictures? greg park avenue 15:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was numerical times said why exact search is necessary. For further Internet literacy understanding The Internet For Dummies and Google Search & Rescue For Dummies should be consulted. M.K. 12:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Term "Operation Wilno" is OR. There is not even one Polish or English source using this term. And therefore having disambiguation page for non-existent term is pure non-sense. Simple as that. M0RD00R 17:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If main nominative case (mianownik) version (Operacja Wilno) yields just 9 hits (NONE of them related to any military operation) all other versions are expected to yield even less results. This is easy to prove, just use exact search for every case. Otherwise search results are as accurate as search for Polish operation evil flesh eating zombie gnomes from Mars which yields whopping 27,000 ghits BTW [14]. M0RD00R 15:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I use an exact search? Any search will do if it only produces results. Who cares how I found references anyway as long as they are reliable. Besides, I find your comments disruptive and leading. Won't reply to other ones if posted by you. greg park avenue 17:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should use exact search because simple search displays pages having words Wilno and operation in it, but not term "Wilno operation" which is not referenced even by single source (Polish or English). M0RD00R 18:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the term Operation Wilno is notable or accepted at all, there should be some sources on it. There are apparently none. As an alternative, if "Operacja wileńska" is indeed popular in Polish historiography, then this page can redirect to Operacja wileńska and the disambiguation page be put up there. Sciurinæ 14:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to delete. //Halibu tt 17:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, WP:CUZILIKESIT is not a valid reason to keep either. Dr. Dan 04:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Piotrus and Halibutt. Visor 18:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - may I suggest that the editors who argue for deletion first ensure there are no links to this page? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, no proper article links here anymore, I've cleaned it up. Somebody else should have sorted this out long time ago. -- Matthead ^discuß! O 11:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is harmless and appropriate disambig.Biophys 23:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please consult WP:HARMLESS. M0RD00R 16:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Biophys. Tymek 04:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As already was explained that you should provide arguments - does not hurt approch is not valid: Just because having an article does not directly hurt anyone does not mean it should be kept. For example, if there has not been any verifiable information published in reliable sources about the subject then there is no way to check whether the information in the article is true, and it may damage the reputation of the subject and the project. Even if it is true, without the ability to check it, false information could very well start to seep in.

As for articles about subjects that do not hold to our basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and using reliable sources), keeping them actually can do more harm than one realizes - it sets a precedent that dictates that literally anything can go here. (See below for that.) per already provided WP:HARMLESS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M.K (talk • contribs) 11:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What is this fixation with telling us that this is a "harmless" disambiguation, as if anyone was arguing that it was a "harmful" one? The issue and argument is that it's a "creation" without any scholarly basis. And now there's an edit war over this nonsense, with a call to arms? Dr. Dan 04:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neither Google Books [15] nor Google Scholar [16] know "Operation Wilno". This is a disamb, between 1919 Vilna offensive and 1944 Operation Ostra Brama (pl:Operacja Ostra Brama) events, to which several pages had linked, mainly in 1919 context despite the claim that the majority refers to the 1944 context. I've thus replaced the links in articles and Template:Campaignbox Polish-Soviet War with Vilna offensive. Also, as not even Polish Wikipedia knows Operacja wileńska [17] or Operacja wilenska [18] or Operation Wilno [19], I find it hard to understand why English Wikipedia should keep such redirects or disambs - or why these redirects had been recently created [20] [21] by the very same person that had created [22] Vilna offensive as Operation Wilno. And this 1919 event seems not to be covered in Polish Wikipedia at all. There is no evident reason at all why English Wikipedia should keep Polish redirects and disamb not even the pl-Wiki considers useful. -- Matthead ^discuß! O 10:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: pl:Operacja wileńska was created [23] by pl:Wikipedysta:Piotrus on 03:07, 25 Oct 2007. -- Matthead ^discuß! O 14:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MK's and Matthead's findings that "Operation Wilno" is not found in Gbooks or Gscholar. Even on Google itself, it only appears in a forum site, in bitwawarszawska.pl, and Wikipedia mirrors.[24] Novickas 12:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong, and it's proof that you don't know how to look for information on Google, and another reason to keep this disambiguation page instead of witholding information about this particular and very important event from Wikipedia. The current title Operation Ostra Brama is just the code name of the military operation and very few lucky ones will find it. It's like renaming the article Warsaw Uprising to its code name, I even don't remember and would have lots of trouble to call it in. greg park avenue 14:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your logic, rather the lack thereof, is stunning. "Operation Wilno" is what, if not "just the code name of the military operation and very few lucky ones will find it"? It's just a generic Pidgin English description, combining non-Polish "Operation" and "Polish city name". From the few Google hits, I can see mainly some distorted or outdated Wiki mirrors, "another reason" not to feed Google and others with flawed Wikipedia entries. Only Axis History: Memories From The Polish Soviet War and bitwawarszawska.pl: Operation Wilno: Polish offensive to Wilno (April 1919) with bitwawarszawska.pl: Polish forces continued a steady eastern advance. They took Lida on April 17 and Nowogródek on April 18, and recaptured Vilnius on April 19 being proper sites/pages, providing content from a slight Polish POV. That is okay, but not the base for decisions on English Wikipedia. As for the Polish Home Army act in 1944, you just missed the recent consensus to move it from Wilno Uprising to Operation Ostra Brama. -- Matthead ^discuß! O 17:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - probably for the first time I agree with Matthead. Renata 12:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does Britannica classify "Wilno/Vilnius Uprising 1944", Renata? I just saw on your user page that it's your favorite encyclopedia and you've got an access to it. Would you mind to share this with us? Thanks! greg park avenue 14:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does Britannica use term "Operation Wilno"?No it doesn't. End of story. M0RD00R 16:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica provides free abstracts on Vilnius dispute and Vilnius itself. Wilno redirects to both Vilnius articles. -- Matthead ^discuß! O 16:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're so kind to place these links to Britannica regarding Vilnius. It's really an abstract and I even found major error in it (point for Renata). They state that the 1919 war was between Poland and Lithuania. It appears to me that Britons got that one from Horatio Hornblower stories or similar sources, lol. The conflict was of course between Poland and the Red Army, which resulted in independence from bolshevism for Vilnius in the next 20 years to come. To be on a save side i cite the World Book Encyclopedia in print, 1968 edition: Vilnius (also redirected from Polish name Wilno) - "It was the old capital of Lithuania, and became the capital again when the country declared its independence from Russia after World War I. It was the capital of independent Lithuania from 1818 to 1940. However, from 1920 to 1939, while Vilnius was occupied by Poland, a provisional capital was set up at Kaunas." Some younger readers maybe confused by this text, so it's worth to point out that this entry was made when Lithuania was the republic of Soviet Union, not a sovereign state. Vilnius was then just like West Berlin. Independent under occupation by allies, while East Berlin (like Kaunas) was the provisional capital - allegedly free but not really free, definetely not independent. Thanks anyway. greg park avenue 14:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's disambiguation page, and is it is apparently sometimes used, so it might be useful for some people. I didn't know that Vilnius has so many names, I actually never knew it is called "Vilna" or similar in several languages. Suva Чего? 22:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was said numerical times it is OR and not used in academic literature. Could you please provide any real arguments? However it is very good that such minor development as this attracted so many fellow Baltic neighbors. M.K. 12:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Suva. Wikipedia is suppose to be user friendly, and it would be a useful search term given the hundreds of thousands of young Polish workers living in the UK these days, who would likely use english Wikipedia. Martintg 02:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is user friendly: Poles in the UK are permitted to access pl.wikipedia.org. If they choose to use en.wikipedia.org, I doubt that finding hundreds of thousands of Polish words there is what they looked for. -- Matthead ^discuß! O 03:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get your reasoning. Above you mention Britannica redirects Wilno to Vilnius, yet you think Wikipedia shouldn't and want to delete this disamb page. Martintg 04:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you can't tell the difference between the usefulness of the Polish name Wilno redirecting [25] to the proper name Vilnius, and the uselessness of the made-up Operation Wilno that comprises the Polish name and promotes Polish POV?-- Matthead ^discuß! O 14:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I can tell, and no one pointed that one out yet including Britannica abstract - thru centuries Lithuania was part od Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Vilnius was called Wilno more times than not. #1 Polish poets Adam Mickiewicz and Juliusz Słowacki came from Wilno or its suburbs. Another poet Czesław Miłosz, a Lithuanian, wrote only in Polish. It didn't hinder him to win the Nobel Prize in literature. There are of course other names of this 900 years old city in different languages like Vilnyuse in Russian, but they are meaningless. So I'm asking again - what's wrong with Wilno, and where you've got this POV from? It's called history. greg park avenue 15:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had pointed out that this Afd is about the "made-up Operation Wilno that ... promotes Polish POV" and violates WP:NOR, and not about "Wilno or its suburbs". Stop filibustering. -- Matthead ^discuß! O 16:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was there an English name of Vilnius, I would settle for that in English Wikipedia. Since there is none, your WP:NOR does not apply here. Polish military operation deserve Polish name, not Lithuanian one, just to make Wikipedia more transparent. This name exists since even before Teutonic Knightys arrival and was in common use until recently, just like Lwów or Poznań, not Lviv or Posen. Russians ruled Wilno several decades, while Germans several years only. Polish were there since the beginning. It's history if you like it or not, something neither you nor me can change now. greg park avenue 16:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that is a WP:OR at the large - could you please be more specific - in waht context Wilno was mentioned "before" "Teutonic Knightys" arrival? Until the middle of 19th century this teritory was mainly Lithuanian speaking and every single map until 19th century portrays Vilna not Wilno (i.e. latin form of the city name). I know that there were some Poles living in Vilnius (one short street) in 14th century (note that it is quite long ago after German Order was invited by Duke of Masovia).

And I do love this one "Was there an English name of Vilnius, I would settle for that in English Wikipedia. Since there is none" - well, care to elaborate waht do you men with this verbal equilibristics? Since I can see [26] 33 millions of pages (its English sites only). As for Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth you tend to forget Lithuanian in that aspect, and also tend to forget Grand Duchy of Lithuania, that existed for centuries and even in Commonwealth regained high level of authonomy.--Lokyz 08:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greg makes a good point. Articles about operations tend to be named in the language of the respective country carrying it out, e.g. Operation Sonderaktion Krakau Martintg 19:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, would you elaborate what state was it in 1919? Or what state was it in 1944?--Lokyz 08:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the very point I am making below. For some reason it seems to be ignored by other editors... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is Operation Wilno codename of operation? NO, it is not. Is Sonderaktion Krakau codename of operation? Yes, it is. See difference? oh by the way Sonderaktion Krakau yields a number of academic publications including Polish. This thy we do not call Operation Ostra Brama as Operation Aušros Vartai or Operation Gates of Dawn. By such two comments, presented above by contributors who says that this ORish disamb. should stay, became evident one more thing that Operation Wilno even misleads readers. Yet another argument why this should be deleted. M.K. 09:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not dictionary. M.K. 12:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The disambig is now subject to deliberate removal of references and institution of errors (with substitution of term unused in Polish historiography - operacja Wilno - instead of term used - operacja Wileńska). Presenting arguments at AfD is one thing. Damaging the main article to make it more likely to be deleted is quite another. Please stop such disruptive actions.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 13:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I strongly suggest next time, then providing diffs provide them in proper manner; there is no reason to skip intermediate versions [27]. M.K. 15:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's analyze so called sources ::[28] there is nothing that would reference in it term "Operation Wilno"

[29] references only operacja wilenska, which is not under question. Operacja wilenska does not translate as Operation Wilno. Or if you insist that it does translate that way you must provide WP:RS for that. If you want to prove that there is Polish equivalent to Operation Wilno you must provide source for Operacja Wilno.

[30] Same as above.

