< October 28	October 30 >

Guide to deletion

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

The result was keep, without prejudice to this being referred back to AfD later if the list drifts back to the unsourced trivial rubbish it was at the start of this AfD. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 13:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of high school football rivalries (less than 100 years old)[edit]

Mostly unsourced list of non-notable high school football rivalries. Seriously there are thousands of them, even my old high school has a couple of rivalries. If some one wants to, List of high school football rivalries (100 years+) can be included as well. See WP:NOT, WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:V, etc. Delete Jbeach ^sup 23:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete not something an encyclopedia can reasonably cover, and I strongly doubt this could ever be reliably sourced. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator Chris! _ct 00:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Carthago If articles like that are not deleted and salted, then there's no point deleting any article at all.--victor falk 00:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have an article on this? I mean, really, we have an article on this? Raymond Arritt 00:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who created this article? More to the point, why created this article? Kill it with fire. DS 00:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list is completely unmanageable. Fun fact: I actually played in one of the rivalries listed here. Pablo Talk | Contributions 01:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with List of high school football rivalries (100 years+) to List of high school football rivalries. I don't doubt that there are many very notable high school rivalries, although I would like more sources on these articles. You know, at least one source per item/entry. However, lack of sources is not a reason for deletion, and Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, meaning that Wikipedia as an encyclopedia can reasonably cover a lot of things that a paper encyclopedia otherwise could not. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non noatable subject I also imagine this being a nightmare to source. Wondering why it's compain article is not nominated. Ridernyc 02:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep._{Arrgghh...edit conflicts...} Yeesh...why all the venom? While undoubtedly there should be a standard for inclusion in this list, as well as the 100+ years list, looking through it, there are several that, given reliable sources, would even be notable enough to support their own article. Others have no particular claim to notability and probably should be removed. Such a standard for inclusion would make the lists entirely manageable, as even at the present, neither of these lists are really very long. If the claims made about several of the rivalries on these lists are true, then many of them are among the oldest high school football rivalries in their respective states. In many regions, they are just as notable and important as some college football rivalries -- many of which have Wikipedia articles which are thoroughly sourced. My point here is not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but rather that in the case of many of these rivalries, if they're as old or prominent in their respective areas as the list claims they are, then there must be significant coverage in (at least) local/state news sources, as the two cases are analogous. I mean, some of these rivalries draw tens of thousands of spectators -- way more than just your typical local rivalry. In short, both lists should probably be tagged for cleanup and as needing references (which I'll do as soon as I'm done here), and rivalries listed that don't seem to have any claims to notability outside of their respective school communities should be culled. LaMenta3 02:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have added a proposal for standards for inclusion on the talk page of this article. Many lists that would otherwise have items added indiscriminately have these to keep them manageable and encyclopedic. I ask that all of the people !voting 'delete' or who otherwise have concerns about the manageability of this article (and the 100+ years article) review this proposal and contribute to the discussion. Hopefully, the establishment of such standards will help ease the concerns about manageability such that a list that has potential to contribute something fairly useful to Wikipedia can actually remain to do so. LaMenta3 02:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Commment: Those criteria for inclusion are well-thought-out and seem like a good basis for the article. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this on Talk:High school football. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with LaMenta3's criteria or a derivative actively enforced. Then what we have is a list of notable rivalries, and that is an acceptable use of list articles. Note also that the criteria will require reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 02:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some form. Rivalries can be very notable, and extensively written about. --W.marsh 03:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the criteria, but the article still needs to be sourced with heavy reliable sources, not just local newspapers. Jbeach ^sup 04:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Local newspapers are generally considered reliable sources, as they are the best positioned to provide accurate and extensive coverage of subjects that might generally have only regional notability. This is why I said they if it has been covered in a national or international source, it is probably notable regardless of anything else. However, if it hasn't, it might still be notable based upon other things such as attendance or relative age. LaMenta3 04:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Any high-school rivalry gets mentioned in local town newspapers. Jbeach ^sup 18:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, which is why there are other standards for notability/inclusion than coverage in local press. If meeting one of those standards can be proven, even with a local news source, then it can be included and considered reliably sourced. You seem to keep forgetting that the reliable sourcing has to work in conjunction with the other criteria, not in lieu of. LaMenta3 19:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable subject that is amply addressed in reliable sources, though I would suggest a year range for inclusion, say 50-100 years. Alansohn 04:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't put an upper cap on an inclusion range. A lower bound for age might be a good idea, particularly for notable-but-defunct rivalries (say, they had to have lasted for at least 25 consecutive years and meet one of the other criteria during its time of existence), however for existing rivalries, I think that the criteria for inclusion will probably exclude most newer rivalries anyway. LaMenta3 04:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created this page when it became apparent that the original page, List of high school football rivalries was going to be tooooooo long. I agree that there probably needs to be some standards for inclusion, but deleteing the page would be a shame. A shame because this is a bit of American history that isn't chronicled in many other places, one of the reasons people come to wikipedia: you can find useful facts on just about anything. For instance, I was amazed to find an article about Silent Death Online. It was an online game that lasted about 5 years and died 5 years ago. These rivalries will last for dozens of years, will involve teams across the country. As far as notability is concerned, a high school football rivalry in Ohio will never be notable to folks in Mississippi, nor would one in Oregon be notable to folks in Maine. But should they be remembered only by those in their own locations? Clean it up, but let's not loose them, its not like we are running of of space. 67knight 05:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this article list exactly 2 references. I doubt it can every be fully sourced fro reliable sources.Ridernyc 14:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a Google search on "High School Football Rivalries" and came back with five, maybe six, reliable sources that look to verify several of the items on both lists...on the first page of search results alone. I'm working on parsing those half-dozen right now to add them to the lists. Just because there are only two references now doesn't mean that others don't exist, because they most certainly do. It just means no one has bothered to look for them or add them. LaMenta3 17:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

do these sources meet WP:RS, or are they all local papers reporting on a local subject. Ridernyc 18:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please use proper grammar and punctuation, including interrogative marks where necessary, in order to better convey the meaning of your remarks during discussions. Thank you. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do these sources meet WP:RS, or are they all local papers reporting on a local subject? --victor falk 18:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the three current sources seem to be Jbeach ^sup 18:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I have found and added so far have come from USA Today, Sporting News, The Oklahoman, Tulsa World, Versus and Rivals.com. Sources that I have found but have yet to incorporate include this article from Army.mil/news as well as a couple of supporting sources for ones I've already added, and there are plenty more where all these came from. Reliable enough for you? LaMenta3 19:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where does this imaginary requirement that User:Victor falk has created demanding that national coverage is required for a source come from? This article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn 19:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lets see, local coverage for local events are normally considered as trivial. Jbeach ^sup 20:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see. A sports score of a local game is trivial coverage. Coverage of a game and its history is non-trivial, whether it comes from The New York Times or from the local paper. As stated in WP:N, "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. There is absolutely no statement that the coverage must be national or that it can't be from the sports seection. Alansohn 20:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

none of this would stand as notable on it's own, I don't see why a list compiling 100 non-notable things would suddenly make it encyclopedic. These are just local events. Ridernyc 23:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually looked at the content of this list and the content of the references that are there, you would see that many of the rivalries have been significantly covered by both local and national media and that some even have Wikipedia articles of their own. Of the ones that don't have their own articles, some are certainly notable enough to support one(the Jenks-Union rivalry comes to mind as one that should really have an article but doesn't yet), while others are notable enough for inclusion in the context of high school rivalries. This is no different than including information about schools in a district in the article about the district -- they are notable in the context of the district, but may not be able to support articles of their own.LaMenta3 00:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The article currently has 27 references, and rivalries whose notability could not be established by reliable sources through a cursory Google search have been moved to the talk page until such time it can be more definitively established whether sources exist or not. There are a few rivalries which I have found sources for that still need to be added to the list, and I am currently working on those in my sandbox. Once I'm through with those I'll move on to doing the same to the 100+ years list. LaMenta3 22:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Do ~~secondary school~~ high school ~~soccer~~ football rivalries not exist in other countries? My initial reaction is that all articles in question need to be renamed, but I'm not sure if it would be necessary. Figured I'd throw that out there. Modla 09:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To actually bother with High School sport is not a thing we do in Norway, at least. (With the possible exception of sport- high schools, I haven't heard of secondary schools here with teams in any sport, and I cannot remember anything serious of the kind.) Seeing this games actually draw big crowds are very strange. But as this seems to be some sort of answer to, say, the Oxford- Cambridge boat race it seems like something that can defend it's place here (but I keep neutral on this. Or actually a non-voting neutral;-)) . Greswik 17:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was snowball keep, Wikipedia is not censored. Non-admin closure. shoy (^words _words) 12:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lars Vilks Muhammad drawings controversy[edit]

This article and the images it contains are inappropriate, spread hate and may cause in a global crisis. According to WP neutral point of view, the article contains biased opinion. On the other hand, the WP is not a news website or a blog. The images in question have not drawn big attention to be in an encyclopedia. --Techana 23:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's something wrong with the way this was nominated, since it's not showing up in the page for today, but I can't figure out what's wrong =\ ... at any rate,

Keep — Wikipedia is not censored and the article contains numerous referances to show its notability. —Salmar ^(talk) 23:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I figured out why it wasn't appearing. —Salmar ^(talk) 23:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but having sources is not enough to keep such an article. Offending can have sources but should not be in an encyclopedia. --Techana 23:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure, for example, that Charles Manson, Hitler, the Holocaust, the Ku Klux Klan, gang rape, warfare, gun violence, the Tellytubbies etc. offend many people, but we have articles on all of those topics. Oli Filth^(talk) 00:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You're wrong. Fee Fi Foe Fum 23:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Reproducing the images for the purposes of creating an article about this notable subject is not inappropriate. This user has a history of trying to censor the images based on his point of view without wanting to seriously talk about his changes first. For example: [1] [2]. The article itself operates within WP:NPOV as far as I can see and does not present bias. The images are certainly notable enough and pass WP:Verifiability. Fnag aton 23:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing wrong with this page, has a lot of references, is notable, and actually looks pretty good.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Not this again! Have we not seen that arguments that "images of Mohammed == inappropriate" don't generally wash on articles where the images are clearly pertinent? See e.g. the Kabba or Muhammad articles (and in particular, their respective talk pages). We can go on doing this again and again, but the consensus outcome isn't going to change (see also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam/Images_of_Muhammad). Oli Filth^(talk) 00:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't like the media taking potshots on Muslims then hiding under freedom of speech either as it feeds a vicious cycle of hate. However, the article as it stands is strong in both verifiability and notability. A little improvement might even make this a GA--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sorry. I do agree with you on this. But our policies say that we must include notable things like this. This isn't really our point of view nor is it intended to promote thier point of view. But as an unbiased information source of a controversy like this. Sorry. Marlith ^T/C 00:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is NPOV, well sourced, and notable Chris! _ct 00:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ! The incident was made notable by Muslim protest - including death threats - from several countries. MX44 01:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is not censored, and the incident is clearly notable. This nom seems to be in bad faith Bfigura ^(talk) 03:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Substantial sources, notable incident/event, well presented. Controversial perhaps but Wikipedia is not censored. Pig^man 04:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Oil Filth. this nomination is disruptive and part of user Techana's apparent holy crusade against the images. It's impossible to AGF here as edit history bears out that his only purpose here is to get rid of the images. JuJube 04:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is a well-balanced, thoroughly-documented article that addresses a controversy that was front page news around the world. Alansohn 04:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia is not censored. This seems WP:SNOW keepable at this point. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute Keep It's the attempts by some people to limit our right to freedom of speech which are 'offensive' to me. Nick mallory 10:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ASN-GW[edit]

Non-notable part of the WiMAX infrastructure (in the sense that about one sentence would cover it in the WiMAX article). Article doesn't actually say what it is. Most of the text and images are lifted from the only real reference, a document written by article's author approximately 10 minutes ago! PROD removed by author, so AfD now. Oli Filth^(talk) 23:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, useless listing of information.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most of the article seems like an irrelevant overview of WiMAX. What is pertinent doesn't require an article of its own. ObfuscatePenguin 02:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:N. Doctorfluffy 08:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails notability and lacks context. --Stormbay 00:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was snowball keep. Vandalism is not a reason to delete an article, content decisions should be dealt with on the article's talk page. Non-admin closure. shoy (^words _words) 15:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MacGregor State High School[edit]

Page constantly being changed/vandlised, and the gang video not really proved to be apart of gang video, rather just a one-off mockup. An ongoing issue, that needs to be done with a full removal of the page.--Tayuke 22:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please also seeTalk:MacGregor State High School, and the latest section I've written about the page: It ends here! --Tayuke 22:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Your reason for deletion that there is controversial information on the page is not a viable argument. Imagine if every page that had controversial information on it, we just deleted it and didn't fix the information. There wouldn't be any pages on Wikipedia. Just tag the article with ((POV)) and discuss the changes on the talk page. This article is notable enough to be included.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See, there's where this trouble all began: This editor come's along, and adds this section about "Supposed Youth Gang Violence". Even though it wasn't even verfited back then, and therefore removed from the page, he come's back 6 months latter, having sumbitted it the BrisbaneTimes and Channel 7. And although myself, and a number of others keep on removing it, he thinks he has every right to keep it up, just to bring down the schools name, in what I think, from my point of view, because he was or one his friend was invovled in one fight...one...and now he's claiming there's an entire gang war now going on, because of the actions that happend last year.--Tayuke 00:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Per WP:SNOW on the nominators reason. - Rjd0060 23:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Vandalism is not a reason for deletion - trys page protection instead. Chris! _ct 00:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable and verifiable sources supporting details regarding the school, awards received and alumni satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Vandalism is a separate issue. Alansohn 00:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep School seems notable enough. AfD seems to be used for censorship in this case. Loopla 01:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is no valid reason to suggest deletion. -- DS1953 ^talk 01:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep obviously - notable high school with plenty of awards, plenty of notable alumni and plenty of sources. We deal with vandalism by protection/blocking not deletion or else the vandals win. TerriersFan 03:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —TerriersFan 03:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW. Deletion is not the place to go when you can't get your way in an edit dispute. Whatever the right thing to do with this article is, it has notability covered, and the dispute needs to be handled through OTHER avenues, not AFD.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. This article would suck if converted to a category, and Burntsauce doesn't have suffrage. east.718 at 09:38, 11/4/2007

List of marine parks with Orcas[edit]

What can I say, this is a list of theme parks with Orcas alright. We're not a directory service for this sort of information, please delete. Burntsauce 22:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to whoever fixed this for me, I initially copied the wrong template code so it was linking to another article (not related at all to Orcas). Burntsauce 15:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't understand your reason for deletion, but anyways this article just needs to be referenced and improved.