You were asked specifically to provide sources for Operation Wilno not Operacja wilenska, because article in question is named Operation Wilno not operacja wilenska. Replacing fact tags with references that do not reference the fact in question is disruptive indeed. M0RD00R 13:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Operacja translated as Operation. Wileńska in this context translates as Wilno. It's a very simple translation.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 13:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said you must provide WP:RS for that. If it is that simple translation it wouldn't be a problem for you to provide sources. But it is not possible because operacja wilenska does not translate that way. Show me one term "XXX wilenski" in Polish that would translate as "XXX Wilno" in English. M0RD00R 14:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is for the very fact that it is a simple, obvious translation (ask any Polish-English speaker) that there are no sources for it; dictionaries, after all, offer no translations of constructs. But in any case, here's the ref for operation translating as operacja ([31]), as for Wilno, here's a Britannica article ([32]).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 14:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking you to provide translation for operacja, I'm not asking to provide translation for Wilno. I'm asking to provide translation for "OPERACJA WILNO". And you can't do it as I see. You know why? Because it does not translate that way. XXX wilenski does not translate as XXX Wilno in English. Just quick tour though google [33].

Magazyn Wilenski does not translate as Magazine Wilno.

Kurier Wilenski does not translate as Courier Wilno.

Uniwersytet Wileński does translate as University Wilno.

And so on. M0RD00R 14:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read a little about military operation naming conventions, and consider why Operacja Ostra Brama is Operation Ostra Brama ([34]).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 14:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway Wikipedia is not run by "you say, I say" rule. If you want Operation Wilno to be kept. You must provide MULTIPLE WP:RS for that exact name. Everything else is your opinion, or in Wiki language WP:OR. M0RD00R 14:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Than I assume you would support deletions of Kielce pogrom (1918) - no hits outside Wikipedia ([35]), or Kraków pogrom (disambiguation) (again, no hits for that exact name)? Or course I am not serious. Those are notable events, although our naming conventions lead to creation of names that are not used elsewhere. The Operation Wilno disambig is a perfectly reasonable name per encyclopedic and military naming conventions - actually for more than one; hence the disambiguation. Your dislike of "Wilno" is no reason to delete the article, as many have pointed.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 15:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike lack of WP:RS for this name. But leaving your off-topic speculations, does your post mean that you finally admit that the term "Operation Wilno" was created by authors of this article? If you still do not admit this fact, please provide MULTIPLE WP:RS for this exact term. Operation Wilno that is. M0RD00R 15:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The alleged violation of WP:NOR, even if true, is not substantial. Evidence of use of the term has been provided. That is good enough. The Wikipedia:Notability guideline does not apply to disambiguation pages. --SmokeyJoe 12:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Strong keep By the nominator's logic, Watch on the Rhine (disambiguation) should also be deleted, if it pointed only to the Ardennes offensive and some other German operation called "Unternehmen: Wacht am Rhein".--victor falk 13:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One vote[36] is enough. -- Matthead ^discuß! O 13:49, 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 delete. W.marsh 21:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Majority choice approval[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete. Original research. Vanity. This method has neither been published nor used anywhere. See first nomination and second nomination. Yellowbeard 10:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NOT Original research. No evidence this method has ever been used, but it has been published. --Fahrenheit451 00:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This method has neither been published nor used anywhere. There is not a single Google book result. And all Google hits refer to Wikipedia mirrors or mailing lists. It is quite obvious that this article is original research. Yellowbeard 10:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that only two users participate at this AfD exemplifies the complete lack of notabiliy of this article. Yellowbeard 12:42, 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 for failing WP:BIO.--Alasdair 13:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deja Daire[edit]

Doesn't pass WP:BIO. Epbr123 10:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question The infobox says her "number of films" is 95. Does that make her notable? Of course, see WP:PORNBIO for relevant criteria. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 12:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. I tagged it as ((db-nocontext)). It also could have been tagged as ((db-bio)), as there is no assertion of notability. --Evb-wiki 16:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the speedy tag for now; let's give the AFD process a chance to work, hmm? Tabercil 22:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 22:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. I couldn't find any non-trivial refs either. Also kudos to nominator for making every effort, including finding and adding a picture, before nominating the article for deletion. That's dedication. :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 06:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. -RiverHockey 18:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per AnonEMouse. Tabercil 03:25, 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 no consensus/keep. W.marsh 14:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies regarding instant-runoff voting[edit]

Delete. This article has been created exclusively for POV purposes. This article doesn't cite any peer-reviewed publications. Yellowbeard 09:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Content fork of the discussion of advantages and disadvantages of instant runoff voting already found in the main article. The heading "Reasons for support and why they're wrong" is the clearest indicator of an obvious pro-instant runoff bias, a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not a place to campaign for or against any voting system. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry about not checking the article's history well enough, I am withdrawing my vote, and abstaining for now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided This article is in creation as a way of cleaning the IRV article itself, by moving disputed debate about IRV to this separate article (linked from the main article). I agree that the phrase "why they are wrong" adds bias...but AGAINST IRV not in favor... it says why the PRO arguments are wrong. Perhaps this article can reside on some discussion page instead of as an article, until it is ready for prime time. In the mean time I will clean out that offensive phrase to make it neutral.

Tbouricius 14:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The blatantly POV heading mentioned above was vandalism of the article, by an acknowledged pro-IRV editor upset ("pissed" in the edit comment) about what he saw as the thrust of the discussion of each point. That was not an accurate view. This is a stub, proposed by various editors of Instant Runoff Voting, and, in fact, created by an experienced editor who seems friendly to IRV. I reorganized the article to deal with points one by one, and my edits doing that were simply a proposal and example of how we could proceed, and further edits to remove my possible POV or unbalanced comments were invited and I understood that they would take place, plus, obviously, "Con" claims would need to be added and similarly discussed. I only had so much time! All or most of the comments can be referenced, and, indeed, some of the necessary references are in the Instant Runoff Voting article, so it is only a matter of a little time until those references are transferred or otherwise found -- or the comments are taken out as unsourced and controversial. Terrill Bouricius for example, is a published author in the field, and a consultant to FairVote; the sarcastic editor Tom Ruen is affiliated with FairVote Minnesota. I am, on occasion, an advisor to the Center for Range Voting, and, while I am known as a critic of FairVote, my personal goal, on Wikipedia, is accuracy, balance, and the creation of interesting and informative articles. The originator of the page is Captain Zyrain who is a participant in the Wikiproject Elections and Referenda. I hope that editor Tom Ruen will participate in making the Controversies article accurate and balanced. I am also confident that we are all open to suggestions about how to proceed with organizing this new article, but we found that including Pro and Con arguments in the Instant-runoff voting article was a source of constant conflict, sometimes going back and forth, settling, and then going back and forth again as a new editor shows up. Moving this to its own page will, we expect, allow the main article to become more stable. Controversy is really about people and how they argue, not about the topic itself, yet it is clearly related to the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd (talk • contribs) 15:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is becoming more balanced now and I anticipate this page will deal with the controversies in reference to IRV at a level of depth that would not have been suitable for the main article. Captain Zyrain 15:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided - I think this article could have potential, but is not worthy as-is, hence my header vandalism that better reflected the unbalanced content. Tom Ruen 18:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Abd's excellent argument. I don't like forks, but this seems possibly useful. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Abd's statement. I hope Yellowbeard is not engaging in a pattern of tendentious AfD's. --Fahrenheit451 00:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided Last time I looked at the article it was very poor. Today when I checked it out it's much better. I'm still not sure it this topic deserves its own article... but if people keep improving this article it could be worth having. Paladinwannabe2 22:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly a notable issue is involved. The title may not be the best. If it is a fork, content should be merged and the history retained. --SmokeyJoe 14:03, 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. - Mailer Diablo 20:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Hauser[edit]

Hoax. First line says it all; "shot down a sopwith camel with a pistol"... A^RendedWinter 09:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As obvious hoax. Someone who shot down an aircraft with a pistol surely deserves a medal though! Spellcast 09:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea if this person existed or not, but in the early days of World War One, with air warfare in its infancy, pilots did shoot at each other with pistols. The crews of one cumbersome British plane commonly resorted to throwing toilet rolls at attacking German fighters in an attempt to drive them off. It wouldn't have been impossible to shoot down a WW1 fighter with a lucky shot from a handgun. Nick mallory 11:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While there WAS a notable Sam Hauser, he wasn't German or involved in WWI. He was killed before then. No sources to establish the notability of this one.--Sethacus 16:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete my motto: fails WP:ATT and WP:N. Probably a WP:HOAX. Carlosguitar 18:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hard to tell if it is a hoax or not, and it really doesn't matter. The feat is not especially notable or a one-of-a-kind event. The infantrymen who may have shot down the Red Baron get their own articles. Somebody downing an anonymous Allied pilot doesn't. Clarityfiend 20:01, 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 21:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the Sunny Side: A Tribute to the Carter Family[edit]

Non-notable tribute album with no sources beyond a track list. It has virtually no potential to expand. Spellcast 08:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 12:12, 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 20:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Queer justice league[edit]

Organisation a few months old. My prod was removed on the grounds that the article "asserts importance". I do not see any such assertion and certainly no evidence of notability is offered. -- RHaworth 07:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong keep~~ Delete per nom. I feel it's put together well, and while the name is a little controversial, I feel its importance, especially to the LGBT community asserts itself. I added a cat as requested, a project tag on the talk page, and an appropriate stub tag, but even that I suppose may leave questions unanswered as to it's notability. Carter | Talk to me 07:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you think that external links might also help? -- RHaworth 09:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add them. I don't know what you tone is meant to be taken as, but once again, wasn't me who did it. Carter | Talk to me 12:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources that attest to the notability of the fledgeling organization. Nice to read that Larry's still at it, though. Otto4711 12:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto. Didn't know he was still stirring up trouble, and am glad he is! When the org has a little more third-party reliable press, *then* it can have an article. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -RiverHockey 18:22, 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 20:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NONVERBAL-VERBAL[edit]

Poorly written fork of nonverbal communication and subliminal message on a non-redirectworthy title. Marginally better than nonverbalverbal by the same author which was twice deleted as nonsense. -- RHaworth 07:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, but maybe transfer the references to subliminal message. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 12:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete

As per nom. also the capitals makes my eyes hurt foreverDEAD 18:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fork or WP:OR. Carlossuarez46 04:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no citations, non notable, poorly written, with numerous grammar and spelling errors.RemoWilliams 05:31, 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 no consensus. W.marsh 21:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-war Left[edit]

No sign of any verifiable sources that a notable group actually exists. Yes, this term has been used by the media, but in a generalised sense rather than as referring to a specific grouping of people; Anti-war left has also been used by the media, but there's no actual group of those people either. Pak21 07:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The term is certainly notable and in use in political debates in Britain, a subject I can only presume the nominator is unfamiliar with. For instance there's this piece [37] by Johann Hari in the Independent discussing 'The pro-war left's disastrous misjudgment' in supporting the liberation of Iraq. The piece is comprehensively demolished by Oliver Kamm here [38]. Here's an article on the widely read Guardian comment is free site [39] by John Lloyd, John Harris [40] and another by (the odious) Neil Clark [41]. The New Statesmen also discusses the term [42] here. The fact that Nick Cohen and Chris Hitchens don't share a flat isn't exactly relevant. One can define and discuss the 'pro war left' without it actually being a political party. If Dissent magazine can do it [43] why can't Wikipedia? Nick mallory 11:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm more than familiar with political debate in the UK; such personal attacks won't help your case. I still hold that while this term is used by various bits of the media, there isn't actually a grouping of people here. How exactly would I know if someone is a member of this group? To go from the article, "the Euston Manifesto is the closest the PWL has come to a statement of its principles." but also that "[the manifesto] is ambivalent about supporting the invasion of Iraq", which seems to be rather contradictory. As to why a random magazine can define the term but Wikipedia can't, that's the difference between a comment magazine and an encyclopedia. --Pak21 11:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't have to be a march under the banner of 'the pro war left' for it to be a notable term. It doesn't have to be an actual organised group. It's not a personal attack to point out that you're wrong on this one.Nick mallory 23:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adequate notability and citations. If membership is disputed for particular individuals then edit or cite accordingly. This is not a reason to delete the whole article. Colonel Warden 12:27, 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 20:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mann model[edit]

I think this is a POV fork for Temperature record of the past 1000 years, which is the page that "Hockey Stick graph" redirects to. I hve never heard the graph being referred to by that name. Let me know what you all think! Brusegadi 06:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I added some tags to try and help it out plus I wikified a bit, but feel it is beyond help. No real pertinent information. Not the worst idea to merge to article referenced above. Carter | Talk to me 07:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete hopelessly confused, POV fork, nothing here that isn't much better said elsewhere William M. Connolley 08:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - if the report is known to have 155 pages then it could be referenced. Hoax, POV, Nonsense ... not a valid article anyway. Springnuts 21:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poorly written POV fork. de Bivort 07:48, 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. - Mailer Diablo 20:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Eugin von Mühlfeld[edit]

Unsourced one line article about a possible son of Napoleon born out of wedlock - I'll assume that WP:BLP doesn't apply as he must be about 200 years old by now, but it's really not encyclopedic - if this were sourced it would really belong in Napoleon's article where his dalliances should reside; the otherwise nn offspring from them remain nn. Notability isn't inherited. Carlossuarez46 06:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:NOT#CRYSTAL Carter | Talk to me 07:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For lack of sourcing.--Sethacus 17:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I only find this on a couple of web pages -- nothing in Google Books or Scholar. I don't think even the speculation is reliably sourced. --Dhartung | Talk 23:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Napoleon#Marriages and children--victor falk 01:42, 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 22:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prostockmaster[edit]

This is an article for an apparently nn software for Microstock Photography. Speedy deletion was declined as the article's uncited unsourced unferified claim of "thousands of users" was accepted as a "weak stab of notability". The only sources on the article are blogs. B1atv 06:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that any number here is questionable and I do not mind editing the article to change that. Regarding the blogs: today I can not tell you who deliver more trusted information - is that blogs or various "official" sites? Many good software applications were started by individuals, supported by bloggers and then become the industry-standard success stories, we all know that. --Wallas88 16:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 01:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as has no reliable sources to demonstrate notability. --Gavin Collins 02:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It may be notable and simply needing sources. 80,000 google hits, many mentions on sites like cnet. It's obviously a real working released product and has substantial adoption. However, most sources are download sites as is usually the case. Nothing jumped out at me but if someone would care to dig a little more they can probably get to the bottom of whether it's notable or not. Wikidemo 13:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google scholar comes up with nothning, nor could I find any other reliable sources. --Gavin Collins 23:07, 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 delete. W.marsh 22:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Myn Dwun[edit]

None Notable, can not not find any secondary sources. Ridernyc 05:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable and seems to not be very well known. Kevin 06:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think all it may need is some references, and cleanup a bit. It's not a terrible article. Carter | Talk to me 07:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to pass WP:MUSIC, regardless of how well it could be written.--Sethacus 17:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.[1] - Myn Dwun has had articles written on him and his music in both the Toledo Blade and Ludington Daily News, as well as mention in Maui Times.

7. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. - As someone with much time invested in the music scene in western Michigan, Myn Dwun is one of a kind in and out of the local scene. Just as anyone who has had the opportunity to hear his music would tell you. 10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that page.) - Included on the Offbeats 2.1 Vinyl and Offbeats 2.0 Cd compilation released by German Hip Hop label Subversiv Rec, which has also released vinyl albums by many other notable artists found within wikipedia. LeftMittenHHWiki 19:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Well-made, but unnotable. tomasz. 01:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Said personage does not appear to have enough to meet WP:Music yet. Some local fame and a handful of guest appearances do not a notable person make. I agree that he might become notable in the future, but we can't have articles based on what people might do. A1octopus 16:24, 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. - Mailer Diablo 20:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hip hop moguls[edit]

Arbitrary and poorly written list. Ridernyc 05:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT indiscriminate. This is an indiscriminate list, with the POV term "mogul" in the title. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete poorly written, and a terrible subject. Agree with above. Carter | Talk to me 07:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete what is the point of this? --Alessandro 19:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like an essay and not a good one. and made of WP:OR. tomasz. 01:14, 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 20:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Klan Andlux[edit]

Deltion nomination as a non-notable band. Fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC guidelines. Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carter | Talk to me 07:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Sethacus 17:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only claim to notability (Atlantic) appears to be hoax. tomasz. 22:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlos Carrillo Cortez. tomasz. 22:52, 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 00:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pasta brownie[edit]

Article reads completely of nonsense. Even if it is true, it is clearly not notable. The creator of this article also removed a valid picure from the Italian cuisine article for a regional cuisine and added the picture of this (food?). I believe it should have been deleted under speedy deletion but an Admin. removed the tag which is why I am bringing it here. A combination of the articles ludicrous content and the vandalism the user committed using the article leaves me very suspect. Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 05:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment - a look of the users contributions will also show that they placed the picture of this "dish" in a large number of article, such as Dessert, Fusion cuisine, Pasta, Sandwich, Lasagna, Square academic cap, Chocolate brownie, Sloppy joe, Lasagna (song). Leads to further belief in the article being vandalism.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 06:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, quite possibly a hoax. Nothing worth repeating on google about this. --TeaDrinker 05:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons I posted on the initial ((prod)). To quote, "Have every reason to believe this is a hoax. Such an unusual creation would surely be noted on Google, but there are no relevant search results. In addition, the copyright tag on the image page is highly suspect, claiming that the photograph seen on this page was published in 1949 and has thus lapsed into public domain. However, a Google image search once again provides no relevant hits." --jonny-mt(t)(c) 06:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from anything else, the photo has clearly been (very poorly) Photoshopped together, and I don't believe they had Photoshop in 1949 ChrisTheDude 10:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hmm, looks good! Not notable at all, though. Kevin 06:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete weird! it does look good, but yeah, WP:N not so much Carter | Talk to me 07:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not look good (chocolate pasta? x_x), but really per TeaDrinker's reasoning. JuJube 07:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Googled it, in quotes, and the only thing to come up on the first page was a restaurant which sells Pasta and Brownies at the same price. Most likely a hoax. Bensmith53 09:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hoax, or joke or whatever it is, it is not notable. Iamchrisryan 12:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As amusing as this is, the photo was derived from http://archone.tamu.edu/archcom/InsideTrack/Images/lasagna.jpg and so I have deleted it as a copyright violation. Unless someone has any objections, I think this article can be snowed/deleted. --B 14:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - well he's added the picture back again. Along with some other odd picture.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 21:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be a hoax intended to justify the (now deleted) image which the same contributor tried to insert into no less than 10 separate articles (including replacing the cover of a music album called 'lasagna', which is not the action of someone interested in making constructive edits). Cosmo0 18:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no such thing. Yamaguchi先生 02:25, 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 speedy delete (A7). J Milburn 19:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Cursed (band)[edit]

Fails WP:BAND, not notable. Carlossuarez46 05:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable at all, obscure band. Kevin 06:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#SOAP I feel it may be a band member Carter | Talk to me 07:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 08:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, pov, vanity... Iamchrisryan 12:40, 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. Secret ^sup 04:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnacle Kiss[edit]

Google search shows no hits for the term Barnacle Kiss. Ridernyc 05:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very non-notable. Kevin 06:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 07:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sexy.--Saturday's Loss 11:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable...Is this a joke, becuase it is most certainly not encyclopedic. Iamchrisryan 12:41, 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 both. I will reconsider if sources are found. W.marsh 14:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Moon Over Brooklyn[edit]

nn album and artist, both fail WP:MUSIC.

I am also nominating:

Pumpkinhead (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Orange Moon Over Brooklyn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Carlossuarez46 05:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I could not find anything about him on google news. 1 english cd review. --WheezyF 15:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. So? Google news might be a good place to look up world politics, but an irrelevant one to look for an underground hip-hop artist.

Anyway:

Pumpkinhead's first 12" single was "Dynamic" b/w "It's over", which went #1 in the Hits, Gavin and CMJ charts. (pass per WP:M2) His second single was produced by El-P, then of Company Flow.

Pumpkinhead is known as a battle champion, holding two Braggin Rites Championships and an End of the Weak Challenge championship. (pass per WP:M9)

Has also toured in Japan, Australia, Sweden, Amsterdam and over 40 US states. (which i think could easily constitute a "US tour" also), given that there's only 50 in total. Opened tours (support act) for the likes of the Goo Goo Dolls on the Lyricist Lounge Technology Tour an Boot Camp Clik on the Lyricists Lounge Tour. (pass per WP:M11)

i'm aware i haven't sourced these. that is pending, as are examples of more of his passes of WP:MUSIC. tomasz. 16:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has won championships that are only known in the underground rap section? He has not had his own tour. Not sure being on someone else's tour is the same thing. He had a number one hit on 3 charts, the only one that even has an article is CMJ which stands for College Music Journal. He does not seem notable at all. How notable can an underground artist be? I won't stand in your way tho. --WheezyF 13:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Orange Moon Over Brooklyn. No independent sources. --SmokeyJoe 14:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pumpkinhead (rapper). Undecided. --SmokeyJoe 12:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources are provided. At the moment the article sums up perfectly someone who wants to be notable but fails. Nuttah68 15:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the musician (contest wins and a tour prove notability) but speedy delete Orange Moon Over Brooklyn|the CD]] as violating WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:N. Notability is not inherited. Bearian 19:04, 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.

Vanna Bonta[edit]

The result of this discussion was Delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was Delete. Espresso Addict 16:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dares to Speak[edit]

I can't fond any review of this compilation of essays. Its rank on Amazon.com is 2,233,636.[44] The author has appeared and replaced the plot summary with the publisher's blurb.[45] Without any 3rd-party sources there's no way to make sure the article is balanced and NPOV. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, SqueakBox 23:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obscure collection of academic essays, largely unknown, even in its own field. Enrico Dirac 23:55, 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, with no prejudice to creating article on the author. Espresso Addict 16:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loving Sander[edit]

I can't fond any review of this novel. Its rank on Amazon.com is 1,793,947.[46] The author has appeared and replaced the plot summary with the publisher's blurb.[47] Without any 3rd-party sources there's no way to make sure the article is balanced and NPOV. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article should be deleted. It fails to meet the notability and verifiability principles. It has not received 'substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources'. There are no views of literary scholars or historians. It consists purely of original research - a personal (subjective) observation and interpretation. Strichmann 07:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There would seem to be two options if we delete this article and Dares to Speak.

1. create a page on Geraci, mentioning all his works. 2. mention both with a very short summary on the Paidika page - where Geraci is noted as editor. Most of the content in Dares to Speak seems to have been published originally in Paidika. I favour option 2.