Delete now that I see the correct article, it is not terribly notable and unreferenced.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Ummmm......per above comment. - Rjd0060 23:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Much better (lol). Delete as OR and, well, a pointless list. Use a phone book or other "directory". - Rjd0060 03:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep since deletion reason makes no sense whatsoever. Smashville 01:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete...This makes sense now...I don't see why this couldn't be included in List of marine parks or something like that. It's a little weird that List of marine parks wouldn't exist yet, but this one does? Smashville 14:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator evidently messed up the template when nominating the article. He accidentally listed the pagename in the template as a different article. The keep !votes sbove my comment are all on a different article, The Batten Twins, another article that the nominator brought up for deletion. That discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Batten Twins. Pablo Talk | Contributions 01:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the items in this list could be included in a list such as List of marine parks, I don't see why we would need a separate list for marine parks with orcas. Pablo Talk | Contributions 01:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete random, non-notable criteria. I would agree that a list of marine parks may be appropriate, but to have different lists for marine parks based on individual animals they house? That seems to be random.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random, non-notable criteria? Being rabid when it comes to deleting listcruft is one thing, but don't be absurd when it comes to talking about scope here. This is about as specific a criteria as it gets without being too limiting. It's only a list of marine parks that keep one species, and this is a notable and unique issue. Keeping orcas is a hell of a lot more notable and controversial than keeping many other marine mammals. VanTucky ^Talk 02:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable list. Orcas are a key attraction species to marine zoos. Many have names and are notable in their own right.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A valuable list with a very clear and finite scope that is obviously verifiable. This would not be as effective as a category. Needing referencing is not the same as being unfit for encyclopedic treatment. Not all lists are automatically unencyclopedic. VanTucky ^Talk 02:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep by virtue of the fact that this list is what called my attention to the fact that several (4) Orcas once part of the Sea World "family" were sold (3) or on breeding loan (1) to foreign marine mammal parks. I've been (trying to) clean up some of the individual captive Orca's entries here (though these pages themselves get flagged occasionally as non-notable--everyone thinks all of SeaWorld's whales are named Shamu, apparently) and this page helped establish where some of the Orcas I was familiar with (as a park guest in a city that has an active, breeding population of captive Orcas) had been moved, or indeed, a couple that had died (by virtue of not appearing on the list, for example.) Anyway, I'm in the weeds. The data itself is useful, but as long as it got carried into the right articles, I could live with this page going away, I guess. Not sure I see the need, though, especially if this gets sourced properly (I have emails out to a variety of captive Orca-related site owner's, as well as a couple authors of notable books on the subject.) - Ageekgal 03:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: There are roughly only 45 surviving captive Orcas in the world, and nearly all of them perform or have performed choreographed, daily shows for many millions of people (setting them apart from, say, captive gorillas or whatnot.) This isn't a list of monkeys in Zoos, or (far less rare, also) dolphins and porpoises, etc. - Ageekgal 03:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weakest possible keep The practice of keeping orcas in marine parks has attracted a significant amount of media and public attention. We should be improving our coverage of cetaceans in captivity. This list isn't a magnificent article by any means, however I have a feeling that deleting it would be a step in the wrong direction. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 03:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize -if that's an option: this should be a category? Greswik 17:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete--JForget 00:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jequebskeet[edit]

Delete: Utter nonsense - fails WP:DICDEF and WP:NFT – Tivedshambo (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its total lack of references is suspect; the fact that it gets 2 google hits - both Wikipedia - is conclusive. Hoax! Brianyoumans 22:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tivedshambo. However, the article is about a neologism, which fails criteria for speedy deletion. I agree that it is unsuitable for Wikipedia, and I suggested to the author that he submit the word to Urban Dictionary. Cited Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and also said that if the word could be found in a real dictionary, it could be added to Wiktionary. (However, this does not appear to be the case.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above Thanks, Codelyoko193 (T/C)
Delete, innocent mistake on the part of the contributor. Good idea to suggest that he submit the word to urban dictionary. THE KING 23:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per prior users comments.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete complete nonsense. Chris! _ct 00:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Quite aside from all the above reasons, it doesn't even have an IPA pronunciation guide. It's got to go. ObfuscatePenguin 01:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The category serves the purpose just the same and there's no compelling argument to keep. Kwsn (Ni!) 03:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional amateur detectives[edit]

This is a case where the list just basically duplicates the category. And the excessive linking to external sites (or one external site in particular) make this more of a linkfarm than an appropriate article. Corvus cornix 22:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with the nom. Dreamy ^§ 22:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This does, as Corvus cornix says, seem to both duplicate the category and to have an excessive number of links to one external site. I don't find the "first appearance" column to be of much use (or to be excessively precise), and the category contains many, many more entries than this page and is therefore more useful. I will take the liberty of bringing this AfD to the attention of the Crime Task Force, of which I'm a member, just to see if anyone has an opinion they would care to express. Accounting4Taste 23:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. JJL 23:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - surely if you question this list you should consider all the categories in Category:Lists of fictional detectives together and of a set, otherwise you leave a logical whole. To my mind the options are remove the whole lot, or improve the deficiencies of the list! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep if the only argument anyone has is that this list is redundant with the category. If anyone has a better argument I will think about looking at the article, and make a comment of some sort. But a categorisable subject should have an equivalent list, absent other considerations. AndyJones 13:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Category is better in this case, and I agree with Kevinalewis that all of the similar lists in Category:Lists of fictional detectives should also be considered for deletion. Crazysuit 03:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List is unmaintainable and does not add anything beyond what a category provides. Edward321 04:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Critique of the above !votes:
- Basically duplicates the category. Two responses:
  - Duplicating a category is not a deletion criterion. As my vote says above, in the absence of other considerations an appropriate category should have an equivalent list. This is because the list has scope for expansion in a way a category doesn't: for example it can contain annotations and red-links, both good things. For example, it can cross-reference to the creator and first appearance of a character, as this one does.
  - Clearly this list does more than duplicate the category, since the article contains columns x-reffing the creator of the character and the work in which the character first appeared.
- Excessive external linking ... linkfarm. Inappropriate external linking is a matter for cleanup, not deletion.
- Agree with nom. Why?
- Don't find first appearance column to be much use. You'll have to explain this to me. Surely if you write an encyclopedia article on a literary character one of the first things you type is "...he first appeared in...".
- not excessively precise. Lack of excessive precision (whatever that would be) is a matter for cleanup, not deletion.
- category contains more items ...cleanup, again...
- category is more useful and Category is better in this case. Irrelevant. We have no need to make a choice between a category and a list. We can and should (nay: we can and do) have both.
- Delete as above. Good argument, soundly reasoned.
- Delete per nominator. Ditto. Well thought-out.
- [Other articles] should be considered for deletion. No. This article and other lists which are useful navigational tools should be preserved and expanded. Wikiprojects involved in the area of wikipedia in question (detective fiction in this case) should be encouraged to take the navigational lists within their remit under their wing.
- Unmaintainable. Bizarre argument. I have no idea what you mean by this or why you imagine this list is unmaintainable: but if you can explain your rationale here, I will be happy to explain to you (by cross-reference to various featured lists where appropriate) why you are wrong.
- Does not add anything beyond what a category provides. Except, of course, for the information it does provide which isn't in the category. If what you actually meant by this vote is "the information it adds beyond what a category provides isn't valuable" then that is what you should say, and explain why you hold that view, with which I will disagree. AndyJones 18:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to recognize that, based on the thorough and helpful comments of AndyJones immediately above, that I don't understand the issue here as well as I thought I did. I think I based my suggestion on the knowledge of the way that I use Wikipedia but it now seems fairly clear to me that other people use it in a way that I hadn't considered; I felt the list was redundant but I am not certain of that now. I would ask that an administrator take my ignorance into account when making a decision; this is the first instance I've had on commenting on an AfD for a list.

That being said, though, there was some reason I said what I did, and I hope to make that clear in case it helps anyone. When I suggested that I didn't find the "first appearance" column to be much use, my reason was that, if I wanted to know what the first appearance of Miss Marple was, I would go to the Miss Marple article and look there for that information, because that is where I would logically expect to find it. My reasoning for the existence of the list was that it would be used by people who were interested in finding information about amateur detectives of whom they were not previously aware, and after I tested that assumption by going to the page that lists the pages that are tagged with the category, I found that that page was much more helpful in that respect. As I suggested above, I think I use Wikipedia in a certain way that I now suspect may not be shared by everyone. If I was looking for more information about fictional amateur detectives, I'd go to the page for a character with which I was familiar, find the relevant category tag, and use that tag to find all the articles in that category. However, I now recognize that other people find the list format to be more intuitively useful and so, if people find it useful, by all means let's retain it.

And the reason I suggested that the list was not "excessively precise" is that, in two instances, I felt the first appearance datum was ... less than precise. The first appearance of Miss Marple is in a short story which is earlier than the novel cited in the list, and giving the first appearance of Jessica Fletcher as "Murder, She Wrote" doesn't give any precise information about what the first episode was, which is what I would have wanted to find. The more precise information is found in the respective articles.

Thanks to the other contributors to this discussion for improving my knowledge of why and how people use such lists, and I apologize for any imprecision I've lent to this discussion. Accounting4Taste 21:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#LINK. Doctorfluffy 05:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, although as pointed out above, it only breaches WP:NOT#LINK because no-one has cleaned it up. The need for cleanup is not a reason to delete anything. AndyJones 08:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Greswik 17:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NF have it. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 13:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I-59 South[edit]

This film is only in pre-production and is not yet deserving of an article by WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NF. Contested prod. Alksub 21:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the notability guidelines for films state that the article can be recreated when (if) it enters production. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 14:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are some notable actors associated with this film. Let's give the writer a chance to back up some of these claims and add to the article. I don't think that it's non-notable enough to delete. Illinois2011 03:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guidelines for films state that a film should not have its own article until production has started. This much is rather clear. The article can be recreated at such a time when production is confirmed to have started. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 07:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NF; just because notable actors are being sought does not mean they will be successfully cast and the project will enter production. WP:NF determines the threshold for when a film article can exist; at the moment, there is no certainty that a film will be made, warranting a plot section, production section reception section, etc. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanon Valley Mall[edit]

NN Regional Mall, No apparent notability from what is presented in the article. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 21:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Wikipedia has plenty of articles for regional malls. What's notable is that it's the only indoor mall in a 30 mile radius, and featured the first branch store of Boscov's (the nation's largest family own department store) outside of Reading.

PanzaM22 22:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Mike[reply]

Comment: Where are there any 2 malls within 30 miles? Also, WAX. - Rjd0060 23:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You must live somewhere extremely rural. There are many places in America where people do not need to travel 30 miles to reach an indoor shopping mall, however, you make a valid point with WAX so it's really a moot point. PanzaM22 19:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Mike[reply]

Delete No claim of notability (speedable per (CSD/A7). Apparent media coverage regarding notability: "Dog bites man": [3].
Wikipedia is not a mall directory.--victor falk 22:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not terribly notable, I could see possibilities for this to be expanded, but not in the near future, and it still probably wouldnt meet the standards.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: No assertion of notability. - Rjd0060 23:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another non notable mall. Ridernyc 02:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did a major cleanup of the article. Perhaps this will help it be more notable to people's perception of notability. PanzaM22 19:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Mike[reply]

The result was delete. Simply not notable enough. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 13:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Rosa Plaza[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qst 17:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there are more malls this size near where I live than I have fingers and toes. This mall is no more notable than them. Axem Titanium 19:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. @pple complain 10:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Westwood Mall (Jackson, Michigan)[edit]

Local, regional mall under 500,000 sq. feet. No apparent notability from references or what is presented in the article itself. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 21:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim of notability (speedable per (CSD/A7). Apparent media coverage regarding notability: "Dog bites man": [9].
Wikipedia is not a mall directory.--victor falk 22:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as creator of article. I can't DB-author this since other users have made contributions to the article, but yeah... Nothing notable here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete as copyright violation (WP:CSD G12) and lack of assertion of notability (A7) by JzG (talk · contribs). —David Eppstein 00:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve B. Sawyer[edit]

Does not assert notability with reliable sources, and is part of a flood of articles created by WP:SPAs and meatpuppets. See [10] for more, but even in itself, this article does not assert notability. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 21:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 01:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: copyvio of subject's website. And I see no assertion of notability beyond that of any university lecturer. ObfuscatePenguin 02:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete--JForget 00:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Miller (college instructor)[edit]

Non-notable person; claimed authorship seems to be a hoax; nobody by that name ever won any silver medals in 2002 Winter Olympics.--12 Noon 21:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. "Few people know this, but it's true"?--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 21:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not speedy I have already declined a speedy deletion. The article asserts notability and WP:HOAX is not a reason to speedy I'm afraid. It looks like it's all untrue however. Pedro : Chat 21:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 01:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Clearly a hoax. --Crusio 01:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As hoax "Meet Me at Timmy's" have 5 unrelated hits in Google (so much for reviews). Also, the article seems to be "convincing" editors that its claims are true rather than give reliable references. At least he is kind to animals though.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm going to say this is a simple case of a real (but absolutely non-notable) person whose friends - or students, in this situation - have tried to get an article written about. Needless to say, the fact that he's absolutely non-notable once the hoax information is removed means that he doesn't get an article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a hoax. Chris! _ct 22:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Perhaps a joke from one of his students. TGreenburgPR 00:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Bjorgen[edit]

Disputed prod by Tbjorgen83 (talk · contribs). Extremely likely to be a vanity article, no reason given for dispute. Non-notable - or barely notable - film editor. Does not assert notability through reliable sources. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 21:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:BIO. No awards, no major credits, no IMDb entry even. Clarityfiend 21:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Clarityfiend. Doctorfluffy 07:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication in the article of any significant accomplishments that would be notable. A google search turns up no reliable sources. -- Whpq 15:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was nomination withdrawn by nominator, with no dissenting opinions. —David Eppstein 14:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lesbia Claudina Vent Dumois[edit]

~~No independent sources to establish the notability of this artist. Fails WP:BIO~~. Cap'n Walker 21:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looking online (leave out Claudina when you search, you get better results), I can see enough online that I think notability can be established, and someone Spanish speaking and familiar with art could probably improve the article a lot. I'm sure we don't have enough coverage of contemporary Cuban art, anyways. Brianyoumans 21:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems clearly notable: [11], [12], [13], [14]. Since io non parlare espagnol, I think more could easily be found. She has an article on spanish wikipedia also--victor falk 22:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep English sources limited, but a good translator could really help this article. WBardwin 01:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 01:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Google Books results among others indicate she is a figure of some importance in 20th century Cuban visual arts. Move article to Lesbia Vent Dumois per WP:NC. --Dhartung | Talk 06:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. Sorry, I searched using the "Claudina" in her name. Cap'n Walker 19:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Savi Political Consulting[edit]