Before you go ahead, Will, why not reference this on the Wikipedia article watch page? Tony 08:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Tony[reply]

Option 2 could be fine - provided no summaries are given. E.g. simply state that "Mr Geraci is the author of 'Loving Sander' and the editor of 'Dares to Speak'" - or something along those lines. This will certainly avoid the potential problems of lack of balance / no secondary sources re. the summary. Strichmann 18:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, SqueakBox 20:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Somewhat notable member of niche publishing genre. Almost zero mainstream coverage, and there are 1,793,946 books regular folks are more interested in. Enrico Dirac 23:51, 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 22:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J. Kirk Sullivan[edit]

Going through the references at the bottom of the article, I'm finding them very poor proof of notability and WP:BIO. One is just a quote from him on the Larry Craig story, another appears to be a blog-ish thing of two paras. Those I looked at were not much more than his name and a quote. Oh, and he endowed a couple of chairs at a Univ., always good for copy. What do others think? Pig^man 04:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As creator of the article, I have reviewed the article in light of Pig^man's criticism. I deleted several of the links in that regard, but I believe the article is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia and is encyclopaedic. This gentleman is quite important in Republican politics, especially in Idaho.Crazylikeafoxx 16:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aside from being a copyvio of [48], if he is so important, how come he only has one newspaper mention? Clarityfiend 06:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unable to find reliable sources to suport notability for the subject. -- Whpq 18:48, 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 Rediredct to HTTP cookie#Cookie theft. The Placebo Effect 00:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cookie grabber[edit]

This is patent nonsense; no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever. It fails to describe what the attack is or how it works. Rulesdoc 04:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; Not much content, but not patent nonsense. Most readers could understand this (assuming they knew what a cookie was, in this context). More than two years old and still no more than a dictionary definition, so I don't see much reason for it. Masaruemoto 04:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this is patent nonsense, a Google search turns up a number of security discussions. The lack of info would favor marking it as a stub. That being said, it doesn't seem to be a commonly enough used term to merit it's own article. Maybe transwiki to Wiktionary? CitiCat^♫ 04:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Not patent nonsense, but would be better off pointing to Cookie theft--Lenticel ^(talk) 09:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to HTTP cookie#Cookie theft 2, which is already much longer than this stub and presents it in sufficient context. Thomjakobsen 13:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This article was so confusingly worded that it wasn't clear to me that it had anything to do with XSS, but if it is, Cookie theft is the right place to redirect to. Rulesdoc 00:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - as per above. The section is better developed than the current article. If it expands enough to merit its won article, it can be done then. -- Whpq 18:50, 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 22:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arman sadeghi[edit]

I'm not finding a lot of notability here per WP:BIO. Googling the various companies and businesses, I'm not finding much in the way of WP:RS. Pig^man 03:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article doesn't seem to assert notability (other than an interesting educational history) and I found none. Accounting4Taste 05:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A couple of inspirational stories about his time at UC Berkeley, but those don't speak to notability. Also, it's obviously a vanity bio.--Sethacus 18:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Needs to be fixed I am a counselor at the community college he attended where he made a big change in his life. This is an incredible story of going from drop-out to Harvard Medical School. Maybe it needs to be redone to show the story better. I do not write much in Wikipedia but I wrote this one because I think it's an amazing inspiration. I'm sure it will be much more interesting once it has been added to. There are several interesting news articles about his life story that have been published over the years. Check out this one from Contra Costa Times (Article ID: 2001138542, Published on May 18, 2001, Contra Costa Times (Walnut Creek, CA){PUBLICATION2}) Tsr256 22:49, 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--JForget 00:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOOSE CHANGE (END THE WAR)[edit]

Appears to fail WP:ORG. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article appears to be part of a scam. The external link at the bottom, here, takes you to what looks like a dummy version of the Loose Change (film) official website. I can't help but notice the prominent purchase and donate buttons... Ichormosquito 04:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If it's not a scam, it's a nn antiwar student group from Seattle. Ichormosquito 04:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable group. Kevin 06:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable group. Nick mallory 06:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an advertisement for an Internet scam. Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think I'd call it a scam, but it's definitely non-notable and not encyclopedic by our standards. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The real Loose Change film meets standards, this weird scam thing doesn't. • Lawrence Cohen 16:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete THE FACT THAT THE ARTICLE'S TITLE IS IN ALL-CAPS RAISES WARNING FLAGS. But perhaps that is just me using my un-Wikipedian intuition.--WaltCip 03:57, 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 22:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Punch an' Pie[edit]

Tagged for speedy deletion by Tony Sidaway, tag removed by CComMack without explanation. Should be debated here in full. Currently no references other than the site itself. There don't appear to be reliable sources out there, just blogs and so on. I've read this webcomic and enjoyed it, but it may simply be too new for a verifiable article at this point. Chick Bowen 03:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete non notable webcomic foreverDEAD 15:15, 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 22:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Taylor[edit]

Non notable shopping channel presenter. Some Google hits, but no non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, and she fails WP:BIO. Crazysuit 03:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete- not notable, barely an article here...Iamchrisryan 12:46, 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 20:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Bar Maid[edit]

Two newly invented drinks, appears to have been added as vanity (read first article draft). No evidence of notability. TeaDrinker 03:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While new drinks, they are popular in the Baltimore-area where I live. I am very new to this site, so I am working at improving the entries. I understand the aspect of vanity, and it has been corrected to be more formal and factual. Nightop 11:16, 17 October 2007 (EST)
- You need to find reliable sources. Can you remember seeing any of these drinks in print? Ichormosquito 04:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Kevin 06:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that they are notable (see WP:N) drinks (if they even exist, neither article has any sources). TJ Spyke 07:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources, no notability207.69.137.43 01:32, 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. - Mailer Diablo 20:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goise[edit]

Looks like a neologism to me. Only relevant Google hit on first page is Urban Dictionary. Nothing for define:Goise on Google. Deleted PROD. Hawaiian717 03:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NEO and probably made up one day. Pig^man 03:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a word that doesn't mean anything. Have you tried Undictionary? CitiCat^♫ 04:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pigman. The Urban Dictionary is also user editable.--Yannick 04:33, 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 22:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subzero Zine[edit]

A music review magazine that appears to be self-published. No sources are cited to establish notability and an online search yields only a small number of Myspace-esque and fan sources. One could interpret the list of bands interviewed as an assertion of notability which is why I didn't tag for speedy deletion. CIreland 02:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears non-notable to me. No sources. Pig^man 19:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -RiverHockey 18:31, 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 (no content to merge and does not seem a likely search term). Espresso Addict 02:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chilled vacuum packed beef[edit]

I originally prodded this as unsourced and encyclopedic. Author removed the prod without improving the article, stating on his talk page (in effect) that it was original research. --Finngall ^talk 02:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. It's very difficult to see how there can be an article in the making here. — BillC ^talk 19:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the talk page listed two cites: [49] and [50], for what it is worth. No opinion. Bearian 00:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to vacuum packing. I don't think there's anything that can be merged.--Yannick 04:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and unsourced. The links mentioned above are to blogs promoting a book on said subject; the authors name (Jorge Dey) bears a suspicious similarity to that of the creator of the article. Cosmo0 22:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sourcing. Article is sub-stub -- Whpq 18:56, 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Rimmer[edit]

No such person is listed on IMDB [51] SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 02:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Hoax. He played Manuel in Fawlty Towers and Baldrick in Blackadder? I think not.~~ Not a hoax, per Dhartung, but still not-notable, no reliable sources.--Sethacus 02:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no attribution of notability to independent sources. Sethacus, I'm pretty certain the credit is for some sort of dinner theatre production of a FT script. --Dhartung | Talk 03:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Aha! Didn't appear that way at first glance. Thanks for pointing that out.--Sethacus 15:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per above. Ichormosquito 04:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable hoax. Iamchrisryan 12:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable hoax. Pig^man 19:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is NOT a hoax!!!! I have seen this guy perform and he is great!!! Me and my sister were googling him and only found a small amount of what he had done, and so I feel that that this is relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carrey1 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 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 Speedy keep per group plus request by JetLover (initial AfD requestor) - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Judgment (Angelico)[edit]

Does not read very wiki like, also POV concerns as well. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 02:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete it.--Angel David 02:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 02:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Plenty of sources to establish notability including [52], [53], [54], [55], [56]. Cleanup is more appropriate. --NeilN 02:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; It's an important painting by a Renaissance artist, it can't be deleted just because it needs cleanup. I've improved it slightly, but I don't see any POV there. Masaruemoto 04:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Clean up It seems to be a notable painting, but work needs to be done on the article. - Kevin 06:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —Ethicoaestheticist 18:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 72 hits in Google scholar for this painting, only looking for the ones that spell the title in English (surely there are plenty more in other languages). This seems very likely to satisfy the requirement for multiple reliable nontrivial secondary sources, and provide plenty of material to include in the article. —David Eppstein 18:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It appears to be notable, it just needs to undergo a clean up Г^edʃtǁcɭ 18:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Fra Angelico painted several Last Judgments: another notable version is now in Berlin.[57] He also had a hand in the frescoes at Orvieto which depict the same subject. Searches for references have to be made carefully to ensure that they are referring to the right work.--Ethicoaestheticist 20:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as no valid reasons for deletion have been presented. Avb 21:43, 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.

Justin Zimmerman[edit]