It seems non-notable. Could not find third party sources in google. I also thinnk that it is advertisement, at least a bad case of WP:COI and and violates WP:N. What do you all think? Brusegadi 21:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems notable given its work and unique expertise in areas such as Africa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebsavi (talk • contribs) 21:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Notability must be established with independent sources. Brusegadi 21:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't make up my mind wether it's spammy soap or soapy spam):..--victor falk 23:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Spam. ObfuscatePenguin 02:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any independent coverage about this company. If they're involved in elections, are there not links for articles on the subject in african newspapers? In the absence of sources, notability cannot be established. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. PeaceNT 04:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James A. Collins[edit]

Person of questionable notability creating an article about himself. There has been confusion on whether he intends the page to be in article or user space (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:James Albert Collins); it seems to be the former, so I believe a new nomination is warranted. Procedural nomination - no vote. - Mike Rosoft 20:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no apparent biographical notability. Locally accomplished opera singer, but not much to go on. --Dhartung | Talk 06:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article still does not assert notability and remains unreferenced despite my advice and the previous drama of his article-formatted userpage being nominated at MFD. Note that an IP user has removed the AFD tag. Maralia 14:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The author (I'm almost positive it is just the IP of the user) has since removed the tag twice. I can revert some, but being unfamiliar with 3RV... — Nova Dog — (contribs) 20:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously, per lack of any notability. Jmlk 1 7 10:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to his talk page, youthful eagerness is notable, so is this effort but the subject itself does not seem be. Perhaps one day ... grasshopper. Benjiboi 10:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, don't move the page into user space in this way; moving the page into article space with a comment "I want it to be an artical not a userpage" makes his intentions clear. Perhaps extract this revision and userfy it. - Mike Rosoft 10:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Concur. The user did listen to the feedback in MfD case and the situation was resolved; if someone could lecture about this, it'd be highly appreciated, as, alas, I'm not in the condition to do that right now. =/ --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if userification of an otherwise deletable article will do any good unless the notability actually can be established eventually; sorry to be cynic, but such userfied articles frequently tend to stay in user space and not get improved at all in this regard. We're not a web host. Plus, this article already existed as an user page and MfD consensus was heavily toward "inappropriate use of user page", article-format-v.-user-page-format issues notwithstanding; if it's pushed back to user space, at least stick it into a subpage.
  In summary: It might fly as an user subpage if the user in question actually tackles the issues; if not, as frequently is the case, the resulting MfD would be a particularly open-and-shut deletion. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, serious conflict-of-interest issues, lack of sources to back up wider notability. These issues need to be fixed very soon. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Is there even a claim of notability? Sang solos in school. In the church choir. Sings at the old folks home. He's scheduled to appear in a play. All nice things, but not really notable. Glaring Conflict of interest problems. --Onorem♠Dil 11:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (Not voting twice!) — Nova Dog — (contribs) 19:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piano dave[edit]

Non-notable musician, fails guidelines at WP:MUS. Beloved Freak 20:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --Beloved Freak 20:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above. Non-notable.Alberon 12:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Google returned nothing to establish notability via coverage in secondary sources. Doctorfluffy 19:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-Notable. sd92 —Preceding comment was added at 04:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Scrapes past the notability guidelines for bands. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 13:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Courteeners[edit]

They apparently have a pretty good PR machine, but this band hasn't released an album or toured yet. Fails notability. Corvus cornix 20:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They might be notable one day, but they aren't yet. Reads like the PR it almost certainly is.Alberon 12:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - issues with the article sounding like a PR piece can be dealth with. Tagged with ((POV)). -- Whpq 15:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article provides two sources, and searching trough Google News shows a lot of hits. Many of these articles (for example this one) have the band as the focus of the article. It looks like they've made it past "up-and-coming" to "newly-arrived". Meets WP:BIO with multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. -- Whpq 15:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reads like an advert and needs to be toned down a bit but subject of article appears to be notable - major label single released, several secondary sources, supported a definitely notable band, et cetera. 91.106.28.172 18:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC) (Sorry that was A1Octopus who had forgotten to sign in.)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Batten Twins[edit]

Suggesting that this article be deleted due to a lack of WP:NOTABILITY, and also lacks of multiple non-trivial reliable third party sources about the subjects. Google is not the end-all of determining notability, but a cursory search gives only 280 unique hits. [15] The actual Wikipedia article was tagged as unsourced 6 months ago. Burntsauce 20:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable enough, although the article does need a lot of work.

Delete Changed my mind after a little more in depth search. Lacks enough outside info to create an adequate article, although could be recreated if viable sources are found, as they seem to be somewhat notable.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 02:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While lacking reliable sources is not itself a reason to delete, the fact that the article has been tagged as unsourced for several months is evidence that no reliable sources exist. Additionally, I did my own Google search and was unable to find any reliable sources. As such, the subject lacks notability and should be deleted. Pablo Talk | Contributions 02:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - It doesn't look notable to me. The NWA has really fallen into obscurity, and the other companies are independent promotions notable only in their respective areas. Seeing as they've frequented so many, one could make a case that they are notable overall, but the long-term lack of sources causes me to doubt whether or not they really are. The Hybrid T/C 00:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They didn't win the NWA Tag Team Titles as such, they held a regional variation which means not much in the grand scheme of things. No non-trivial reliable sources, only references are phone book entries on title history websites. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 05:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete both. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 13:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of libraries in Newham[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory, nor is it a place for lists of non-notable institutions. I think whatever is worthwhile here can be covered in the borough article in a sentence or two. Brianyoumans 20:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added List of Libraries in the London Borough of Waltham Forest to this AFD; it is very similar to the Newham article, and I think the same arguments apply. Brianyoumans 20:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into the town article, although I expect sourcing will be a major problem. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could a page be more yellow than that?--victor falk 23:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I originally PRODed Waltham Forest; another ed. removed it,and I've notified him of this discussion. I don't really see that a mere list of libraries like this is notable. But if it were expanded slightly, it might serve the same purpose as schools district articles, to prevent the introduction of excessive articles on the individual libraries. DGG (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge There are many, many entries of lists of libraries in particular localities and I think the particular holdings of these resources make the information notable. Having said that, the entry could use a rewrite to emphasis what is important or unique in these libraries (e.g. the deposited Olympics materials). Otherwise, merge. Kate Q 19:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- On the contrary, I have done somewhat of a search for library lists, and I found relatively few. There is a List of libraries in Barking and Dagenham which I will probably AFD or prod if this AFD succeeds. There is a list of libraries in Singapore, which is full of links to articles on local libraries; I think that is excessive, but it is clearly much more fleshed out and (given the existence of library articles) necessary. I have prodded a list of libraries in Malta. There are a number of other lists which are justifiable, to my mind - for instance, the list of US Presidential Libraries. Brianyoumans 20:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Directory list of non notable libraries. Don't forget List of libraries in Barnet as well. Crazysuit 21:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with main article. I was the editor who restored List of Libraries in the London Borough of Waltham Forest after it had been prodded. This was because it contained sourced information, not included in the main article, about the public campaign against the closure of one library. This is certainly notable, but I agree that this, and the list, would make more sense in the main article on Waltham Forest. RolandR 00:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, violates WP:NOT#DIR. Doctorfluffy 04:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was: Speedily deleted - vanity/spam. Page appears to be used as a kind of a personal website; Wikipedia is not a hosting service. - Mike Rosoft 21:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Marcel Gashi OFFICIAL WIKI[edit]

Spammy article about a non-notable radio personality. Cap'n Walker 20:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, sounds like a sad individual who seeks publicity and to 'big himself up'. I say delete it. Now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.5.25 (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7 (bio). I smell COI, but this person is evidently trying to use WP to promote themselves. We are not a resume service. I'll tag the article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The award is an honourable mention by a minor awards body, demolishing the "keep" argument. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 13:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shelley Fowles[edit]

Delete contested prod; unsourced blp for an author of nn books ranked #362,362nd, 697,443rd, and 310,581st, respectively in sales at Amazon.com, fails WP:BIO Carlossuarez46 20:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Won an award for her debut book; published several times since; article improved to reflect this. Rankings at Amazon should be considered in the context of the vast number of items for sale, and the .com site being a foreign market. Clearly a stub for now but, given time, could develop to the stage John Coy is at now (who, incidentally, has lower sales ranks). ObfuscatePenguin 03:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 13:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of speakers at Wizards of OS[edit]

This is a long list of people, most of which do not match the criteria for notability. The initial prod tag was removed by User:Achitnis with the argument 'because of the number of *notable* people who are listed in it, and who have articles about them on WP. Thilist, while seemingly "uninteresting", is really a power statement of the success and importance of the event. I mean, just look at all the names that are not red-linked!' (See Talk:List_of_speakers_at_Wizards_of_OS). In fact, the red-linked names are in the vast majority. In addition, several of the people with existing pages appear to be non-notable themselves. (By the way, one is a link to a Civil War general). This list does not seem to serve any useful purpose, hence this proposal to delete the page. --Crusio 20:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete more red links than a communist sausage factory. This really is more appropriate for their own website than at Wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pointless WP:DIRECTORY of non-notable people. Doctorfluffy 17:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rosie Michell[edit]

Declined speedy - nominated under A7 - NN-bio. This is a procedural nomination - I am not taking a stance on this either way. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources cited for verification and questionable notability. --Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 19:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. IMDB verifies her existence, but she doesn't appear to meet the notability guidelines; I couldn't find any real articles discussing her work, and she seems to have appeared in minor roles. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ioeth and FisherQueen. Doctorfluffy 05:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirected to Active Enterprises. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 13:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheetahmen[edit]

Contested prod. Non-notable group of fictional characters. Topic fails notability requirements, article fails verifiability requirements for lacking any reliable secondary sources, possibly unverifiable. Chardish 19:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mascots based on a non-notable video game? Delete as non-notable, unless someone comes up with some impressive reliable sources before the AFD ends. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's notable/notorious in the sense of being dubbed one of the worst, if not the worst, most poorly coded games of all time by several video game reviewers, though none of them are treated like authorities. The information presented is fairly accurate but is unsourced, as most of the info was added before Wiki's standards tightened up. I'd rather see it given more of a stub status and the opportunity to receive citations or possibly merged with the Active Enterprises article, as this was one of the company's few developed properties. - Liontamer 15:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REVOTE from Keep; Merge with Active Enterprises. Note, I've already merged the content itself. Took all of 15 minutes. Better to be bold. I think the Active Enterprises article itself is notable enough, but needs to be improved. In my opinion, it looks like a potentially surmountable problem. - Liontamer 22:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. It looks like there's a lot more information on the Japanese version of the page. Xylthixlm 05:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of major highway bridges and tunnels of South Hampton Roads region of Virginia[edit]

I don't see the point of this. Satori Son doesn't either, but for some unknown reason he removed the WP:PROD template. NE2 19:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep for now. Like it or not, this a list of apparently notable bridges and tunnels in a certain area. I would review the various articles listed and see if some of those need to be deleted; I suspect they do. If the list became a lot shorter, then I would say delete. Beware: transportcruft can be hard to get rid of! Brianyoumans 21:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue is that we don't need a list of bridges like this. The articles on the region, the rivers, and the cities should list them; this is a list that nobody would think to go to. --NE2 22:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comment above. JJL 23:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is simply unnecessary to list highways out. Chris! _ct 00:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NE2 master son^{T - C} 01:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to parent categories Category:Bridges in Virginia and Category:Tunnels in Virginia. Hmains 02:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. (And as I'm sure NE2 is quite aware, the "some unknown reason" I removed his/her PROD template was very clearly stated in my edit summary. This didn't have to be personal, and it certainly didn't have to come to AfD.) -- Satori Son 04:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You changed the template to read "Wikipedia is not a travel guide or an indiscriminate collection of information; see WP:NOT." A list like this does not only appear in a travel guide, and you should look up "indiscriminate" in the dictionary. When I reverted to the original reason, you removed it because ""what is the point of this?" is not a valid deletion reason". PRODs can be deleted for the sole reason that nobody has objected to their deletion. --NE2 05:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess my reason for removing your template was not "some unknown reason" after all. ;) -- Satori Son 05:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reason that's completely false. Is that what I should have said? --NE2 06:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Already adequately covered at Hampton Roads#Transportation. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jayron32. --MPD^{T / C} 13:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, WP:NFT. NawlinWiki 20:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kitty cat club[edit]

This article is about a organisation that is not sourced, and does not seem to be well known. MBOmega 19:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um... wha? Speedy delete A7, and will tag as such - zero notability expressed or established. This is not a notable club whatsoever, from the looks of it. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy deleted by User:Starblind (A7 nn-group). Non-admin closure. shoy (^words _words) 23:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Luncheon Club[edit]

Non-notable school club. Pittising 19:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pittising 19:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7 (club). So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Otakudom[edit]

No independant sourcing to show any sort of notability to this. TexasAndroid 18:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link to previous AfD - Here's a link to the previous AfD. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 18:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the previous AfD did not convince me why this article should be kept. Also, the article has not provided any evidence of notability or secondary and verifiable sources which is required for notability. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 18:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Previous AFD said no concensus. Problem is that a parody fan dub, while often fun (and sometimes even funny), is often not notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, and still no reliable sources. IMHO the first AfD was pretty convincing to delete: 3080 Google hits isn't anything special, and it's down to 1,330 today, with 241 of those being unique. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article has no verifiable sources to demonstrate notability, as such it should be deleted. TonyBallioni 22:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Fails WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy 05:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was ReDelete. east.718 at 01:00, 11/4/2007

Evangelion: ReDeath[edit]