The result of this discussion was Delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was No consensus. Some of these one-time characters are more notable than others; contrary to assertions below (once the fundamental requirements of WP:V and WP:N are met), the onus is those favoring deletion to show why the article should not be kept. "When in doubt, don't delete." In the case of the Simpsons, all of these characters have assuredly been subject to notable coverage in some source; although the sourcing presently isn't perfect, this does not make a case for a policy-demanded deletion. The consensus among the community needed to delete simply isn't present here. Xoloz 13:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of one-time characters from The Simpsons[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I am nominating this article for deletion for a number of reasons. The first of these reasons being that their is no need to have a massively long article that lists characters that appear once in a 19 season series. Second, how is a character defined as notable enough to appear on this list? "For purposes of this list, "one-time" means they were central to an episode one time." While that is clear enough criteria, could it not be simply summarized in the article of the one episode they appear in? Lastly, many of the summaries are only one line long, which is not enough info to be considered notable. This type of information belongs in a Simpsons Wiki, rather than Wikipedia The Placebo Effect 02:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep First off, some of the characters appear in more than one episode, they were just CENTRAL to one episode. Some of these characters pretty notable, such as Frank Grimes, Leon Kompowsky, Jacques, Hank Scorpio, etc, etc. And, the reason they are limited to one line is because otherwise, it is very crufty. Is this more to your liking? Because that's what the page used to look like. Getting to the WP:FICT guidelines, I think the page passes because it has some real world information, as well as sources that prove notability. And for the "it's pure cruft" crowd (who will be along shortly), but if this isn't Simpsons cruft, I don't know what is. I hate to user the "Other crap exists" defense, but it did survive an AFD a couple months ago. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you hate to use that example then don't use it. An besides that article is currently PRODed and will most likely come to AFD when it is removed. The Placebo Effect 15:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Not to mention, it doesn't even have all that much info on the characters. Probably merge with the episodes they were in. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 02:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, so we decide to cut down on the cruft and removed stuff that was basically a rehash of an episode, as well as removed characters that appeared for less than a minute, and now people want to delete because of a LACK of information? If you guys think this is a better page, then I will happily revert back to it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And by the way, they appeared one time, in one episode. I doubt they're notable. I mean, say you were on a jog one morning. You pass a guy, and you both tell each other "hi." You won't remember him for a long time. Kind of like that. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 02:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I think it should be deleted because it is unnecessary information that can be summarized on the episode pages and on a Simpsons Wiki. The Placebo Effect 02:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Took the words right out of my mouth. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 02:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The list of characters is being cleaned up so that it only contains recurring characters, so a list of these one-timers should be somewhere because some of them are quite notable. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Such as? Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 02:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Frank Grimes, star of the episode Homer's Enemy, gets 72,000 google hits, pretty good when the likes of Groundskeeper Willie get 90,000 hits. Others like Hank Scorpio (You Only Move Twice), Cecil Terwilliger (Brother From Another Series), Jacques (Life on the Fast Lane), Leon Kompowsky (Stark Raving Dad), Llyellyn Sinclair (A Streetcar Named Marge), and many more who played important roles in important episodes and should be noted somewhere. Besides, some of the articles for episodes that these characters were in are GAs (and in the case of A Streetcar Named Marge, Homer's Enemy and You Only Move Twice, FAs), so the information in those articles is devoted more to the episode, rather than the character. And I can guarantee you that if this page is deleted, the fanboys will either a) create a page for the characters or b) try and create unsourced sections in the episode pages. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Sure, keep Grimes, but the others have only appeared once, and are more important to the episode then the series. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 02:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        If we delete it people will make bad pages is not a valid argument for keeping the article. There isn't a FA article in this encyclopedia that can't withstand a single sentence on a character, if the character is actually important to the episode. Otto4711 14:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Simpsons have become such an wide-ranging part of popular culture that even small cross-slices have become relevant (see Frank Grimes, above). Also can't see any purpose served by merging or otherwise chopping up this list. CitiCat^♫ 04:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can see no obvious variance from any guideline or policy that would lead me to think this should be deleted. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read this quote from the last afd The Placebo Effect 06:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  ... the arguments presented says this comes down to a bun-fight between Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). This material is a very high level of detail regarding a theme which does not appear to be in common parlance, thus falls squarely into "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." This has been countered with "Non-notable minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a List of characters." This counter argument is an incomplete quote however as the guideline goes on to say "This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself [...]" In this case the work itself is the episode in which the charater appears. As there is nothing meaningful to merge (minor characters have very little information, plot-important charaters already have more information in the parent articles) and the article title would not serve as a meaningful redirect I recomend deletion.
  - Except that, to add a third page into the bun fight, WP:SUMMARY clearly recommend splitting off articles when the parent article becomes too large. The article The Simpsons would become unworkable if all of this were added back there. I see where you are coming, but this seems like a valid sub-article under Summary Style. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, then move the information to the articles that the Character has an impact in. Since these are "One-time characters" It shouldn't be hard to find the rght episodes they belong it. Just add a new section to the article and have it cited. The Placebo Effect 06:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete- as a silly and endless list.JJJ999 05:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weakish Keep - I would definitly have deleted the original list, but this version is a lot better. Its double standards, if this was still the previous version it would still have been deleted for "massive in universe cruft" and "no out of universe info". Yet, now this list has that, and all of the cruft has been removed, its being deleted for not having long enough summaries... Gran² 06:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it's being nominated because the characters are not notable and this violates WP:NOT : "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". The Placebo Effect 06:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - So this "many of the summaries are only one line long, which is not enough info to be considered notable", doesn't actually mean what I think it means? They could have longer descriptions quite easily, would that then make them more notable? Or would it then be considered cruft? That's my point. But I'm changing to weak keep now, that was what I had intended to vote this morning but I was half asleep. Gran² 14:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That was just to show how unnecasary most of these characters are. Although, I would have nominated this in any form just by looking at the title.The Placebo Effect 14:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable material from a notable TV series. Alansohn 06:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Explain to me how a One-time Character from any TV show is notable, let alone a full list of them. The Placebo Effect 06:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As stated above, very notable list from a very notable TV series. I'm not sure why it's even been nominated. Kevin 06:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again I ask, How done "One-time characters" make a notable list? The Placebo Effect 06:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by definition, they're not notable. I believe the same list for Futurama one-time characters was AFD'd. Lugnuts 07:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject of characters appearing once in The Simpsons is not worthy of an article, and as such I don't see the reason for keeping this list. Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable characters from an extremely notable series are still non-notable. Clarityfiend 10:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I don't see a problem with this article. These characters are notable, as many have cult followings, like Hank Scorpio. Karrmann 10:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then the onws that do can be mentioned in the episode appears in, and the list can be deleted. The Placebo Effect 13:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since they only appear once, every character can be fully explained in the episode in which they appear. Redirects for the more memorable characters will help people find what they are looking for. The problem is for every somewhat notable character on this list, there are 20 that only die-hard fans remember.--SeizureDog 12:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody is arguing if character x or y is notable, the list is not. If Scorpio is notable, he can have his own page/subpage. this list of (mostly trivial) characters is totally needless, and violates WP policy.JJJ999 12:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - list is for all intents and purposes a bunch of mini plot summaries, either of the episode entirely or of the specific scene or scenes in which the one-shot character appears. There is nothing here that should not be (and probably already is if I know Simpsons editors) in the main article. Otto4711 12:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Because I was unsure about the in-universe notability of some characters, I arbitrarily checked the coverage of "Gulliver Dark" in the article "Homer's Night Out", and "Toshiro", "Master Sushi Chef" and "Hostess" in the article "One Fish, Two Fish, Blowfish, Blue Fish". I am surprised to say that these characters were deemed not notable enough to even be mentioned once in either plot summary. No in-universe notability, forget out-of-universe notabilty -> delete. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A bit long I have to admit, maybe we don't need to include a summary for every one. Or maybe we do. Either way, the article should still be kept as it is somewhat a useful resource. 11kowrom 13:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USEFUL is not the best argument. Otto4711 14:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USEFUL mentions alternative wiki's to put useful information on. There doesn't appear to be an alternative wiki for this page. Keep. 11kowrom 21:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what? There doesn't have to be an alternate wiki for the "useful" argument to be bad. Otto4711 21:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[58] says "hi" The Placebo Effect 21:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some of these characters are notable and have appeared in more than one episode. It has some real world information, as well as sources that prove notability. Moreover, these characters have cult followings as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That explains a few of the characters, but what about all the other ones like sgeureka mentions above? The Placebo Effect 13:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If they appear in more than one episode then they should not be on a "list of one-time characters" in the first place. Otto4711 14:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you take a look at the lead to find out why they are on the one time list? Some have only appeared in other episodes briefly and were not central to that episode. Have you even read the article?Rhino131 22:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did, why can't they be summarized in the episodes they belong in. The Placebo Effect 22:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I was actually refering to Otto4711's comment about why they are on the list if the appear in more than one episode. Sorry for any confusion. As to your question- its much easier to have everying in one place than in different episode articles. I guess that for some characters that would work, but to have every character in an episode page, it would not work. That is just my opinion though, ask other people who are much more serious wikipedians then I and they will give you a more deatailed answer.Rhino131 23:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As stated many times above, more notable characters can be included in the relevant episodes, non-notable characters don't matter. Madgenberyl 13:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article passed three discussions already (the last with a clear "keep") and concerns characters on arguably the most successful animated show of all time. Collectively the characters therefore as a list have notability and due to the show's ongoing popularity readers will be interested in this easily verfiable list and editors will be willing to improve it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- actually last time their were 10 keeps, 9 deletes, and 2 splits/merge, which is not a "clear 'keep'" but rather a "no consensus". And just because they are one-time characters on an show does not qualify them as notable. If they truly are notable, then they can be mentioned on the appropriate episode page. The Placebo Effect 15:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, as detailed above. • Lawrence Cohen 16:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- which reason noted above? you need to be more specific in your reasons The Placebo Effect 16:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please state why you think that a list "One-time characters" is notable. None of them are individualy notable, so why as a group are they notable? The Placebo Effect 18:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You just answered your own question. Individually, no, but as characters in an extremely notable series such as The Simpsons, then yes. 23skidoo 19:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. The notability of The Simpsons does not confer notability onto every single character who strolls across the screen for two seconds, even if eleventy-hundred of them are all bunged together on a list. Otto4711 21:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a reasonable and notable list. Per my comment directly above, individually the characters aren't necessarily notable. Taken as a group, they are. I am also citing the fact this article has survived multiple AFDs in the past. If I may also comment, I do believe The Placebo Effect's challenging of people's Keep votes is a violation of Wikipedia policy with regards to conduct connected with the AFD process and I recommend he/she investigate to make sure a violation is not in fact occurring. 23skidoo 19:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am asking them to explain why they voted keep which they are supposed to do accourding to this The Placebo Effect 19:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for those who are saying to put the notable characters into the episode summaries and delete the list, is there any particular reason to do this? You probably could do that type of action with almost any Wikipedia list, but what would be the point of that action? CitiCat^♫ 19:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- THe point of that action would be to put the Character that appears once in a place where more can be described and should fit in and belong better rather than a long list profling them all in one place. The Placebo Effect 20:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There appear to by plenty of articles very similar to this one. If the consensus turns out to be delete (which it shouldn't, as i have said above) then the same would have to be with List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters, List of South Park families, List of Narnian creatures, List of characters in the Harry Potter books, List of Sesame Street characters, List of minor characters from Recess, and many many other articles as well. Quite a hefty list, don't you think? 11kowrom 21:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter how big the list is, if it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, then it should, and eventually will, be removed. The Placebo Effect 21:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The simpsons are very possiblly the best known show since the golden age of television in the 1950's. It is also a known fact the Simpsons is a very popular show because of all the characters (however one-time) and guest stars in manages to include and give a real personality to, for lack of a better term. Many of these characters are notable, as they have gained a cult following and stuff like that. Some of the characters may not be as well known as some others, but Wikiproject Simpsons has been working hard to keep the really minor and one time characters off the list, so it does not get to long or hard to understand. If we need to be even more strict about what to include, then I guess we can do that. So yes, a strong keep, and yes, they are notable- but for God's sakes, nobody ask me why I think they are notable like what has been done for everyone else. Just live with the fact that I think the way I do. Rhino131 22:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Just becuase this show is popular doesnt mean these people are: Notabilty is not inherited. Also just becuase there are other articles like this isnt a valid argument foreverDEAD 23:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said the show was popular partly becasue it manages to have all the characters. Look it up, I'm sure there are refrences for that statement.Rhino131 00:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Many "keep" voters claim these characters are ever-so-notable. Well then, where are the reliable sources? The citation of "Washington Post" isn't editor-reviewed news content, it's a transcript of reader-submitted comments from an online discussion led by a self-described "Simpsons junkie". There's one thing from the IMDB which anyone can edit (not fact-checked), and one item from the TV portion of the International Gaming News website (I'm not sure how much credence to give that site). The rest of the refs cite commentaries on the Simpsons DVDs, and those certainly aren't independent sources. I suspect these voters mean "noted a lot on fan forums", which provide no basis under WP policy for a claim of notability. Barno 23:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on-the-fence when it comes to this article, but some characters, like Mr. Bergstrom and Frank Grimes, have received analysis in scholarly (or at least semi-scholarly) works. Of course, the same can't really be said of all the characters listed. Zagalejo^^^ 23:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they've received substantive coverage in reliable sources then they would qualify for individual articles. Their notability or analysis of them doesn't warrant an article on all one-shot characters. Otto4711 16:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most Keep voters here (and I don't mean to offend by this) are simply voting to keep under WP:USEFUL. A list of one shot characters shouldn't be included, its totally unessary, imagine if every series had a page like this, we would be up to our knees in nonotable crap. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 00:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Yes it is an endless list that is probably not even viewed for reference purposes, but then again, The Simpsons is famous for its use of one-time outlandish characters. Reginmund 00:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 23skidoo. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 00:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major characters in a barely notable series would not be notable enough for a list on wikipedia, but the Simpsons are so notable that a list of (not all) one time characters is.--victor falk 02:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No show is notable enough that one charcters deserve a list on Wikipedia. The Placebo Effect 02:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that no show is or that no show could possibly be ever that notable?--victor falk 02:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that no show is notable enough to have a list of One-Time Characters. The Placebo Effect 02:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From reading the long list of comments, it seems that the real argument here is what is notable and what is not in dealing with TV shows. The reason the debate is so heated is because Wikipedia doesn't have clear rules on what is or isn't when dealing with a TV show. So, assuming we come with a conclusion to the argument, Wikipedia's rules for notability concerning TV shows like the Simpsons should be amended appropriately. 11kowrom 02:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to say I personally feel this page is very well done, looks awesome, and is very useful. I found myself reading it and thinking "hey, I remember that... cool". But on balance that just isn't enough to meet wiki standards. Sorry.JJJ999 02:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree, it is a lot better than other chatacter lists I've seen. But the fact that it is "One-time Characters" is what drives me to nominate this for deletion. The Placebo Effect 02:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Would it help to recall Wikipedia's fundamental definition of notability? A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. There does not seem to be any reason to hope that any of these characters, singly or collectively, would meet this standard. Sure, the show is notable, but one-time characters are not. Sure, they may have been mentioned by reliable secondary sources, but they have not received significant coverage.--Yannick 04:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess I really don't care about this article as long as List of characters in The Simpsons is allowed to stay, since most of these one-shot characters are already mentioned there. We could just use that page to index them and link them to their respective episode articles, where we could discuss them in more detail. Do any deletionists have a problem with that page? Zagalejo^^^ 06:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, Gran2 and I were going to eliminate all of the one-timers from the characters page and only list those that have appeared in 2 or more episodes because the list of characters is pretty big and is a complete mess. Then, we were going to have the List of characters and list of one-timers be sort of "sister lists". -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is good cruft. Crufty 07:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC) — Crufty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Crufty is a one-time character, geddit?[reply]