No independant sourcing to show any sort of notability to this. TexasAndroid 17:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While fan parody is fun, it's often not notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The three references included in the article appear to be from some kind of blog or forum which are not usually good secondary, verifiable sources of information. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 18:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Neon Genesis Evangelion media - needs better sourcing, but an outright deletion is a bit heavy-handed IMO. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 18:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would oppose that merger, as it's not a real NGE product. 132.205.99.122 20:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite the title, this isn't part of Evangelion, it's fans making up a silly soundtrack to go along with video footage from the show and putting it on YouTube, where it's not exactly popular even by Youtube standards. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge (create) into Neon Genesis Evangelion in popular culture. I think that Peon Hentai EvanJellyOn [16] [17] is more notable, and it doesn't have an article. 132.205.99.122 20:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Two things to note: firstly, "...in popular culture" articles tend to drop like flies when they hit AfD, and even then usually fan-made youtube stuff doesn't go in such articles anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Save or Expand. I co-wrote Redeath in 1999,2000. No, I do not promote it actively, and yes, people still have a continuing interest in it. I believe Redeath stands up to WP:Notability guidelines in the following ways:
- Shown at over 50 conventions internationally since 2000 (well before the creation of YouTube) to actual people in actual theater seats. [18][19]
- Redeath has been screened in the main video room at FanimeCon annually since 2000.
- Screened at non-animé conventions (e.g. at Penguicon 2005 by Rob Malda of Slashdot).
- Has at least 1 independent reference. [20]
- Created an internet meme.[21]
- The Redeath creators have never posted it to YouTube (fans did even after asked not to).
- The entry is not self-promotion; the Redeath creators (or anyone related) did not create the entry in wikipedia. (again, fans did and still do edit).
- If Redeath is not notable, please mark the following for deletion: All_your_base and Rocky_Horror_Picture_Show. Kelvin Nishikawa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.143.70.174 (talk) 02:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— 70.143.70.174 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The two mentioned articles are both very well sourced. Time Magazine and Wired are pretty hard to beat as reliable, independant sourcing. The Evangelion: ReDeath article offers no sourcing independant of the film, let alone sourcing of the caliber of the given articles. - TexasAndroid 12:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Save . I represent one of the non-anime conventions that screens this parody (CONvergence)
- Using Youtube to define notability/popularity isn't much of a measure. It's older than YouTube and Andrew actively works to restrict distribution outside the convention convention/festival circuit. The version on YouTube is an old and not indicative of the source material we screen.
- Youtube was sited several times. I've read several essays about wiki notability and it seems to me the we should judge this based on the notability in the fandom community at large. Not just a subset of the internet.
- We have been screening it since 2000. It is, and continues to be, one of the most popular items we screen.
- It is well known in both Anime and Non-Anime Fandom
- Production values such as editing, and dubbing exceed the customary levels we see with other submissions.
- My personal opinion is this genre of parody is best viewed in a large group. Similar to Rocky Horror. It's also my opinion that it would be very hard to judge this notability if you're not tied into the large convention/festival community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.42.28.156 (talk) 05:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— 208.42.28.156 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

All very interesting. And all pretty much irrelevant to the issue at hand. The article needs to show reliable, independent, and non-trivial references, preferibly multiple of them, to show it's notability. None of the given sources are independant in the slightest, and so they fail right there. Without such sourcing, notability cannot be established. - TexasAndroid 12:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No indication of passing WP:N. Doctorfluffy 20:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Save Seems like this is the same thing as an "official Selection" (non-competing) at a film festival. Official Selection meaning the festival choose to screen the work, as in it appear in the official program. A single screening at Sundance is enough to give any work an entry into the Wikipedia. There are 40+ US based anime conventions that have been deemed of note on the Wikipedia. By that virtue, if sourcing can reflect that this work was official programming at a number of notable conventions I'd be satisfied. I agree with Willbyr that it needs better sourcing, but the delete is heavy handed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.174.110.147 (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep, even after disregarding all the "keep as per..." voting which helped nobody. This isn't a vote and just because this decision tallies with the voters doesn't mean I counted heads. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 14:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

South Yorkshire Amateur League[edit]

Non-notable amateur league. I asked for opinions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football but got no particular consensus there. Is every league at every level notable? My feeling is no. Corvus cornix 17:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom. There is no proof of notability. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 18:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 18:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete amateur sports is usually non-notable by definition, and certainly this article has nothing suggesting it to be some kind of exception. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This league is part of the football pyramid system, which is the league structure in England which leads up to the Premier League. There are articles about leagues all the way down to level 24 of the pyramid, so to decide that a level 16 league should be deleted seems pretty arbitrary. It makes sense to keep articles about the entire league structure, rather than picking a random cut-off point. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 18:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Just because there are less-notable ones that haven't (yet) been deleted doesn't mean this one stays. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wasn't saying it should be kept because other league articles exists, it should be kept as part of the football league structure in England, having an arbitrary cut-off point is wrong, it should be all or nothing. It's a single structure made up of a large number of leagues. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 19:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Generally the way it goes is that professional teams/players are notable, anything under that are not. Exceptions are the Olympics and certain very high-level college teams (example: Penn State Nittany Lions). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - If its all or nothing, I would take the nothing option. Just reference the minor, not notable leagues in the main article. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 19:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm inclined to go with Gasheadsteve. Considered in the context of the whole league pyramid system, it seems fair to keep it. Marcus22 20:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Leagues in English football league system are not notable because they've been blue-linked in that article. They should be black-linked unless they meet wp:sport.--victor falk 23:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gasheadsteve. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 23:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Gasheadsteve. Simon KHFC 00:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gasheadsteve. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The South Yorkshire Amateur League is a Saturday league, not a Sunday league (which are the pub league types). Convention thus far has been to include all Saturday leagues as long as they have verifiability, which this league does. If you want to campaign against the inclusion of lower-level Saturday leagues, that conversation extends beyond this AfD. --Balerion 04:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Gasheadsteve and Balerion. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 14:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Air O'Smith[edit]

Article for "Air Guitar" band that played their first gig on Saturday. Article creator claims notability of band members. Bringing to AfD for more thorough debate. Improbcat 17:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The band has been formed by Gabi Matzeu, two times UK Air Guitar Champion, and competitor in the World championships. Gabi Matzeu (The Hoxton Creeper) and Charlotte Watkins (A Boy Named Sue), both members of Air O'Smith, are quoted in this Sunday Times article: Air guitar comes out of the bedroom. Gabi is also talked about and quoted in The New York Times [22], Guardian Unlimited [23], and here [24], and The London Paper [25]. This is the UK's, and possibly the world's, FIRST EVER %100 real air-guitar band, and as such, is worth a Wikipedia article, despite it's relative youth, which I admit is the main problem for the criteria of notability at the moment. Orgone 17:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - independent coverage seems reliable and relevant. Revisit in a year if necessary.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 17:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no independent coverage of this "band". Crazysuit 18:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is not true, see here [26] Orgone 02:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A couple of people got namechecked in a Sunday Times article so that makes their "band" notable? You've got to be kidding. This is the New York Times "coverage" of Gabi Matzeu: the British contestant, Gabi Matzeu, put it, “A lot of people say: ‘You loser. Go and get a real guitar.’ ” There is no coverage at all of this group, searching "Air O'Smith" + "Air Guitar" shows the lack of notability. Crazysuit 18:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete given the fact that they formed two days ago (!) and have only played a couple of small bars, this wouldn't be a notable band (nor would it pass WP:MUSIC even if they did actually play real instruments. Which they don't. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Koko (venue) is not just a small bar, it's a rather large venue. Orgone 02:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Independent coverage for Matzeu is there, hence shouldn't his "band" also be notable?--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 18:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not everything that is mentioned in a newspaper is notable. Zetawoof_(ζ) 19:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally, no. Firstly, I don't think Matzeu is notable, but that's not what's being discussed here. Even if this were a supergroup of the 5 most notable musicians in the world, it still wouldn't be possible to have an encyclopedia article until the band itself has independant reliable sources and passes WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You don't think Matzeu is notable because you are a cultural snob. He is a national champion in his chosen activity and has been talked about in many internationally reputable news sources, what more do you want?Orgone 02:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I take the opposite view to User:SarekOfVulcan; if this group ever becomes notable, we'll include them, but a less-than-one-week-old air guitar band doesn't need an article until they have a few more gigs under their belt. Brianyoumans 21:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per Starblind and Brianyoumans. The band is just too young to be included in Wikipedia. Perhaps the article will be re-created a year from now once they have more independent coverage.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:55, 11/4/2007

James Anath[edit]

Delete no sources, no indication of notability, fails WP:BIO, WP:N Carlossuarez46 17:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability, no relevant ghits--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 17:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge (down and dirty method of adding text and redirecting). Also did the same for all the other characters except Max Headroom him/itself. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 14:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ned Grossberg[edit]

Fictional character from a tv show. No real world notability. "'Ned Grossberg' -wikipedia" returns under 200 google hits, none of which appear to be solid sources for notability. Doctorfluffy 17:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Delete into Max Headroom article. No secondary, verifiable sources provided. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 18:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Max Headroom. Note to BlindEagle, GFDL would effectively forbid a deletion if we merged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If this one is deleted, other Max Headroom character pages should be considered.--P Todd 01:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notabilty outside of the show, no real world information.Ridernyc 02:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the main Max Headroom article. The character information would fit perfectly well there.Alberon 12:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dreadnaut[edit]

I have looked at the band's claims of notability, and I am unimpressed (a self-published CD/EP making 2000 and 1000 sales, respectively; plus a number of downloads on their myspace page). Not found at allmusic.com, band's website has no Alexa rank. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 16:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Doctorfluffy 17:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nominated 15 minutes after article creation.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 17:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How is that any reason not to delete the article? Please comment on the article's merits and my arguments for deletion, not on when it was nominated. (For the record, I have been watching Special:Newpages and deleting clearly inappropriate articles; instead of speedily deleting this one, I decided to bring it here.) - Mike Rosoft 18:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BAND --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 18:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't track much in the way of reliable sources for this band or its claims, and it doesn't appear to have made much of a dent in the WP:MUSIC guidelines. Maybe after a couple of albums and some touring it will come up to that level. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to dreadnaught. 132.205.99.122 20:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think Mike Rosoft is playing inspector as he made good faith searches prior to deletion. Besides, the band really fails WP:BAND and WP:MUSIC. References in Youtube, Myspace and its own official website are not impressive and not independent coverage. I'm ok with the anon's redirect suggestion too.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not passing WP:BAND and the self-referential sourcing, and redirect per Mr. IP above. tomasz. 13:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:52, 11/4/2007

Panacea (band)[edit]

Delete nn band, fails WP:BAND, article was contested prod a while ago, and much WP:COI editing since. However - no label, no tour, no independent sources, etc. as required Carlossuarez46 16:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to fail WP:MUSIC. Doctorfluffy 17:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per no evidence of passing WP:BAND, despite being tagged for months.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 17:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was: Speedily deleted - hoax/patent nonsense. - Mike Rosoft 21:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tuna conspiracy[edit]

Mildly amusing hoax; the book referred to in support does not exist [27] Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 16:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoax. SolidPlaid 16:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly fake. Doctorfluffy 17:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most likely a hoax. Cryo921 19:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. Dr van Nostrom doesn't seem to exist either. Hut 8.5 20:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. east.718 at 19:29, 11/4/2007

Sharon Gans[edit]

Not notable for Wikipedia. Fails WP:N and WP:BIO. Sc straker 18:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Credits are minimal, press coverage as well, although she's obviously knocked around the theatre world for ages. Big BLP issues with sourcing. There might be an argument to merge with Artists and Orphans: A True Drama (an Oscar nominee), but that article doesn't exist as of now. --Dhartung | Talk 19:59, 23 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, — Scientizzle 16:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've gone ahead and created a stub about the movie... — Scientizzle 18:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've re-worked the article and found some interesting sources that indicate that Gans is an alleged cult leader in addition to being a little-known actress from an Oscar-nominated documentary... — Scientizzle 22:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet notability guidlines--4.246.250.74 04:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)— 4.246.250.74 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I am no expert on Wikipedia standards, but the information is accurate in this entry. Gans is a cult-level performer who played a leading role in a cult. She definitely merits a Web presence. So for that matter does her husband Alexander Horn, author, playwright, cult leader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davesenior (talk • contribs) 17:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment then it would be wise to read Wikipedia standards such as WP:N and WP:BIO before voting. This individual may be notable to you but does not meet the criteria as stated in WP:N. Just because the information is accurate does not mean it is notable for a worldwide english encyclopedia. If she merits a web presence, then she can host and maintain her own website. Wikipedia is not MySpace nor is it IMDB. --Sc straker 16:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

===Honduo===Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreadnaut

A re-creation of an article that was speedily deleted under CSD G11 - blatant spam[28]. Nothing appears to have changed. Nominating for deletion and salting to prevent re-creation. Malcolmxl5 06:56, 23 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, — Scientizzle 16:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Very spammy. Doctorfluffy 17:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't know about the spam or ad angle being noted about this artcile. However, it definitely needs secondary, verifiable references before it can be considered to to stay. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 19:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per WP:NOT a promotional site. Chris! _ct 00:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:51, 11/4/2007

Victor Fedeli[edit]

Delete nn local politician, article written like a fan site, unsourced blp, fails WP:BIO Carlossuarez46 15:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable, fails WP:BIO. Article currently unsourced, google turns up no decent sources either. Doctorfluffy 07:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was nomination withdrawn with no delete !votes. Non-admin closure. Deor 00:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christian thinkers in science[edit]

WP:POINT - This page advocates a Christian view that tries to push a point, by listing a great number of (important) scientists and then noting they were all Christian.

The point that the list tries to make can best be viewed in the context of the modern creationism debate, where an argument is that religion, and Christianity in particular is incompatible with science. This list tries to push the contrary POV. Regardless of the truth or untruth of that argument, it does try to push a POV, which is not allowed.

Note that this list cannot be rewritten from a neutral point of view, as its violation of WP:POINT is inherent to the topic and format. A list does not allow arguments in favour and against, and critical discussion of the relationship between religion and science. Articles like "Relationship between religion and science" are to describe that topic.

Redundancy. The vast majority of pre-modern Western thinkers, even those who were credited with the start of non-Christian thought, were Christian. In this context, this list is redundant with many of the historical lists in lists of philosophers, as this list is a (POV) excerpt of the other. Note that this list cannot be changed to be not redundant - if anything, the addition of more names could make it more redundant. And, in its alleged role to examine the relationship between religion and science, it is redundant to "Relationship between religion and science", and fundamentally flawed as the list format does not allow for any discussion.
WP:NOT#DIR. If we establish the above two points of point of view pushing and redundancy, and their inevitability given the topic, it follows that this list fails the inclusion criteria for lists as much as "List of scientists with blue eyes" does.

As a last note, many of the sources used in this article could be moved to the article mentioned several times in the above deletion reasoning. User:Krator (t c) 15:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This list is based on "List of avowed Christians in science", an article that was previously nominated for deletion. That debate reached no consensus to delete, and defaulted to keep. That article was largely based on "List of Catholic scientists", an article that was nominated for deletion, and deleted previously. User:Krator (t c) 15:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having read the article, which is well sourced, I disagree with the assertion that it's promoting an agenda. Mandsford 16:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — To me this isn't just a random cross-categorization listing. There's a historical philosophical conflict between western science and Christianity that needs to be documented. So I agree with Mandsford. — RJH (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to agree with both of your arguments, but I do not see how the conclusion that follows from them is keep. The area of discussion is certainly valid, and the article meets the verifiability criteria. However, it is impossible to discuss the topic in an NPOV way in the format of a list (see above). Secondly, I would like to ask User:Mandsford for his reasons why it is not promoting an agenda. I found the arguments I wrote down at the start of this deletion discussion quite logical, and I am always interested in the arguments of the other side. Note that I am not nominating this article out of some grudge against Christian scientists - I simply think it is the wrong way to discuss the topic, because it is a POV and redundant way. I would be more than willing to retract the nomination, if presented with a clear argument against my point. User:Krator (t c) 16:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you really wanted to be a stickler for neutrality, you could rename it to Thinkers in science and christianity, though I'd guess the subsets of non-christian people being both notable in science and christian theology is fairly small.--victor falk 17:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I am saying then is that I disagree with the criteria given for deletion, especially with regard to WP:NOT. Hence I can neither express an opinion to delete nor to leave it at only a comment. I'm also not especially interested in a debate on the matter: the Admin can agree with my opinion or ignore it. — RJH (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Before seeing the list, I thought "another crufty list of "people with religion X and occupation Y"". But this is most definitely not. For one thing, it says it is "strictly limited to scientists who also contributed to Christian theology or religious thinking". Of course it can be interpreted as some as "look at how many great christian scientists there are", just as some could point at list of french napoleonic marshals and say "look at how many great French military geniuses there are!", but that's not the point of neither list. Second, it is a very good one at that; I'd rate it at least B-class. Third, that the content is overlapping with articles such as "Relationship between religion and science" is moot. It is a list, ie a different way of presenting that same content. "The medium is the message".--victor falk 16:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I thought this was actually quite a good example of a style of article I dislike - the list. It is niether just a list of scientists who were nominally Christian nor is it a list only of those with orthodox views (i.e. it contains heretical thinkers such as Bruno) but an informative list of people who contributed to both Christian theology and Western science. I actually enjoyed reading it and learned a little bit as well. Nick Connolly 18:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is probably one of the best list articles I've seen here - it's well sourced and organized, and has a specific guideline as to whom should be included on it. I don't see the WP:POINT the nominator expresses, personally. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I too anticipated voting delete when I read the title but having seen the page it seems like a good addition to WP. JJL 23:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing nom. Obviously no consensus to delete. The fact that the list looks good and meets WP:V seems to thwart my deletion proposal in many people's eyes. I will abide by that, though do not agree - no one has actually responded to any of my concerns for deletion, something I dislike. User:Krator (t c) 23:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rif Raf[edit]

Delete. No assertion of notability Endless Dan 15:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Appears to be non-notable. Doctorfluffy 17:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although I can't help but wonder what the hell a "strong asexual motive" is within the context of a bar. Do the people there reproduce by spores or something? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notabiltity, and it is hard to see how it could be notable, having been open only since 2004. Brianyoumans 22:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then redirect to Riff Raff as plausible typo Will ^(talk) 00:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:50, 11/4/2007

Tags (computer program)[edit]

Spammy article with no independent sources to indicate that this program is in any way notable. See my talk page for some discussion with the author. Cap'n Walker 15:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy 17:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's more info a link to some discussion about this article. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 19:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only a few downloads does not constitute notability in my opinion. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 19:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether the vote of the author counts, but I must point to the fact that the software exists for only two months. From that perspective, I think 200 downloads is not bad. Also, I submitted the software to two online freeware repositories and they both valued the software as good enough for their website. Shouldn't new software get a chance to grow? Julian Gong 00:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it "grows" to be notable, it can be re-added. Notability is usually decided by it being mentioned in 3rd party sources, not by the number of users, anyway. Mdwh 00:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect; no consensus to delete but clear consensus that this level and form of detail is not appropriate. No merging done; feel free to add anything relevant to Demon lord (Dungeons & Dragons). -- Visviva 13:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turaglas[edit]

Subject of the article is not notable in the real world, article has solely an in-world context Pilotbob 15:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom, pure fancruft. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 19:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Disagree with nomination. Try improving the article, or suggesting improvements before nominating for deletion.Shemeska 20:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 21:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources providing any claim to notability outside of game universe. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shemeska.--Robbstrd 00:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Demon lord (Dungeons & Dragons) -- it already has a list that could be expanded with a limited amount of the detail from this article. Pinball22 16:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this article is written in-universe perspective which treats plot summary as if it were real and ignoring the requirement for sourced analysis. --Gavin Collins 10:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Pinball22 Percy Snoodle 11:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge Adequate sourcing and notability. Colonel Warden 12:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, violates WP:NOT#PLOT and it's unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability per WP:FICT. Without reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, it's impossible to establish notability per WP:N with any amount of rewriting or cleanup. Doctorfluffy 19:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:49, 11/4/2007

R-GEN Media[edit]

Poorly written article. The subject fails WP:CORP. The author, Rgen Media (talk · contribs), had a clear conflict of interest in writing this article. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unlike some of the game development projects we get here, this one has actually released some software. There's still no evidence that their software (or their company) is notable, though. Zetawoof_(ζ) 19:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability. Strange mix of personal bio and corporate advertising. Doctorfluffy 06:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete--JForget 00:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Pearce[edit]

This article seems to be about someone who was temporarily newsworthy, but does not have the level of importance and notability for an encyclopedia article. I'm also concerned that this article may exist primarily to disparage the subject - it is certainly slanted against him. Deli nk 14:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, NN criminal charges, WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:BLP1E concerns. --Dhartung | Talk 15:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per all of above. --Endless Dan 16:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Doctorfluffy 17:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete did a minorly dumb thing in public, got arrested. Barely newsworthy, certainly not encyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear violation of BLP--relatively minor crime, the subject is not noteworthy otherwise, and the name of his victim is unnecessarily present in the article. DGG (talk) 22:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons and as a copyvio of this article FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn despite BBC etc. coverage--just a single albeit amusing arrest. JJL 23:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not 'slanted against him' - it is lifted from a newspaper article reporting the said events. (Will add the reference later, but it can be googled). How can this article be 'an amusing arrest'? The subject was gaoled for 12 months for 'criminal intimidation'. It was also not a 'minor dumb thing' it was a 'sustained, deliberate act of vicious intimidation' (Magistrates words). It is not up to users on Wikipedia to make judgements like 'minor dumb crime' over acts of stalking and intimidation. People are not sentenced to gaol for 36 months for 'minor dumb crimes'. This article should be available for the general public to see, it IS newsworthy, and it is helpful to a range of people in society to be able to access this information. Please don't trivialise this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HKqwert (talk • contribs) 09:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:49, 11/4/2007

Ridgeview Ranch Golf Club[edit]

Not every golf course on earth is notable. I don't see what's special about this golf course. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim of meeting WP:Notability in article. Source offered is just a directory.--Fabrictramp 17:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly fails WP:N. Doctorfluffy 05:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. east.718 at 09:57, 11/4/2007

James Z. Wang[edit]

The article does not meet any of the WP:PROF criteria. Iterator12n ^Talk 14:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article introduces James Z. Wang and his contribution to CBIR, Automatic Linguistic Annotation Indexing, and other image related high-level applications. His research is novel and several projects in his group have been reported by discovery, CBS news, and other media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplely (talk • contribs) 18:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Simplely (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Crusio 20:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article asserts notability in several ways, each of which might justify an article. For example, he has authored 2 monographs and about 100 journal articles; this is a nontrivial accomplishment. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notibility has been stated in some ways. e.g. 1) Wang is the author or coauthor of two monographs and nearly 100 journal articles, book chapters, and refereed conference papers. 2) His works have been widely cited. For example, SIMPLIcity: Semantics-Sensitive Integrated Matching for Picture Libraries has been received more than 500 citations. 3) The SIMPLIcity system has been sought after and obtained by researchers from more than 60 institutions. 4) His work has been widely reported by significant media including ... 5) He acts as a reviewer for 40+ scientific journals and many conferences. 6) Detailed contributions of his monograph to his field. Wendy xxy 17:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Wendy xxy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Crusio 20:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 17:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, no opinion on notability per our guidelines on biographic articles at this time, but it bears pointing out that the Keep !voters above, excepting Shalom (talk · contribs), would appear to have a conflict of interest here and appear to be part of a group of editors creating a walled garden on academics at PSU.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Publishing is what academics do and in itself not enough to establish notability. WP:Notability should be documented by independent secondary sources, which this article does not. --Crusio 20:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes, and whether they are notable depends on how much they do and how many people refer to it. The references from other peoples' work are the independent sources. The people in the field determine notability--we just record it. DGG (talk) 04:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources are given to establish notability. SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 21:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - CoIs from above editors lead me to believe that this article was created in bad faith. If that wasn't enough, it doesn't assert notability per WP:RS. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 21:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think he is marginal, but his co-authorship of ALIPR is convincing for me; see this coverage, for instance. Articles should not be removed because they were created by interested parties, they should be deleted because they are non-notable, and I think this guy is notable enough. Brianyoumans 22:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as per Sasha Callahan and Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry. --Crusio 22:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 500 citations to a particular book r article is extremely high in any subject, shows professional recognition as a significant author, and thus demonstrates notability. The absurdly over-written article does need very drastic editing. as for the people at Penn State, I wish they'd get in touch with me or someone, and we will explain the facts of life about WP:BFAQ and how to have reasonable articles in WP, instead of stuff like these which not unreasonably attracts deletion. DGG (talk) 04:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage of ALIPR in multiple sources. The trim by DGG helps the article a lot. Gimmetrow 04:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for your trimming, DGG. Editing the article frequently partly because of my unfamiliarity with wiki editing as a novice, and partly because I am keeping remedying problems in WP:RS and WP:PROF. As for some people who think it is not enough in WP:RS, I would like to cite the following statement in WP:RS: "In general, the most reliable publications are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses." I have listed representative peer-reviewed journals and two books published by RESPECTED publishing houses to support WP:RS. I think it has met the criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wendy xxy (talk • contribs) 04:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wendy xxy, as I read these things, WP:RS indeed defines a reliable source and the books and articles you mention are indeed reliable sources. However, these need not necessarily be produced by the subject, but must be about the subject. In that way, we get reliable, independent, secondary sources establishing reliability. All academics publish in peer-reviewed journals and with respectable publishers, that in itself does not make one notable. Notability follows if those publications (even if it is just one) have a real and objectively verifiable impact. This impact should then be [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiable] and, as stated in WP:PROF, an academic (or any other subject for that matter) may satisfy the criteria for notability and still not satisfy the criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia because of a lack of verifiable and independent sources. The 500 citations mentioned above would do to establish verifiable independent sources, but what puzzles me is that I don't see those citations in the Web of Science. There the most I get is somewhere around 140, which is very respectable, but not necessarily notable in my eyes. Perhaps DGG has an explanation for that? If they're real, I'll change my delete vote to keep. --Crusio 09:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Crusio, Google Scholar says the citation number for that paper is more than 500. It is not strange that ISI citation might be much lower than Google Scholar. There are two reasons. First, the number of the academic journals ISI embodies is much less than Google Scholar, also much less than other important acamedic index such as EI Index, although those journals ISI embodies are regarded as highly respected. Second, ISI citation is not very up-to-date. ISI collection is maintained manually, and aims at keeping what it embodies only the best academic works. So, It is totally understandable that the paper only receives 140, rather than 500, citations in ISI. Just because of the above reasons, 140 citations for one paper in ISI is enough to verify notability. Wendy xxy 10:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wendy, I see your point. However, I ran my own name and looked at the results for my own publications (I know those best, of course, and will not deny a very small amount of vanity, too :-). It's probably field dependent, but my own papers get less than half the number of hits in Google Scholar than they do in WoS. In addition, some commentaries that in reality got cited perhaps just once, get scores of 30 or 40 in Google Scholar. Even for those papers that did get cited more frequently and in Google get lower citation frequencies than in WoS, when I look at the actual list of citations given by Google, many are counted two or more times. This combination of under- and over-reporting does not instill much confidence in the accuracy of Google Scholar. I guess this is because Google does things automatically whereas WoS does much by hand. In my experience, WoS is not so outdated as you suggest, a few months at most. In any case, as you see below I accepted the 140 WoS count as enough evidence for notability (from a verifiable independent secondary source :-). --Crusio 10:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just note that the 140 citations I mentioned above are to an article published only in 2001, that's not just "very respectable", but actually very high. I change my vote to keep. The article still needs cleanup (the list of publications seems a bit overdone) and also needs to be sourced (the awards, for instance). --Crusio 09:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WoS (ISI) remains the standard, as it is limited to peer-reviewed articles, GS gets most of them too, but it also gets a lot else, and if we are dealing with the notability of an academic it's references from such article that count. But, as Crusio says, 140 for a field like information science is extremely high. It would be very respectable in almost any subject, even ones with a higher frequency of citing each other like biomedicine. DGG (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's starting to snow - keep 68.143.88.2 15:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean up, eliminate the external links peppered all over, and only talk about the notable aspects of this professor. This article should be shorter. Ante lan ^talk 23:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; WP:PROF guidelines are not met; having 100 publications is not on its own evidence of notability. SparsityProblem 04:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are your thoughts on the NSF Career Award? Ante lan ^talk 04:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An NSF CAREER Award is prestigious, but by definition it's for faculty who are early in their careers. To meet Wikipedia notability guidelines, an academic has to be more established than that. SparsityProblem 05:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good response. Let me think this over; I may change where I stand. Ante lan ^talk 12:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, some one deleted the account that can prove notability best, that is something about paper citation. I do not know why. No matter how big divarication on quality of a specific well-known type of citation, 500 hits in terms of google scholar or 140 hits in terms of WoS(ISI) citation is enough for notability.Wendy xxy 17:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PROF #6 has "The person has received a notable award or honor"; it doesn't say this must be late in an academic career. Gimmetrow 18:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have no real standards for evaluating research grants.(personally, I tend to look at the amount of money involved.) In any event, I do not consider them awards in the sense of prizes. But there is an easier way--the amount of the grant and its importance results in more papers published. What scientists do that make them notable is to publish things important enough to be cited by other scientists. DGG (talk) 22:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I don't think the CAREER is a sufficiently notable award as to pass WP:PROF but I'm more impressed with his citation counts. —David Eppstein 15:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. east.718 at 19:31, 11/4/2007