Comment Good cruft? Clarityfiend 07:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Exactly. As User:JJJ999 says, it's well done, looks awesome, and is very useful. Per WP:IGNORE, we should be accepting of work which adds such value. Crufty —Preceding comment was added at 14:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like how his name is "Crufty." :) –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 21:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Somehow characters in 1/400 episodes do not seem notable. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 21:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I repeat Notability is not inherited. This means that just becuase TV show X is notable doesnt mean the chracter A is notable becuase it was in that notable show. So far i have yet to see any relible source, any valid reason for keep. ForeverDEAD 21:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and I have yet to see any valid reason to delete, but that dosen't matter since its not our call whether this gets deleted or not. Also, its not that the tv show is notable, many of these charactes are notable in their own right. And like I said before, the show is popular and known partly because of all the characters it can include. Rhino131 22:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well if many of these Characters are notable, mention them on the episode page that theu came from. And almost every deletion argument has been valid and stated a reason. The Keeps that just say notable aren't good enough because one word isn't enough to explain why this article is notable. And again, it does't matter if the Characters that only appear once make the show popular, they aren't notable and don't deserve a list. The Placebo Effect 22:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats just your opinion, so don't act like you have a reliable resource to back that statement up. Rhino131 23:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of my statement? The Placebo Effect 23:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) To Placebo's defense, it's not his opinion. Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) says "fictional concepts are deemed notable if they have received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources." And this article still fails to list any but two reliable secondary sources (for exactly two characters). And this article lists, what, hundreds of characters? At the moment, the keep !votes have no reliable sources to back up their opinion of notability... – sgeureka ^t•c 23:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) isn't a definite rule in Wikipedia. This I believe could be an exception because to an extent the show is popular because of the many characters on the show. Also, I can find secondary sources on most of the characters by searching them in google. For example, Molloy the Cat Burglar has five sites that come up that aren't Wikipedia when you search it. 11kowrom 23:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what if the show is popular becuase it has alot of characters on, it doesnt make any of those characters notable deserving a list. the simpsons SHOW is notable not the hundreds of characters that are there ForeverDEAD 00:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As i said before, many of the characters do have reliable secondary sources, making them notable. 11kowrom 01:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some confusion about my statement, so let me refrase it. One of the many great aspects of the simpsons is its ability to include many characters without losing any depth. I know there are many refrences to back up that statement. So, in essence, the characters make the show notable, which in turn makes the characters notable. I hope that is easier to understand. If anyone dissagres with that statement thats okay, but just because you don't believe it is not a valid reason to delete this article. Now about opinions, The Placebo Effect, you said "And again, it does't matter if the Characters that only appear once make the show popular, they aren't notable and don't deserve a list". That is an opinion, its what you think. "The Keeps that just say notable aren't good enough because one word isn't enough to explain why this article is notable" is also an opinion, your saying how you think there needs to be more information from those of us who are voting keep. Now I'm not saying its a bad or wrong opinion, but its still an opinion. Sgeureka then refrenced many WP:whatevers to support the Placebo Effects opinion. That dosen't make the opionin true, it just show Sgeureka's support of The placebo effects opinion. Just like an hypothesis in science can never be voted true, just supported by other scientists. Also, I could go into how all of this WP:crap your throwing at me is just an opinion of wikipedia, but I don't want to make this disscussion complecated. Just below this comment is an comment by Foreverdead, who says "The title alone is absurb one times characters? any sensoble person would go whats the point in a list for people who apper in one episode". That is really an opinion, and i'm sure everone can see that it is, even if they want deletion. But I think we are getting ahead of ourselves, we should just go down to the basics, some of us want the article to be kept, and others want it to be deleted. I would want keep, its as simple as that, lets not try to go any deeper into why we think that way. So don't ask me why I want keep, and I won't ask you why you want deletion. Rhino131 16:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, I unbolded your keep since you already !voted once. And secondly, AFD is NOT a vote, but rather a disscusion to dertermine weather an artice is notable or nor. That is why the votes that just say "Notable" don't help. THey are already saying the article is notable when they vote keep, and a reason will help the closing admin to make a decision based on the strength of the arguments made by the keep and delete !votes. And if you have counter-arguments, please share them. That will elp to make your point a little stronger. The Placebo Effect 17:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think your point was understood the first time, but that doesn't mean that a list of one-time characters (of any show) is suitable for inclusion in wikipedia. Let's make this a real-world example: One of the things that makes our planet notable is the many (living and thinking) people on it. Now, should wikipedia keep a list of all of them, or is it sufficient to say, yes, many people exist, but it doesn't serve much of an encyclopedic purpose to list them all other than to say that they exist; so let's just focus on the important ones? And of course nothing is set in stone when it comes to wikipedia policies and guidelines, but in the end, they have been created by consensus to determine what is encyclopedic and what is not. A couple of fans acting in opposition to guidelines (will) have a hard time persuading non-fans why WP guidelines should be ignored in their favor. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was actually ment to end this conflict between myself and you guys, so I wasn't expecting any response. Anyway, your saying that keep already means you think an article is notable, but more information is needed to say why. Fine. I think the article is notable and should be kept because 1. all the characters make the show notable, which is why they are notable. 2. many of the characters have gained a cult following, hove become very popular among fans and the producers, writers, creators of the show, or have been analyzed by realiable sources. 3. there are many real world refrences to most of the characters, and have been used in real life. That is my thoughts, you can disagree or try to prove them wrong, or tell me that is the wrong way of thinking all you want. Also, notability is relitive, what is notable to one person may not be to another. So here are my final thoughts on the subject. I understand your views, I just don't share them. You understand my views, you just don't share them. I want keep, you want delete, its as simple as that, lets not go into deatails. Good-bye. (Oh, and I would have no problem with a list of people on the earth article. I think you should be bold and create it, and then make it a FA.) Rhino131 19:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Jeez, lets not have a fistfight here, but to elaborate on Rhino131's ideas, this is really a matter of opinion. After the decision to keep or not is finalized, Wikipedia should amend its rules so this discussion never happens again, to this article or any other. Personally, I would like the article to be kept, most characters have secondary sources. Yet, this does not clearly make them notable. This is why Wikipedia should make rules clarifying it. Peace out, i hope there is peace between you guys! 11kowrom 02:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well you have yet to provide them, unless every single 1 person character can be sourced there seems to be no point to this article. The fact that theres 19+ seaons or something like that makes it stupid. Putting the characters in thier respective articles makes more sense as since they only apper in ONE episode they are only inmportant to that episode. The title alone is absurb one times characters? any sensoble person would go whats the point in a list for people who apper in one episode. I have yet to see almost any sources for keep while i have seen almost a dozen guidlines that are the standard (though there are execptions) for wikipedia. ForeverDEAD 01:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, some of these characters have been analyzed in scholarly sources: Jacques, Adil Hoxha, Mr. Bergstrom, Brad Goodman, Birch Barlow, Jessica Lovejoy, Hugh Parkfield, Hollis Hurlbut, Chester Lampwick, Hank Scorpio, Poochie, John, Frank Grimes, etc. They may not have received enough analysis to support their own independent articles, but it's clear that they're more memorable than the average one-shot character from a tv series. Again, I don't really think we need this list, but the Keep voters aren't as misguided as you imply they are. Zagalejo^^^ 01:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given: Wikipedia is going to have articles on The Simpsons. Given: Wikipedia is going to have articles on every individual episode of the Simpsons. These things aren't really disputable. Ok, so are the individual episode articles going to cover characters, even those that appear only once? Sometimes, yes. I can't imagine not describing Hank Scorpio for example, or Brad Goodman. So what's the purpose of this article? It's organizational. It should exist to aid in navigation, because not everybody knows every single episode of the Simpsons by heart. Especially sine it's such a long series. 68.101.22.132 06:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly needs to be said about these characters that isn't already said in the articles about the episodes? Hank Scorpio is a supervillain who threatens to take over the world and hires Homer to run his nuclear operations. Brad Goodman is a self-help guru who encourages the town to act like Bart. What else is there, and why can't it be said in the episode article (if it isn't already)? Otto4711 19:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one-off characters aren't that notable if one episode is about them and the episodes themselves should give enough information about their one-off characters.Martin B 10:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not every single episode for the simpsons is included. The criteria for inclusion states that the episode must be notable. Either this should be deleted or made into a catagory. Also usefullness is not a valid reason for inclusion ForeverDEAD 11:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Not every single episode for the simpsons is included." Huh?--SeizureDog 12:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that every single simpsons episode had an article. And thats all the more reason to fit them into thier respective episodes. If you really wanted to find out about a character that apperd once you go to the episode that was in. ForeverDEAD 13:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - one time characters should be merged to the episode article. The information about the character is most relevant in that article. -- Whpq 20:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Brief details of the character can just be listed on the episode page...no reason to have this page of all of them Ctjf83 21:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is a lot better than the previous version of it, and it seems like a good enough article to keep. While these characters only appeared once, they were significant in the episodes they were featured in, and one article to list them all and what episode they were in seems good. ✗iℎi✗(talk) 02:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If they were significant in ONLY one episode, can't they be summarized accurately there? The Placebo Effect 02:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - To those that say one time characters are unnotable: Frank Grimes, Hank Scorpio, Shary Bobbins, anyone? Also, what if someone searched for a one-time character that appeared in more than one episode? This would be the best place to redirect to. --FlyingPenguins 03:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How can a one-time character appear in more than one episode? –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 03:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ...one-time character that appeared in more than one episode?? That makes no sense. If they appeared in more than episodes they shouldn't be here. And each character already redirects to this page, just move the redirect to the episode they came from. The Placebo Effect 03:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd also point out that Frank Grimes and Shary Bobbins already redirect to the respectiev episode they appear in. And so should (IMO) all one-timers of some notability. No need to keep a list like this. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:56, 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martyn Parker[edit]

Non notable shopping channel presenter. A lack of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources confirms the lack of notability, and he fails WP:BIO. Crazysuit 01:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete not notable. No credible independent biography and the only external link on the page goes to a webpage that doesn't even exist. Worldfamousdirector 03:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Iamchrisryan 12:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 11kowrom 01:07, 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 00:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chettiyattil Radha Krishnan[edit]

Non notable author results only 43 in google out of which mostly are wikipedia and mirror pages. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 01:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. His book (singular) doesn't even show on a Google book search.--Sethacus 03:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that. It does. Still not notable.--Sethacus 03:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete non-notable and I'm not sure importance is even being claimed except that several hobbies are listed including his book. The book is published by Grenadier Productions & Publications- Est.1997 who also do Short movies & Modelling Portfolios and they only even claim to have published one other work ever which was a play in 1997. Very likely a self-publishing establishment but certainly not notable. Worldfamousdirector 03:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ALSO: the publishing companies website is registered to one Chris R Krishnan so I'd definitely say this is self-published in every sense of the term. Worldfamousdirector 03:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete pov, vanity, not notable. Iamchrisryan 12:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity and not notable.Racepacket 16:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Speedy indicated. No assertions of notability, no sources, no article. Pig^man 18:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:N, WP:VANITY, and WP:POV. STORMTRACKER 94 20:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's no there there; violates WP:BLP etc. Bearian 00:26, 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 Placebo Effect 01:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bukhara magazine[edit]

Unreferenced, POV, no independent evidence of notability. Could be a legitimate subject, but we can't tell from this article. See also arguments made here. Biruitorul 01:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak ~~delete~~ keep. (see comment immediately below) I commented on the associated AfD at this entry; there's one paragraph of material that equates to six typed pages and is duplicated here that is really daunting to examine. The article on the magazine seems to think that it gains notability from the editor, whereas it might be the other way around... the magazine may be notable, but I'm fairly sure the editor isn't. I can't find independent evidence to confer notability, which is not surprising given my English-only language barrier. I would welcome both these articles getting attention from someone with the background and language skills to truly inform a decision. Accounting4Taste 01:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Great big vote of thanks to DGG for notifying the Iran WikiProject and for taking the pruning shears to this -- it's now possible to see that there's sufficient notability asserted here for me to change what's left of my mind ;-) Accounting4Taste 06:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Current article seems basically unsalvageable. If the journal turns out to be notable after all, it's probably easier to start a new article from scratch. --Crusio 07:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Particularly Crusio's "unsalvageable" comment. Pig^man 18:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. STORMTRACKER 94 20:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The major collection in the subject in the US and UK receive this magazine, according to OCLC, so it may possibly be notable. As for the article, I removed the extraordinary amount of duplication. Expert attention is obviously needed, so I notified the Iran WikiProject. I haver seen very few articles too disorganized to salvage, it mainly takes being BOLD enough to do the necessary cutting. DGG (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per DGG. No cogent reason has been raised to delete this periodical. Espresso Addict 02:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not understand why this article is considered unsalvageable. It looks like a proper stub to me. In general, we should be more patient with article stubs that can only be verified by foreign language sources or paper sources. There is a lot of knowledge outside the internet.--Yannick 04:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note: the current version is much different from the one I nominated; DGG has helpfully pruned it down to stub size. Biruitorul 04:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I consider it perfectly reasonable to have nominated this in its original state.DGG (talk) 14:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, the nominator could have edited the article or applied relevant edit tags. Not only are these options, they are required by Wikipedia:deletion policy. Alansohn 06:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - note that prior to DGG's pruning, the article was a copyvio of this. -- Whpq 20:03, 22 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, John254 03:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article seems to have been salvaged and addresses notability. Great work! Alansohn 06:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have just worked a bit on this article following DGG's BOLD lead (corrected some English, added internal links, adding/removing misplaced blanks, etc), but I feel that the notability of Bukhara is still not established. The second paragraph seems out of place, too. If this other magazine KELK is notable, it should have its own article. If not, this paragraph should be deleted. If anybody knows of verifiable independent sources establishing notability for either one of these journals, that would be great. Till then I think that I maintain my delete vote given above. --Crusio 07:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Yannick. M0RD00R 08:54, 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 and redirect to Flavor of Love Girls: Charm School. --Core desat 04:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saaphyri Windsor[edit]