Harold A. Rogers[edit]

Founder of a redlinked group, referenced exclusively from that group. Scored well in a television poll, but you know what? I'm a bit suspicious of those "you vote" polls, because every now and then you get a bit of vote-stacking. I prefer there to be some independently verifiable source for importance. What I see in Google indicates that apart from Wikipedia pretty much the only source about this guy is his own society. Guy (Help!) 14:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. As the speedy-deleter of the entire category Category:Kin Canada. Every single one of those articles either A) Lacked in notability, B) Was a copyvio from their site, C) Completely promotional in nature, or D) Some combination of A, B and C. Unless several independent (of his organization) sources can be found, I fail to see how he's established notability, much less his organization. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have yet to prove the accusations of promotional or copyright violations that I requested on your talk page. To speedy delete these articles as spam was completely out of bounds. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete.~~ Redirect. I restored this article, because I thought it needed the benefit of AFD rather than speedy-delete. (BTW, I may be restoring a few more for the same reason.) On further examination, however, I don't think that this man is notable. There are numerous accusations on various websites that there was a lot of vote-stacking for Rogers in that vote[29][30], and even the CBC acknowledges that he "benefited from a block of supportive and diligent voters"[31]. So it doesn't seem that that one seemingly/perhaps notable achievement is notable after all. I think that his group might be notable, and he might merit a mention on that page, but he doesn't need his own article. Calliopejen1 15:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't restore them for the same reason. Restore them if someone asks and has some sources, by all means, but this is a society promoting itself, whether through innocent over-enthusiasm or some other motive is not really important. I, too, read "those who benefited from a block of supportive and diligent voters" as a thinly-veiled accusation of vote stacking. Guy (Help!) 15:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked around and there appear to be at least some secondary sources that would support the articles' claims. (The Kin Canada articles generally, that is.) I restored Telemiracle (turned into a redirect to Kin Canada) and Kin Canada - I think a club with tons of branches and 8100 members is notable and certainly not speediable. I also changed my vote to redirect, because it doesn't hurt for this to redirect to Kin Canada, especially for readers who are curious coming from the most important canadian list or whatever that is -- he's the only unlinked person. Calliopejen1 03:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Founder of the largest Canadian service organisation. Honoured as an Officer of the Order of the British Empire in 1948, Officer of the Order of Canada in 1978, and the first recipient of Ontario's Lamp of Learning award in 1950. Linked to a red-linked group because User:^demon took it upon himself to declare and delete the articles as candidates for speedy deletion. This article has now been rightly placed here for consideration and Kin Canada, Kin Canada Bursaries, and Telemiracle should also go through this process. They are in no way CSD. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody who's been named to the Order of Canada should have an article explaining who they are and why they're important enough to be given the highest civilian honour a Canadian can receive. Keep. Bearcat 14:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with DoubleBlue and Bearcat. All Officers of the Order of Canada are notable. Keep. --YUL89YYZ 17:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- Order of Canada recipients are inherently notable. There are three levels: Companion (highest), Officer, and Member; Rogers is an Officer. There are up to 15, 64 and 136 of each respectively that may be appointed by the Queen annually. A check of deletion discussions linked to the Order of Canada article shows they all passed:

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Trudi Le Caine (Member)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ted Harrison (Member)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bev Koester (Officer)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marvin Kwitko (note -- it turns out Kwitko was not an O.C.; this was an unsourced assertion in the AfD)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Meakins (Officer)

Here's a link to Rogers' page on the official Honours website.

--A. B. ^(talk) 19:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sidebar comment: I did a Google News Archive search on "Kin Canada" and came up with 41 hits, but not a one that would satisfy WP:NN for that organization ... however searching on the more formal term "Association of Kinsmen" produces 120 hits, many useful, including a Canadian Encyclopedia entry. --A. B. ^(talk) 16:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indded, it was only recently renamed from Association of Kinsmen and Kinette Clubs to Kin Canada. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. —A. B. ^(talk) 19:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge and redirect. Carlosguitar 22:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Able Carter[edit]

Contested prod about a fictional bus company. The article provides no context, analysis or secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside the game instructions for Dungeons & Dragons. Gavin Collins 14:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 14:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Subject of article is a fictional company, but is not a fictional bus company as nominator states. Edward321 05:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Very unlikely that independent sources exist to indicate notability. Doctorfluffy 17:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More fancruft. Shoot a +1 Arrow vs. Fancruft through its heart. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 19:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Free City of Greyhawk -- there's even already a Transportation section that this would go nicely in. Pinball22 16:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect as per Pinball. Edward321 00:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect as per Pinball. --Zache 14:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. east.718 at 09:56, 11/4/2007

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Sportstalk In Black N' White

Sportstalk In Black N' White[edit]

non-notable, local show, limited audience, non-encyclopedic Rtphokie 14:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Radio station may be notable, but that doesn't make all of its shows notable. Nyttend 14:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nyttend. Doctorfluffy 17:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. @pple complain 10:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Angarita[edit]

Doesn't seem to have done anything of note other than Survivor: Fiji, and ample precedent proves that Survivor alone isn't enough for a page. For example, see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacy Kimball and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cassandra Franklin. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Precedent appears to be at best a redirect in cases of minor notability such as this. Doctorfluffy 17:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Survivor. Redirects are cheap. THE KING 23:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Survivor: Fiji page, not enough notability for his own page Survivorfan101 06:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Do we need to know that this attorney enjoys painting and yoga? Not Wiki material. TGreenburgPR 05:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. east.718 at 19:32, 11/4/2007

Return To Pepperland[edit]

Contested PROD. Unsourced and unverified. Not mentioned at Paul McCartney's own page, nor at Paul McCartney discography. If it is unreleased, why does it get an article? Seems a bit hoaxy to me. TexasAndroid 13:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search shows that there is indeed a bootleg by this name bouncing around. Still, this is unsourced, and there's no assertion nor sourcing on why this particular bootleg is actually notable. So not a hoax, but still, doesn't seem to be WP material IMHO. - TexasAndroid 13:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this were an actual completed album that was intended to be commercially released but wasn't due to some controversy or dispute, I could see a possible article there. Instead it's apparently just a bootleg of demos and other miscelleny and devoid of reliable sources in any case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People don't be dumb. If you think some information is missing, find it and add. Deletion is not a good thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShindlerR (talk • contribs) 14:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the responsibility of those who want the article to stay to provide the proper sourcing, not of those who enforce the project's policies. And being insulting of those whom you are trying to convince is generally not a productive way to go about persuading people. - TexasAndroid 14:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. IMO Anything by P Mc is notable. Tiptopper 00:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So if I assembled 1,000 different bootleg tapes of random selections of his stuff, every single one would be notable? The issue is not whether things actually done by him are notable, but whether a bootleg of his stuff, from totally unknown origin, is notable. - TexasAndroid 12:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan and Pikel Bouldershoulder[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable fictional character. Prod removed, so placing AfD. -- Mikeblas 13:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete characters unless sources indicating notability are found. SolidPlaid 16:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per secondary sources requirement of WP:FICT. Google returns a fair number of hits for both ("-wikipedia" used), but hits appear to be all in-universe, fan-related pages, which do not satisfy requirements for notability. Doctorfluffy 19:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Characters of the Drizzt series. Edward321 04:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources for information beyond the plot, fails WP:FICT. Jay32183 20:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. east.718 at 19:32, 11/4/2007

Jak Fleet[edit]

Non-notable fictional character. Prod removed by User:Giftruns without comment, so listing at AfD. Mikeblas 13:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unlikely reliable sources exist to show notability. Doctorfluffy 17:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:47, 11/4/2007

Dove Falconhand[edit]

Non-notable fictional character. Prod (and ((unreferenced)) tag) removed by 204.208.179.5 without comment, so listing at AfD. Mikeblas 13:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete more fancruft. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 19:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 12:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable character within the Forgotten Realms series and novels. BOZ 13:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Seven Sisters (Forgotten Realms). A well known character in that D&D world. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of reliable secondary sources. There is no evidence of notability outside of the game settings, just ghits from fansites. There are no primary sources given either, nor any real world perspective in the article content. --Gavin Collins 18:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FICT secondary source requirement. No real world notability, all references appear to be in-universe. Doctorfluffy 03:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major Forgotten Realms character --Polaron | Talk 16:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - cruft, no real world perspective, no secondary sources, Wikipedia's not a role-playing game manual. I wish there'd be a D&D Wikipedia to transwiki these things into... but I don't know how WOTC would feel about that, though, as these are copyrighted characters. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. east.718 at 00:46, 11/4/2007

AfDs for this article:

Hard Knocks: The Chris Benoit Story[edit]

This was previously deleted per AFD, then speedy deleted as a recreation/copyright violation. This is a completely rewritten article, but there is no additional claim of notability or importance beyond any of the previous iterations. Still, I'm not comfortable with a speedy deletion because the original deletion discussion was fairly close. I've no strong opinion on this, though I lean towards deletion or Merge to Chris Benoit on the grounds that there is no demonstrated notability for this individual release. Still, I'd like to see a consensus on this either way. Isotope23 ^talk 12:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. It seems more notable now than it was a year and a half ago. The DVD was used for an episode of RAW after his death, and WWE yanking the disc was something of an issue in the wrestling world. The article could definitely use more citation for information like that. At the least, the page could be merged into the Benoit article. 64.236.243.16 16:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the starter of the article, I feel compelled to vote keep. I'd like to add more to the article, but I am not as big of a wrestling fan as many others on wikipedia. Surely this disc is as notable as McMahon DVD. --WTStoffs 18:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although we're not supposed to cite WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS that's just a guideline and one of Wikipedia's guidelines is that guidelines can be ignored from time to time. There are other WWE videos with articles, so this one deserves an article too, plus it had additional notability due to its subject matter. Improvements, better citiations, etc. are content issues, not AFD issues. 23skidoo 20:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. Everyking 10:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The lack of reliable sources in particular was not addressed by those advocating to keep the article. Sandstein 06:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Balliol College in fiction[edit]

Delete - directory of loosely or non-associated topics. A list seeking to capture every mention of this college in passing from any source of fiction in which any random editor happens to encounter it. Otto4711 12:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a trivial topic. The article lacks references, and it may be original research. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Balliol College. I had never heard of it before, but it's a part of Oxford University. Like Radcliffe, it's not as well known as the parent institution. Mandsford 16:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was split from the college's article in November 2004. They don't want it. Otto4711 16:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was apparently split as substantial enough to stand on it own; if they didnt want it, they would have deleted the contents. DGG (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh now. Oh come now sir. You've been through more than enough of these debates that you have to know that such a comment is disingenuous at best and at worst a deliberate attempt to mislead. You know as well as anyone how these articles form. Rather than edit war in the main article, an editor who understands that this is junk splits it off into one of these interminable lists. How many times has the creator of such an article commented in AFD that s/he split it off for just that reason? How often have we been told that the section was split off because an editor was trying to get the aricle to GA or FA status and the trivial pop references stood as an impediment to that worthy goal? How many people come in specifically to comment "whatever you do, don't merge"? For shame. This tactic is unworthy of you. Otto4711 00:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the information is salvageable and it is worthwhile as it provides us with an indication of the College's significance and influence, but what I would recommend is to add this section from another artilce to the Balliol College in Fiction article as an introduction and just have a See also section on the Balliol College article pointing the in fiction article. I also think that additional references would be helpful. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. This is yet another trivial dumping ground. Every mention of the college isn't notable. RobJ1981 17:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although it claims to have references at http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/balliol-college-in-fiction/, that doesn't appear to be a reliable source, and none of the items are individually sourced. Violates WP:RS, WP:V and WP:TRIVIA. Corvus cornix 17:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Listcruft, trivia, OR. Doctorfluffy 18:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read this essay. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop spamming that essay in several AFD's. It's both disruptive and it doesn't even apply. As pointed out by the editor Slashme in another AFD: listcruft is by definition non-notable, which is a perfectly proper reason for deletion.. It seems to me, that you are just trying to start problems with people that disagree with you. RobJ1981 05:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the many notable things about Balliol is surely notable--partly because of the very notable fiction that has been set there. Two or three of the items may not be significant, but the college is used as a setting for action or for characters for particular reasons. The article so be expanded so this can be pointed out. There are certainly references fro every details of at least a few of the works. I do not understand the reasons given for the nom: . First, the background of a principal character in a major work of fiction is not a loose association. Nor does it attempt to capture every mention--just the ones where there is involvement of it in important works worthy of WP articles. So what is the actual reason? -I think it might be the principled disapproval of every [ ] in fiction article, thinking the entire general concept non encyclopedic (in which case the course would be to change the guidelines to say so). DGG (talk) 22:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Without reliable sources, this is surely deleteable. Corvus cornix 22:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be the principled disapproval of every [ ] in fiction article... I think you might be better served to stop playing Kreskin and trying to divine reasons behind nominations that aren't there. I have never said that the concept of "X in fiction" is categorically unencyclopedic. Indeed, I have argued in support of a number of such articles, contributed to several and encouraged the development, with sourcing, of actual articles that discuss cultural phenomena. Sadly, these lists of "this one guy said Foo in a movie" or "this one fictional character mentioned he went to such-and-such college in one sentence of a 200-page book" or whatever are not sourced articles on a cultural phenomenon. And no, the fact that more than one author decided to list his fictional character as a fictional alumnus of Balliol (or in one instance "Baillie" which in the opinion of some editor was close enough) does not mean that the the fictional character is closely associated with other fictional alumni of the same school or that the presence of the fictional alumni creates any association between the two works of fiction. Otto4711 06:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nearly all of these examples are trivial mentions in dialogue. If there are any notable references they should be added to the main article. Crazysuit 22:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia isn't a trivia drump; that's why WikiTrivia exists. Wikipedia is not a directory of every Balliol College mention ever made. There's a difference between writing the effect something had on popular culture and writing passing, trivial mentions. All the films and books are prominent for reasons greater than including the college, so it's a trivial intersection. There can never be reliable sources that discuss each dot point in detail, only the book or film itself, so it's an indiscriminate collection of info. And it's is a haven for [[WP:|original research]]. WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NOT#IINFO is non-negotiable and it violates WP:ATRIV and WP:RS. Spellcast 11:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the ground that Balliol College is not only a physical place of learning but invokes a collective consciousnes. What is important for this particular college are the literary associations which are an integral part of its social reputation. Oxford University derives its reputation, and indeed very existence, from the constituent colleges. It is not as if a college should be dismissed as being less well known than the university. The classic insider question to someone who went to Oxford is "Which college?" There are significant and enduring differences in culture as well as student mix, educational range and alumni career patterns. The reason that the fiction section was set up was as much to keep the growing main college page concise as to permit a focus on the literary references. Surely it is not a coincidence that so many Balliol people have gone on to pursue livelihoods in literature and the arts. This college is a special case. JPF 21:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep as a bad faith nomination. --Core desat 16:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rodryg Dunin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This text relies almost entirely on the Polish equivalent of the "Who's Who", the Polish Biographical Dictionary, which has over 25,000 entries. The text is almost directly copied from the article. After jumping through hoops with admins that I needed to verify this article in Polish (which required downloading the information for a fee), the information did not even coincide with what was being referenced. Notability questioned, for one, accuracy of information, for two, and lack of sources, for three. Mindraker 11:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. —Canley 12:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What information did you download for a fee, and from where? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Absolutely nothing has changed since the last AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodryg Dunin 2) except for improvements - much of the OR is gone. But the subject is clearly notable having an entry in the Polski słownik biograficzny - the Polish equivalent of the Dictionary of National Biography. It has 25,000 entries because its scope is all notable people in Polish history and is a highly regarded text - to suggest our inclusion standards are higher is absurd. The dictionary is a perfectly acceptable source as non-English sources are acceptable and widely used in the English Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a global project - there are Polish editors who can review this source. One has indeed provided a rough translation on the talkpage. If this translation is not enough, another can be sought. We are going to create a huge anglo-US bias if we start rejecting foreign sources so casually. WjBscribe 12:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I am the nominator) Delete -- the article contains flat-out plagiarized quotes from the PBD. Mindraker 12:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, now that allegation I object to - the source is in Polish and the text is not. Be very careful about the difference between copying and translating - especially where the translation is not (as in this case) word for word before making such allegations. WjBscribe 12:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment There is a difference between rewording and translating word for word. In addition, when you have whole paragraphs and sections coming from the PBD, you can't pretend this isn't a case of plagiarism. Mindraker 12:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you think the phrasing is too close, reword it though I challenge your assertion that this is a word-for-word translation. They certainly have no copyright on the order they cover topics in. WjBscribe 13:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have altered several passages to try and address your concerns but looking again at the rough translation at Talk:Rodryg Dunin#Translation needed, I cannot see how your allegations of plagiarism are made out. The original text contains all sort of Peacock language - for example "Under his enlightened mentorship many young farmers flocked" is in the article as "he also mentored young farmers". The flowery prose of the originally doesn't seem present in the article... WjBscribe 13:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment I'll give you an example, the first paragraph:

"Rodryg Dunin [...] is recognised as one of the most notable pioneers in agricultural techniques and agricultural industry in early 20th century Greater Poland.[1]"

Here is the translation provided on the discussion page: "Dunin Rodrug, farmer and industrialist, was one of the most notable pioneers in agricultural techniques and agricultural industry in Wielkopolska."

And then the Polish: "Dunin Rodryg (1870—1928), rolnik i przemysłowiec, był jednym z wybitniejszych pionierów postępu techniki rolniczej i przemysłu rolnego w Wielkopolsce."

Look similar? I'd say it does. Mindraker 13:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it now reads, "His work in agricultural industry, including pioneering new techniques, earned him considerable recognition among the farming circles of early 20th century Greater Poland." That seems to address your concern - why are we doing this at AfD rather than on an a talkpage? AfD is not for article cleanup... WjBscribe 13:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the tip of the iceberg -- that still doesn't address the fact that all the information in this article can be found in the PBD article (in sequential order, no less!), with the exception of the image citation. The two "Polish Daily" references at the bottom? That's nice. None of the text comes from there. Mindraker 14:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's because someone has prob deleted the information claiming it as OR. Or maybe they don't say anything not also in the PBD (so they are essentially sourcing the same info). But in any event, the PBD would be acceptable as the only source for the aritcle. WjBscribe 14:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you go ahead and verify that information for us, since you made me verify the information in the Polish PBD. Mindraker 14:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep (per WP:SPEEDY). Then I suggest discussing whether nominator's behavior - trying to damage encyclopedic content - has been disruptive and pointless enough - to warrant a block. As far as I see it, this AfD is bad faith disruption.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let's tone down the personal attacks, and focus on the article's issues, such as plagiarism, the lack of sources, etc. This isn't the first time I have asked you to tone down the personal attacks. Mindraker 16:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to accuse people of personal attacks whenever they criticise you. Piotrus feels your conduct is disruptive, I am minded to agree. Perhaps you'd like to consider that? WjBscribe 16:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I try to avoid WP:SPADE, your behavior regarding this article is highly disruptive and it is high time it was pointed out as such. And reasonable criticism of your person backed up by evidence of disruption (such as this very AfD) is not a personal attack, I am afraid.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hominems are easy, focusing on the flawed article, with plagiarized sources is hard. Try focusing on the presented issues at hand. Mindraker 16:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only personal attack here is your accusation of plagiarism.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The plagiarism accusation really is unreasonable - especially as you don't read Polish yourself. Please either detail the sentences you believe are too close in wording to the original source material or withdraw the allegation. WjBscribe 16:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete :We're looking for multiple non-trivial reliable sources. Polish Biographical Dictionary is the only one. I'll change my vote if someone can bring me just one more non-trivial source. Plaguirism could be dealt with rephrasing so I think we can use this PBD source. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where we have one excellent source one source is enough. The requirement of multiple sources is where notability is in doubt - someone sufficiently important for an entry in a national biographical dictionary is clearly notable enough. Wikipedia surely cannot have a harsher notability standard than a national print work of scholarly repute..? WjBscribe 16:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One reliable source is perfectly compliant with our policies. I applaud you for having higher standards, but they are not a valid rationale for deletion.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WJBscribe. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 16:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Rabstenek[edit]

Non-notable biography, as far as I can tell. Was prodded earlier by another user, with the prod removed by an IP. Calliopejen1 12:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment why delete if this article is sourced? [32] [33]. Carlosguitar 21:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times link is a paid notice, not one of the obituaries they write because someone is important. The other doesn't establish his notability. Calliopejen1 21:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 17:00, 23 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, Whispe ring 11:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Basically, nobody ever wrote anything significant about this guy (that's online). Actually, other than the obituary, I can't find a single source that isn't in the article. The obit is a paid notice, thus fails WP:RS through non-independence. The mastering engineer credits are verifiable and interesting, as mastering is a non-trivial part of record production, but ultimately it's just one of many and mastering engineers aren't widely celebrated outside of very narrow circles. Even the hologram claims -- again with no independent sourcing -- are dicey; doing a search on his unusual last name turned up a Chris Rabstenek in holography, but not his own. It appears that this article is basically a memorial, which Wikipedia is WP:NOT. --Dhartung | Talk 13:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Dhartung; I couldn't find any RS about him, either. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dhartung's excellent analysis. Doctorfluffy 18:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. east.718 at 00:43, 11/4/2007

Martha Alicia Porter King[edit]

Delete: Non-notable; WP:BIO Maplewooddrive 11:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as Wikipedia is not a genealogical directory. Subject is non-notable except as a relative of someone who is. There is no need for a redirect for a relationship this tenuous. --Dhartung | Talk 13:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - President Gerald Ford was born in her home which is definitely notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Americasroof (talk • contribs) 13:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep because someone who's interested in Gerald Ford might want to know about her. However, she's not notable for any other reason. We've had AFDs for children of US presidents. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DIRECTORY. Non-notable relative to someone famous. Doctorfluffy 18:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the case of exceptionally notable people like US presidents, this is not remote. If we deleted articles for immediate family of US presidents, we were very wrong to do so, and fortunately we're not bound by precedent, especially absurd precedent. She's one generation further, but his having been born in her house is enough to make her notable. . DGG (talk) 02:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Active Enterprises, as Liontamer's already merged the content there. east.718 at 19:35, 11/4/2007

Cheetahmen II[edit]

Prod contested by IP user. Non-notable, unreleased video game by a defunct company. Topic fails WP:N, article fails WP:V, possibly unverifiable. Chardish 11:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no secondary, verifiable sources provided. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 13:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy 18:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, with no sources to indicate the possibility of notability. (Hey, that rhymed.) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP CAUSE STONE COLD SAID SO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.124.176 (talk) 00:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly merge with Active Enterprises article. The game's notorious in gaming circles for being one of the worst, most poorly-coded games in existence. Information is out there, and the majority of the article looks accurate. I'd rather see this given some sort of stub status and the opportunity for citations, or merged with the Active Enterprises article since this was one of their few developed properties. - Liontamer 17:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; it indeed has fame for its incredible crappiness. See here and here and here. Spamguy 19:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And none of those are reliable sources - Chardish 15:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not suggesting we cite these, but they should demonstrate its presence enough to justify keeping this article. If the lack of 'reliable' sources bothers you, I can point you to a few hundred (thousand?) indispensable WP articles describing things that have otherwise never appeared in forms cited here. Spamguy 18:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Go for it; I'd be happy to nominate them for deletion too. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. - Chardish 20:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Now I remember why I hated debate club in high school. Nullification of arguments rested on the opponent's failure to memorise Robert's Rules of Order instead of using counterarguments. I know that's my fate here regarding the Metawiki, so the best I can do is assert that society's knowledge isn't always available via the printed word. (Caveat: Arguments don't get me in the best of moods anyway, but before submitting this, the cat knocked a $120 external drive I bought yesterday off the table, thereby bricking it -- now I'm downright cranky. Luckily I got what I wanted to say out. Time for bed, I think. :P) Spamguy 04:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        If you ask me, it has less to do with memorizing rules than presenting Wikipedia philosophy. Most pages in the WP namespace are not policies, but rather interpretations of Wikipedia principles. There's a long and deep and complex history here, and disagreement is always welcome and encouraged to separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to poor policy. Your ideas are always welcome, even if others (like myself) think that they're not consistent with Wikipedia philosophy. It does more good, though, to present your philosophies at project pages than at process pages (like this one.) Either way, the more the merrier, and I'm glad you're helping with Wikipedia : ) (Deletionists are not jerks!) - Chardish 04:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Eh, it's all right. You're not a jerk, certainly. You had a great opportunity to be one responding to my pseudotroll, but wisely skipped over it. Likewise, I'm typically no jerk myself (!). As they say, 'On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog': ASCII text communication facilitates hostility, which is how we get Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars. This is why I stick to italicising text and reverting vandalism. Spamguy 04:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        PS: Since the company's been dead nigh 15 years, I don't feel terribly dirty recommending a visit to http://www.coolrom.com to acquire the game yourself. You'll want those five minutes of horrendous gameplay back, I guarantee. :)
REVOTE from Keep; Merge with Active Enterprises. Note, I've already merged the content itself. Took all of 15 minutes. Better to be bold. I think the Active Enterprises article itself is notable enough, but needs to be improved. In my opinion, it looks like a potentially surmountable problem. - Liontamer 22:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE with Cheetahmen. Xylthixlm 05:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. east.718 at 09:54, 11/4/2007

Bands and musicians from North East England[edit]

DELETE FAILS WP:NOT#DIR. Page is a list of musicians from the North East - While some are in fact, notable musicians, this "article" fails as it's a list of names only and therefore in violation of NOT#DIR. KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 17:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails to come up with a reason why this collection is relevant. Punkmorten 11:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Listcruft, fails WP:DIRECTORY. Doctorfluffy 18:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep- sources added, notability asserted, looks fine to me. A few more RSs couldn't hurt, but I think we've crossed into WP:N and WP:V territory. -- Mike (Kicking222) 03:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Weavah[edit]

Does not cite any sources, references, and doesn't have any external links. The importance of this page is unknown. This page isn't needed. L-Burna ^(talk) -- 12:21, October 28, 2007 (UTC)This AFD was listed improperly. It is listed properly now. GlassCobra 16:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This rapper is definitely notable, with over 24,000 Ghits. I've added some sources, and there are plenty more. GlassCobra 16:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Hasn't done much but just about meets the criteria for WP:Music. 91.106.28.172 18:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (Non admin closure). Qst 17:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of snowboard tricks[edit]

BOOT ! per WP:NOT#GUIDE KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 18:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the article is unreferenced and unverified, even though the authors had plenty of time to put together references (the article's been up for many months). I would change my mind if references were found and cited. Compare Freestyle skateboarding tricks, which suffers from similar lack of context and has only one reference. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep As Shalom points out, this one has been up for months. There are plenty of places where sources can be found, if someone takes the time to do it. I'm not volunteering. Mandsford 16:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article needs a major rewrite into prose, alot of sources and notability attached. Wikipedians who are avid fans of this sport can undertake this project, and with a little elbow grease, i think that this article will be fine. dposse 23:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valid topic, however it needs to be rewritten as mentioned above. Noor Aalam 19:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:41, 11/4/2007

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Offtopic.com

OffTopic.com[edit]

Article that doesn't meet WP:WEB. Being the biggest forum means nothing if nobody has covered it. Allegedly the soruce of many memes, though FisherQueen just prodded the article and said that he/she couldn't find sources. It's been well over 20 months since the AFD and still no sources have turned up. The last AFD compared it to Something Awful; well, the Something Awful Forums are now merged into the main article, and the main article has plenty of third-party sourcing. This article, however, does not. Perhaps the memes themselves are notable, but that does not make the forum of origin notable. hbdragon88 04:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I withdrew the prod when I saw it had already been through AfD, but I sincerely don't see how this web site meets WP:WEB. The only sources are verification of its traffic rankings... they're very nice, but I couldn't find anyone actually writing about this source, and how can we independently verify the information in the article if no one is writing about it? I am open to the possibility that reliable sources exist that I didn't find, but they don't seem to have been presented in the earlier AfD, which seems to rely on Alexa ranking for its keep decision. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Consensus in the previous AFD was that it was notable enough to deserve an article. There is nothing to suggest that its notability has declined since then. The solution to a poorly-sourced article on a notable subject is not to delete the article, but to improve it. Cynical 17:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request. I would really like to improve its sourcing; I searched and couldn't find reliable sources that would help me improve it. Could you link to the sources that you would use to improve the article? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't see any reason to delete that has come up since the last AfD Robhakari 21:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources outside of traffic rankings. Gakusha 22:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PSG came from OT. 'nuff said themolsen
- Striking comment. User:themolsen doesn't exist; this was added by a vandal-only IP. Very likely a bad-faith !vote based on solely disruptive editing as well as user's attempt to disguise as a nonexistent registered user. — xDanielx ^T/_C 00:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A more definitive method is Special:Listusers, whcih again doesn't show any "Themolsen" hbdragon88 05:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete source it or lose it. Note: Suggest closing admin disregard any votes/comments that are nothing but restatements of "Well, we kept it last time..." without any additional reasoning or sourcing to back it up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources? No article. Fails WP:N. (Alexa and BigBoard are not notability.) --Dhartung | Talk 13:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and FisherQueen. Doctorfluffy 18:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So this article has been around for more than 2 years, and no one could find sources showing notability, even after it was nominated for deletion last time? This suggests that no sources can be found, so it's non notable. Crazysuit 18:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there are no independent reliable sources then there is nothing verifiable that we can put into an article. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Chris! _ct 01:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was transfer to Wikisource. east.718 at 19:36, 11/4/2007