"Actress" who was a contestant on a reality series--apparenty disqualified--and has appeared in a number of minor roles. Verifiability issues, as well. Unsure whether to delete or redirect to the article for the reality show. Sethacus 01:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Reality show "stars" have no notability nor need for encyclopedic entries on Wikipedia of their own. Redirect to show page is fine, but own page is questionable at best. Prefer delete, but redirect with short summary fine. - CelticGreen 01:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. She doesn't merit her own article. Cap'n Walker 18:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. STORMTRACKER 94 20:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. I'll report the user with her username... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 00:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. IrishLass0128 19:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She won the reality show Flavor_of_Love_Girls:_Charm_School on VH1. I'm not particularly happy about it, but Wikipedia precedent is that winners of their respective shows are notable enough for wikipages.Gamer83 20:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SHe won her show, as previously stated, has had a few small acting parts, and is notable enough to be included. Keep it. Elefuntboy 21:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia "precedent"?? Do you have links to previous AfD arguments? I see nothing that references past precedent. Without reference there is no claim to past precedent. CelticGreen 03:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'm sure what Gamer83 means, CelticGreen, is what I stated in another deletion debate, slightly related to this one: "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." VH1 is cable television, as we all know, but the show on which she won had good ratings for cable television. Some reality television show stars are notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. While Saaphyri is not as notable as some others, I'm not entirely convinced that she shouldn't have an article on Wikipedia. If she were the runner-up on the show or wasn't the first to win in this show's history (as I assume that this show will be back for a Part 2), then I would lean more towards delete. But for now, my thoughts are to keep this article. Flyer22 08:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By that argument for this person I stand by Delete because I watch a LOT of television, and I mean A LOT, and I've never heard of this VH1 show. I have heard of Next Top Model, but not this. I'd still like to see a previous argument where the consensus was to keep.CelticGreen 12:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If kept such a non-notable article should atleast be reduced in length. -RiverHockey 18:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't see this article as being any less notable than Adrianne Curry when she won America's Next Top Model (the first winner in that show's history) and got her own article here at Wikipedia. Only difference now is that Adrianne has gotten notable work since her win. Who's to say that this woman won't do the same? Yes, Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball, but seeing as she did win this show, first winner at that, deleting her article now, when people may want to know about who this winner is and possibly not too long from now she is more notable, seems like a waste of time. And, CelticGreen, I must watch (a lot) more television than you, because I surely heard of this television show, as it was a spin-off of an even more highly popular show...Flavor of Love. Shows like this or A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila, when on VH1 or MTV, hardly ever go unnoticed by me. Perhaps you don't watch VH1 or MTV that often, because this show was all over VH1. I still stand by my decision to Keep this article, though it seems that it will be deleted. As for previous deletion debates where the argument was how the person is a winner or the first winner in the show's history, I don't have any links to provide to that, but I'm certain that you can find them on Wikipedia. In any case, just the list of articles on models from America's Next Top Model, as shown above, is hint enough at some kind of precedent concerning this matter...even with some of those models not even being as notable as this person. Flyer22 19:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment CelticGreen you cannot watch as much tv as you claim because this was a huge, wildly popular spinnoff of the Flavor of Love series, so don't be an ostrich. Secondly, here is a link that discusses the precedent of reality show winners better than I can here [59]. I question how much wikiing you have done if you have not yet run across this.Gamer83 04:33, 22 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, especially when the nominating statement could mislead some people. --Groggy Dice T | C 02:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment 1)There is NO precedent, nor is there policy dictating reality show winners automatically get articles. Dick Donato and Eddie McGee, another example, have articles because they have been written about in third party sources. The only 3rd party source in the article is an appearance on Tyra. One.

2)If she is notable, why did no one other than Ms. Windsor herself create the article and populate it with links to her myspace and IMDb? Wikipedia is not an advertising service or a legup in one's career. 3)Even people who worked on the article (see talk page) wonder why this is here and not a redirect. 4)There are no independent sources to establish a feasible bio. 90% of the article is a blow-by-blow description of the series. Strip that out and you're left with, essentially, self-referenced material, not good enough fora Wikibio. Now, have I made myself perfectly clear, Groggy Dice?--Sethacus 21:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to everyone. I'd like to point out that a deletion debate just closed as Keep on this same rationale of precedent, as seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashlee Holland. I don't feel that every reality show contestant who wins the show that they were on needs to have their own article on Wikipedia, but in this deletion debate about Saaphyri Windsor, given everything that I've stated above on this matter, I state again that I feel that this article should be kept. Flyer22 21:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is a perfect link FLyer22. In fact, it looks like the same anti-reality tv people tried (and failed) to delete that article. There *IS* precent as can be clearly seen via Flyer22's link. It can also be seen that the same group of editors are running around trying to breach this precedent due to an apparent reality-tv winner pet peeve. If that you wish to challenge that precedent, start an appropriate discussion on that, but as policy stands, this artilce is a Keep.Gamer83 00:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Flavor of Love. Not notable enough to have her own article. TGreenburgPR 02:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Disagree that she's not notable enough to have her own article. The link above of precedent clearly shows that she is. And if she's not notable enough (someone who won the show in which she was on), then runner-ups of other shows who have their own article on Wikipedia surely are not. Flyer22 02:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment to this. I ask the closing administrator of this deletion debate to truly weigh this matter, which I know that the closing administrator of this deletion debate will. It is silly that one deletion debate should survive on precedent when another deletion debate of the same subject matter is deleted in the face of that precedent. To start having some articles survive due to this precedent and others ignored when such precedent is presented does not leave Wikipedia in any more stable an environment. Flyer22 02:47, 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--JForget 00:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Carrillo Cortez[edit]

Prod was removed without answering the problem spelled out in the prod. Specifically, this article appears to be a hoax article, for example there are no references that this person was ever in the band listed. The bands own website doesn't list him, neither does all music guide The user that created this article added himself to the Funeral for a Friend articlesee dif, perhaps in an attempt to legitimize this hoax. As further proof of this blatant hoax, compare this article to Matt Davies, the REAL lead singer of the band. Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious hoax. Author's only other contribution was to create an article for his real band, which looks non-notable, as well--Sethacus 03:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Sethacus. Probably WP:HOAX. Pig^man 17:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX. STORMTRACKER 94 20:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax content fork. tomasz. 22:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination as a hoaxish content fork. Yamaguchi先生 02:31, 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 (References to independent sources have been added during the AfD, which have clarified the importance of this conference). Espresso Addict 02:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ACM Multimedia[edit]

Non-notable conference, virtual orphan, no reliable sources. This article is a repository of external links with no encyclopedic content. I've asked the author to include assertions of notability and what has resulted is a parody of an encyclopedia article, with the word "notable" appearing in every other sentence and subject heading: unencyclopedic peacock like "In addition to being notable in and of itself, it has also contained notable workshops, notable awards, and other notable parts." Robert K S 00:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC) ETA: If this AfD closes in a delete or merge, would the closing admin notify me before deleting the article? I would be happy to merge the information. Robert K S 02:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Merge (see below). I certainly agree that the article is very poorly written and needs considerable clean-up and wikification. However, when I added the "reflist" tag so that the references actually showed up, I came across this quote from Microsoft Research: "ACM Multimedia, as the conference is known, is billed as the premier annual multimedia conference, covering all aspects of multimedia computing, from underlying technologies to applications, theory to practice, and servers to networks to devices." That, to me, demonstrates notability far better than all the awful peacock language (and when added to the Leonardo cite, seems truly determinative of notability). Perhaps someone with an affinity for this topic and some writing skills could re-write it. Accounting4Taste 01:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This article deserves to be a section in its parent article, SIGMM, which, incongruously, isn't even linked from the article. It doesn't need an article of its own. Robert K S 02:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As stated in the previous prod, this article lacks encyclopedic content. It is a listing od conferences that have questionable value to anyone accessing this subject. --Stormbay 02:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge My impression after some googling is, this is indeed the premier multimedia conference (e.g. also [60] or [61]) - likely someone who knows the topic can find better references. That may also explain the sentence added by the author In addition to being notable in and of itself, it has also contained notable workshops, notable awards, and other notable parts. - that's out of place in the article, but likely true. So what is left is to write an actual article about the conference, there is lots of encyclopedic material to say about it - but not delete it. --Allefant 09:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So your keep vote is based on what the article could be instead of what the article is? As above, a merge to SIGMM with a suitable section there would be preferable to an unsourced article that has no real content. Robert K S 16:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I've changed my suggestion to Merge as per the contribution of Robert K S, whom I believe understands the nuances of the relationship between the two articles much better than I do. Thanks for making this clearer to me. Accounting4Taste 16:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I did look at the SIGMM article, but it's a stub, and the only info it contains is that it is a "special interest group". To me as an outsider, that's just too abstract to have any idea what it really means or how it is any notable - so I don't see any merit from merging. The topic of this article here is notable though (and it also is sourced by now). All it needs is expanding and cleaning - but AfD is not the place for that. And you can always perform a merge by using the merge template. --Allefant 18:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - SIGMM is the group and ACM Multimedia is their conference. Unless the conference can be shown to have notability beyond being the (not quite) annual meeting of the Special Interest Group (as can be argued for the conference SIGGRAPH of the group ACM SIGGRAPH, which attracts tens of thousands of visitors and reams of national and international press every year), then the conference merits no more than a section in its SIG's article. Does that make sense? Robert K S 02:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It does. I updated my vote to keep/merge - whether the conference name or group name is used doesn't really seem to matter. --Allefant 13:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:RS. STORMTRACKER 94 20:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is notable and the article can be improved. The ACM Conferences are generally the most notable ones in their respective subjects; the organisation is constituted of a multitude of SIGs, each of which is the main specialized organization for a subject--they are not generally small or insignificant--there are quite a lot of people interested in computer multimedia. Some real sourcing is needed, and should be possible. Outsiders can attempt to get some idea of things from the web sites for this and the parent body, but yes, it can be tricky to decipher. Academics and computer people do things in unobvious ways, and it gets worse when you combine the two. DGG (talk) 01:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ weak keep The conference seems to be notable but the article needs to be cleaned and marked as in need of sourcing and improvement. Neozoon 23:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, again, a lot of things can "seem" notable, but if so, where are the reliable sources? Keep votes cannot be made on hypothetical future improvements--notability should be judged based on the present condition of the article and its sourcing. As I describe above, this article merits merging into a section of its parent article. Please examine the article and consider changing your vote to a merge. Robert K S 23:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But I think that the article as it is now is good enough to be kept and needs to be marked as to be improved. There are articles about roles of TV-Series on Wikipedia that are of less interest than a regular conference. Another question is the article about the organisation behind the conference which realy lacks information. (change to weak keep) Best regards Neozoon 20:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, ACM conferences are notable, and are usually the most notable in their field. This conference is no different. The article needs expanding. John Vandenberg 00:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is different. The article has no reliable sources and its assertions of notability are buffoonery, and so doesn't merit its own article. If all ACM conferences are a priori notable as you assert in your AfD vote, back this assertion up with some sources for the article, or change your vote to merge. Robert K S 05:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why is it different? The article stated why it was notable, and thus just needs work. Ask anyone familiar with comp.sci. or lib.sci. and they will tell you it is notable immediately. Ask anyone who is familiar with ACM in any way, and they would "guess" it is notable even if they have never heard of this particular conference. Why? Because they know that the ACM doesnt run conferences that are not notable. "ACM Multimedia" returns 17,000 hits in Google Scholar; 2 hits on Google News in the last month, and 16 going back into the archives. It has ~650 hits in Google Books, and the proceedings of this conference is held by many libraries worldwide; for example, proceedings of '96 held in Boston is held by 11 libraries in the UK alone OCLC 36649211. John Vandenberg 06:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is not about asking people or discussion forums. This is about what's in the article. Anything dubious in Wikipedia articles can be challenged. I am presenting that challenge. The challenge must be met with improvements to the article, or merging/deletion. Does that process seem reasonable? The alternative is that nothing is challengable: any AfD must end in a keep because in a fantasy future the article stands up to scrutiny. End the fantasy: provide the sources. Robert K S 06:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have demonstrated it has been noted sufficiently that you should be willing to acknowledge that it is certain to be notable. As a result, why is it my responsibility to improve the article when you could do the same. Nevertheless, I will drop what I am doing and expand the article for your gratification. John Vandenberg 06:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ACM conferences are generally among the best in their areas and this is no exception. The Microsoft link already included in the article is one reliable nontrivial secondary source; here's another. —David Eppstein 00:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is somebody's university newsletter report about a visit to the conference. On the reliable sources scale I'd rank it above a blog entry but below an article from a major magazine or newspaper and well below a published book. Rather than collect purported sources in an AfD, please improve the article and incorporate them. Again, I point out that the article needs to be judged on its current state and not on a hypothetical future state. No article would ever be merged or deleted if it could be "imagined" to be improved. You must either actually improve the article, or you must vote to delete or merge. Robert K S 05:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Robert, is it really necessary to go around asking everyone to change their !votes not only here but in their talk pages? See WP:CANVAS. And no, I must do no such thing if I don't want to. —David Eppstein 07:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - What I see are a multiplicity of votes--and from admins, no less--that are not based on the content of the article. Only one editor, Jayvdb has offered to improve the article rather than voting to keep an article that falls well below standards. Robert K S 07:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Its not a vote. Its a discussion, and you are hell-bent on advocating that it should be deleted despite plenty of good reasons by reasonable people and evidence that it doesnt need to be deleted. You don't appear to be listening to the opinions of others. John Vandenberg 07:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I couldn't agree more that the AfD process is intended to be a discussion and not a vote. As for my not listening, to the contrary, I have made targeted and reasonable challenges to what I find to be unreasonable arguments. I'm not "hell-bent" on anything, and with your remark what should be a process involving the article has become an ad hominem process involving me, and so I make my departure from this conversation. Robert K S 08:04, 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 merge. W.marsh 22:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lotar[edit]

This stub should not be an independent article, and should be deleted. It seems to lack notability, and may even me an advertisement of sorts. This stub only cites one source, which is promotional in nature, and a simple google search[62] of the term finds only one studio in California teaching it. It may be possible to merge its information into either one or both of the articles relating to Krav Maga and/or Kapap, though. Atari400 00:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Kapap. --Malcolmxl5 00:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be very easy to merge the Lotar stub into the article on Kapap, giving that the Lotar article is only a two lines long. Atari400 01:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Kapap seems the best course. Pig^man 04:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both into Krav maga. Both this and Kapap are modified versions of krav maga. For the record, this article was much more strongly written as an advert before I stub-ified it. I talked with the author, who is apparently also the president of the Lotar organization, who claimed he was trying to provide an article to counter-point the Kapap article. Apparently the two are rivals of a sort. Kapap was my next stop when I felt like taking hedge-trimmers to an article, as it also reads as an advert. I would support adding that article to this AfD, and merging what content is relevant to Krav maga. -- Kesh 19:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Kapap per Malcomx15. STORMTRACKER 94 20:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Krav maga article as per Kesh. Also agree that Kapap should be merged into Krav maga as well, both as "variants". Keeper | 76 21:28, 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. --Core desat 04:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obrad Zelić[edit]

Somewhat borderline, but three factors make me believe this fails WP:PROF. First, no references. Second, no assertion of real notability. Third, creator has only two other principal contributions. Biruitorul 03:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep for now. Needs work obviously, but from a glance at the article he appears to be at least semi-notable. Like you said though, it's borderline. K. Lásztocska 03:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep If any of the items under the "awards" subheading can be sourced i'd say he meets notability,--Cube lurker 05:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 15:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only "notable" thing I possibly see is the one "most notable" award mentioned. However, I doubt that this award in itself is notable. The Wikipedia articles on Tesla and Pupin do not even mention this award. The website of the Tesla Memorial Society looks rather amateurish and their list of Tesla-Pupin Medalists ends in 2000, so the claim that Zelić received this medal cannot be verified. --Crusio 16:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 18:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The awards dont seem to be notable, and there is no assertion of anything convincingly notable in the research. Weak, because someone who knows the country but be able to get some more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Espresso Addict 00:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 00:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete so far Crusio's reasoning sounds most convincing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Subject's membership in the National Academy of the Serbian Medical Society is verifiable.[63] He is in a prominent place too. Academy membership says that he is regarded as one of Serbia's best. A Google Scholar search says that his publications are cited worldwide. The Ozosept seems to check out, but the Assn. of Inventors site appears to be in Serbo-Croatian.[64] Most of the web content about him is probably not in English. Notability aside, the article is a mess. • Gene93k 02:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per DDG. STORMTRACKER 94 20:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the article lacks proper explanations of notability and references, this may be explained by the language barrier. In general, we should be more patient with article stubs that can only be verified by foreign language sources or paper sources. There is a lot of knowledge outside the internet. This article deserves a Template:bio-notability tag, but not deletion.--Yannick 04:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete My speculation about the language barrier has been shot down by Duja below.--Yannick 22:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)][reply]
Weak keep The article is a mess and needs to be cleaned up and lacks proper quotes. Neozoon 22:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It has been moved from the original with no discussion and no references for the spelling change, and it still contains no references that would support any spelling of his name. Gene Nygaard 15:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A search for "Zelic o" on PubMed only returns 17 articles, and only one of these is in a notable journal. Tim Vickers 21:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are no source citations at all. No one could rustle up any at all? Plus the article does not link to anything else. On Google the third link after the Wikipedia links mentions "periodontal disease". And the sublink under the fourth says "AUTOIMMUNE THYROID STIMULATION IN HYPERTHYREOSIS". I am unclear who the article is about. --Mattisse 00:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Few comments from a native. The awards in question are:
- Nikola Tesla bronze medal of Belgrade Association of Inventors [65]. Really not a big deal.
- Can't find a source for the award from Serbian Medical Society. He is a head of one secretariate though.[66]
- What is written in the article is likely mostly true, but it's written in an apologetic tone. The entire article sounds like a CV though; the creator likely had it at hand rather than consulting miscellaneous sources. Pavle Zelić (which would likely pass notability criteria, but only just) also comes from the same person, in both English and Serbian wikipedia (sr:Obrad Zelić, sr:Pavle Zelić). And I really, really, don't like it. Duja► 11:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Crusio, I have the same concerns about this article as I recently did about the Stanley Dunin one. Burntsauce 16:55, 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 merged. W.marsh 22:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

East Timor solidarity movement[edit]

Are there any informations, which shouldn't be part of History of East Timor-Article? There is nothing about the organizations and no information about a real roof organization for ET-solidarity. The Lemma is meaninigless and the article should be deleted. --J. Patrick Fischer 07:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into History of East Timor. STORMTRACKER 94 20:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into History of East Timor when it can be sourced Neozoon 22:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to History of East Timor. As it is, this article is insufficiently sourced. --SmokeyJoe 14:06, 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 Keep. The Placebo Effect 00:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Connable[edit]

Article does not demonstrate sufficient notability or significance on the part of the subject. Burghboy80 10:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. - a varied career, so it is hard to measure significants, but I would err on the side of inclusion.Racepacket 16:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be a notable career. Emmy awards check out. Pig^man 18:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local media personality who's had a few bit parts in movies. Fails WP:BIO. Cap'n Walker 18:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. STORMTRACKER 94 20:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BIO has received significant recognized awards or honors: Emmy awards.--Yannick 03:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local Emmy awards are not the same as the national Emmys we see in prime time. He's a local news anchor, plain and simple. Burghboy80 19:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable as the recipient of an Emmy award, I do not feel it should matter if he is a local news anchor or not. Yamaguchi先生 02:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the Emmy Awards should make him notable, local or not. 96T 13:11, 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 13:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Striker (The King of Fighters)[edit]

Single element of gameplay from a video game series that is not notable enough to warrent its own article. SeizureDog 12:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. STORMTRACKER 94 19:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per everything said above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:44, 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--JForget 00:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Olivier Fortier[edit]

Non-notable junior player. Has yet to play in a fully professional league, nor has he won any major awards which would lead to some sort of exception. Once he plays professionally I have no issue with him being readded. Djsasso 13:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletions. —Djsasso 13:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GoodDay 13:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Third round draft pick, but that isn't enough, imo. Reso lute 15:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Koryu Obihiro 9:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete Not notable enough (yet). • Lawrence Cohen 16:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Perhaps future notability. Pig^man 17:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N . STORMTRACKER 94 19:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Neozoon 22:44, 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P. K. Subban[edit]

Non-notable junior player who has not yet played in a fully professional league. Has not won any major awards or anything worthy of an exception. He is a second round draft pick but I feel only first round picks should be the exception. Can be recreated once he plays professionally. Djsasso 15:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletions. —Djsasso 15:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GoodDay 15:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 19:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Neozoon 22:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bsroiaadn ^Talk 17:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has represented Canada internationally several times. --MichiganCharms (talk) 05:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen lines[edit]

Uncited, unverified article apparently about a character from a fable. Not enough context to quite make heads or tails of it. Ginkgo100^talk 20:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was speedily deleted as patent nonsense, but I restored it because it clearly does not qualify as patent nonsense. Please do not speedy delete. --Ginkgo100^talk 20:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable. Unworthy of inclusion in current state. Crazylikeafoxx 21:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Ginkgo100 said. I couldn't make head nor tale/tail of it. Pig^man 21:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mea culpa, I did the speedy nom for it being nonsense. My research indicated it had no identifiable basis and seemed to be nonsense in a general sense but most definitely not nonsense in a very specific WP:CSD#G1 way. My apologies. Pig^man 21:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Medina High School on the Isle of Wight with a Director of Arts named Stephen Lines. A Marcus Gill teaches there as well. The Isle of Wight Youth Trust website is illustrated by Adam Brown. I presume this article was written by a student at the school, or something. I don't know if I have the right to vote here, but I'd delete it. User:Marjaliisa —Preceding comment was added at 22:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You have every right to vote (although a) technically they are not votes and b) you did not actually say "delete"). But many thanks for the info. which confirmed my suspicions. -- RHaworth 18:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax? Certainly unsourced. JJL 01:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Patent nonsense. There is no need to leave your common sense behind when you come to Wikipedia. -- RHaworth 02:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the definition of patent nonsense. It does not qualify. It is also not clear that it is pure vandalism. No need to rush. --Ginkgo100^talk 03:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry to go on, but one argument for rushing is to try and avoid Google noticing. OK, as a schoolteacher, Stephen knows that rubbish like this comes with the job but it is still not nice to find this article near the top of a Google search. (((Db-attack)) could have been invoked.) (Google retrieved the article eleven minutes after Ginkgo100 restored it!) -- RHaworth 18:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. Oddly modern names for characters supposedly from the seventh century. Clarityfiend 07:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, should have been prod, as it is obviously made up. Keeper | 76 19:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I forgot to mention it was a contested prod. --Ginkgo100^talk 23:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, probably hoax Neozoon 22:40, 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.