Air Force Regulation 200-2[edit]

Was tagged as "speedy delete as nonsense" and "hoax". The page may or may not be true, but it does not look like nonsense. In the 1950's they did not know what we know now about UFO's. The reference http://www.cufon.org/cufon/afr200-2.htm exists. Anthony Appleyard 10:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-encyclopedic even if it's correct. JJL 12:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikisource. Obviously needs to be confirmed but this is consistent with what I've read in the past about US military planning for alien encounters, which was real if (given what we know) something of a waste of time. I don't know that this is notable enough on its own for an article, but it certainly can be a source for our existing articles. --Dhartung | Talk 13:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First it gets tagged as nonsense (it isn't), then it gets tagged as hoax by the same person (it isn't. I can cite it). If you have any suggestions on how to improve my first article on Wikipedia, then I'd be happy to hear them. But not just place the speedy deltion tag on it. I created the article mainly because it is noted in the Unidentified flying object article. Since Air Force Regulation 200-2 was wikilinked but had no article, I decided to start one. I think this article should be kept, otherwise nobody knows what this regulation is all about. my two cents UserDoe 18:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment an encyclopedia aticle about a document is about its significance, how it came about, criticisms of it, etc., not just a reproduction of the document itself. See e.g. Canadian Bill of Rights, Treaty of Versailles. This is a less momentous document but the idea still applies. Good luck! JJL 19:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikisource... for now. I am the one who originally put the speedy deletion tag, and I am okay with that. If the author can show that this regulation does indeed come from the US Air Force, then there is no reason why it shouldn't stay in Wikisource permanently. --Blanchardb 20:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikisource per Blanchardb and UserDoe's proof-of-it-being-a-real-USAF-reg. Buckshot06 22:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here you go: www.foia.af.mil - Official US Air Force document in pdf format . UserDoe 21:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. —FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify as it is now. If there are reliable sources that discuss this document, there could be an article with this title in the future, but in its current form it's just an extended summary of the actual document. Wikisource seems the perfect location for this. --barneca (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirected to Fiji mermaid. NawlinWiki 19:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pickled mermaid[edit]

Neologism, 99 ghits. MER-C 09:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Just a (very grotesque) marketing gimmick; fails both WP:BIO and WP:NOT.Maplewooddrive 11:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense. JJL 12:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not at all, it was a staple of wunderkammers during the Renaissance and the Baroque. Article needs a thorough rewrite though--victor falk 12:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment minimally attested on Google...is this really a notable type of ornament? JJL 13:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Hated Google Test... I think that most sources would not call it "pickled mermaid", that's an impertinence typical of us moderns. O tempora, o mores, yadda, yadda. --victor falk 14:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fiji mermaid. Any verifiable information that indictes an origin to the concept as asserted in the current article can be located (and sourced) there. Otto4711 14:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy copyvio/ redirect. It's all here http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pickled+mermaid a reputable source too lol. As an aside, some of these displays could have been unfortunate victiims of sirenomelia.Merkinsmum 14:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Otto! Actually, I now remember reading that very article years ago... and thinking "people will write about the quaintest things on wikipedia". Wikitrivia at its best.--victor falk 15:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should check out the rest of Category:Sideshow attractions and Category:Circus performers too. Fascinating stuff. Otto4711 16:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to EuroBasket 2007, which I have done. Neil ☎ 15:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EuroBasket 2007 Final[edit]

This article does not meet WP:RS guideline. Avinesh Jose 08:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back with EuroBasket or EuroBasket 2007. Mandsford 16:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sure it could meet WP:RS, since lots of sources must have covered this game, but a merge to EuroBasket 2007 makes sense. Zagalejo^^^ 19:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if this would not be expanded and if it'll stay as a stats dump. --Howard the Duck 05:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony Appleyard (talk • contribs)

There was an edit conflict in closing this nomination after I speedily deleted the article. I was going to clarify the deletion by saying that although an article cannot be speedily deleted as a hoax, given that the editor's sole other contribution was vandalism, I'm going to treat this in the same way. Pretty well done for vandalism, though. (CSD G3) -- RG ² 10:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mows[edit]

Hoax surely? -- RHaworth 07:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obviously. Someguy1221 07:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As an obvious hoax. You don't need to be familiar with Genetic engineering to know that this is a hoax (subatomic level of comparison? come on). Even without that glaring point, there are no google hits to support its existence. --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exterminate using a better mows-trap. Too bad try-outs for BJAODN are over this week; don't miss Image:MowDNA.png, you only get this one chance. --Dhartung | Talk 08:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. The Russian form Косить that he included, means "to mow" as mowing a lawn. Anthony Appleyard 09:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to come from this Eager Contributor 09:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as patent nonsense. So tagged. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. east.718 at 00:40, 11/4/2007

Bluesnarfing[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Procedural nomination on behalf of User:71.99.106.188: "firstable this is a myth! secondable no sources for almost a year(check a tag) this is nonsence article lets get (finally) rid of it." ~~No opinion~~. Someguy1221 07:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep?: the term may be valid: Google found "about 142,000" uses. For example, http://www.bluejackq.com/ includes "... Heard about bluesnarfing and bluejacking in the news recently? Don't get the two confused - bluejacking is legal and fun, whereas bluesnarfing is illegal. Read bluejackQ's bluesnarfing article. ..."". Anthony Appleyard 09:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Unregistered user seems to be some sort of minor troll TruthCrusader 14:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism - unless non-trivial mention of the phenomenon can be found in independent sources. No need to transwiki, since Wiktionary has an entry - although it is subject to deletion if sources aren't found soon. Hmm. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Based on the following "reliable sources" it is not a hoax as claimed in the nomination. (But the nominator could change my mind by providing sources for the claim that it is a hoax.)
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3642627.stm
- http://edition.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/10/25/glossary/index.html
- http://www.engadget.com/2005/03/02/the-ny-times-fumbles-bluesnarfing-at-the-oscars/
- http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/02/movies/oscars/02leak.html?ex=1267419600&en=ad4f3884fa663340&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdmkolbe (talk • contribs) 04:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Oh, but if there are reliable sources calling it a hoax, then it's a notable hoax and only needs a rewrite. Someguy1221 05:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mdmkolbe, clearly notable. Someguy1221 05:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do not trust the IP who proposed deletion of this article at all. I have had many dealings with him/her at Czech Republic, an article frequently vandalized by 71.99.106.188 (and related IPs, some of them already blocked for vandalism). Tankred 03:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Based on the infamous gtest, this is not a neologism anymore, but the word to use. Greswik 18:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. east.718 at 09:53, 11/4/2007

Congressional endorsements for the 2008 presidential election[edit]

Of the dozens absurd articles about the 2008 US (and note the title doesn't specify US) presidential election, this is among the worst offenders. I know "who cares?" isn't normally a compelling argument, but it should be here. The 540 Americans listed here each have one vote like the rest of the American people (actually five of them can't even vote), and for the most part, their opinions on the race aren't all that important. My other complaint is that this smacks of recentism (when can we expect a Congressional endorsements for the 1816 presidential election page?) and America-centrism (when will we see the Reichstag members' endorsements for the 1925 German presidential election?). All in all, an unnecessary and trivial list that in isolation poses an annoyance but if indicative of a wider trend (ie, those two orange links being turned blue) threatens to spawn a rather unpleasant slippery slope. Biruitorul 06:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm actually somewhat dissappointed that this article is unworthy of inclusion. It's pretty clear to me that the creator of the table worked his/her ass off to put it together. That said, I have the same who cares? attitude as the nominator. We don't need an article on every little thing related to the 2008 elections. Pablo Talk | Contributions 08:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty good table format & well referred. But undeserving article. Delete. --Avinesh Jose 10:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are many things that are notable about presidential campaigns, but endorsements aren't one of them -- certainly not to the level of a separate article. List key endorsements that pass WP:N in the candidate's campaign article. --Dhartung | Talk 13:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is informative as to a presidential candidate's support from the current Congress. That in itself is enough useful information to keep it. Also, this may be useful to anyone who will one day write a history of the 2008 presidential primaries. This is no different than lists of newspaper endorsements of presidential candidates. Nightkey 15:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Throughout political history, even in 1812, the question of who supported whom has been notable. Depending on who wins the election, you'll be seeing a lot of these people in the news again, and some of them will end up in the next administration. If you're not that interested in politics, you'll probably not need to refer to this article. For some of us, it's even more important than the names of Jerry's various girlfriends on Seinfeld. Mandsford 16:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Who supported whom is notable, as long as the support of those people is notable. But the list poses two problems. On the one hand, the endorsements of all 540 are not notable: it does matter whom Harry Reid or John Boehner supports, but it doesn't really matter whom Ron Wyden or Steve Holden supports. On the other hand, plenty of notable sectors are missed by this list. Why not Gubernatorial endorsements for the 2008 presidential election, Fortune 500 executives' endorsements for the 2008 presidential election or Big-city mayors' endorsements for the 2008 presidential election? So you see, on the one hand, the list itself isn't that useful; on the other hand, many other potential such lists of important people's endorsements could be made, and at that point, the matter threatens to spin out of control. Biruitorul 22:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy 18:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read this essay. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the opinions of prominent congress members may be notable, the majority of them aren't. I can't see someone coming to this page and actually gaining any insight based on the fact that a Congressperson they've never heard of from the other side of the US supports one candidate or another. Move the information to the individual pages for each Congressperson, and put the aggregate data on the Candidate's page Mad031683 18:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well-put together table with many references concerning a notable event that while present will assuredly be historic and concerns something that is likely to have pretty important interest in from our readership. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The US politics is not quite as egalitarian as WP, , and the people listed here have considerable influence by virtue of their positions and the structure of the US party system. some may have more influence than others, but they are have a great deal more than most other people--it goes two ways--their endorsements especially at the primary stage are a matter of bargaining in both directions, and each individual one is newsworthy. They will--or at least should-- be included in the articles about hem. a collected table is important and useful, and this is one of the criteria for list-type articles. An interesting version of otherjunkexists was made above: delete this article because there could be other similar useful articles also, and we dont have them yet. DGG (talk) 23:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As one of the principal editors of this page, I can't help but take offense to the user who first considered this for deletion. No, "Who cares" is not a valid rationale. Know why? Because some people do care. There are people who want to know, and this page is there to inform them. Nevermore27 02:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. That some people may want to be informed on this subject doesn't bind us to have an article on it. Biruitorul 03:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - We are not bound to have an article for everything, but that doesn't mean that the ones that already exist should be deleted just because they only appeal to small number of people. Nevermore27 10:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I'm really surprised that anyone would nominate this for deletion even after reading the explanations above. This is verifiable material. It is covered by all the major news outlets and by campaign websites. It is historically relevant (for example, it is often referenced how many endorsements Howard Dean managed in 2004). The only argument I can find above is that some of you find it uninteresting or unimportant. This is not the same thing as not notable. Encyclopedias, particularly one as comprehensive as we're trying to make this one, will be full of articles about subjects or that detail subject matter to a degree that an average reader . If you're not interested in this much detail, skip it just like you'd skip an article about one of the 300,000 species of beetle. But again, these data are touted by the campaigns, reported by mass media, and will be discussed by political historians and pundits in the future, and therefore easily pass notability. Incidentally, these people do not have merely a single vote like all Americans, but are superdelegates. --Aranae 03:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Its not that I think its not useful information, I just think it has very limited usefulness all on one page. If you want to know how many endorsements Howard Dean got, go to the Howard Dean page. Also, what happens after the primary, when most of these will change to the respective nominees? This is a huge, unwieldy list with less than half of the slots filled in that I don't think adds anything that wouldn't be better suited to other articles. Mad031683 17:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely support making some changes to the setup of the page. For example, gubernatorial endorsements could be added. I also wouldn't be particularly opposed to removing the congress(wo)men who have not endorsed until they do, but actually prefer the blank spaces. I do think it is valuable to compare all of these endorsements at one place and would not support listing this information only on candidates' pages. --Aranae 03:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not stuff for a separate article, easily movable to other articles, likely to become a footnote, and definitely a slippery slope. Dahn 12:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. Everyking 09:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Congressional endorsements are significant in themselves; see [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]. However, if it is ultimately decided that this article is inappropriate for Wikipedia, I would recommend as a second choice that it be transwikied to Campaigns Wikia, which should be allowed as it is GFDL-licensed. --Metropolitan90 05:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. —Nightstallion 15:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. Behun 21:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if kept it must be moved so it gets US in the title. Apart from that I abstain from 'voting'. Greswik 18:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aban Quaynor[edit]

This article contains absolutely no references or sources to verify the text. It appears to be a hoax and original research. --Hdt83 ^Chat 06:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverified, a probable hoax. Note that the author of the article has no other contribs. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. --Koppany 17:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete. I tagged it as a probable hoax on Oct 24, and nobody has contested that so far. --The very model of a minor general 22:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, zero non-Wikipedia ghits indicates a hoax. Even if not, impossible to establish notability via reliable secondary sources per WP:N. Doctorfluffy 02:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. As a first approximation, the head count of bolded words yields no consensus. Looking more closely, though, one notices that almost all of the majority of "delete" opinions include more or less cogent reasons why the article should be deleted, including references to applicable policies and guidelines. On the other hand, among the minority of "keep" opinions, only DGG and Nick Penguin have offered an actual rationale why the article should be kept. Sandstein 06:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: One might add the opinion of Le Grand Roi to the list of reasoned "keep"s, but this does not change the outcome. Sandstein 06:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Veni, Vidi, Vici in popular culture[edit]

This is a "pop culture" section culled from the Veni, Vidi, Vici page. I have rewritten the section as prose instead of a list and moved the list to a separate page, but I do not feel comfortable singlehandedly deleting this content without some discussion. Slashme 06:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I understand and support separating it from the main Veni, Vidi, Vici page. I would keep the complete list as a separate "popular culture" article. Racepacket 12:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indiscriminate list and directory of loosely associated topics. The phrase is notable. A list seeking to capture every use of the phrase in every movie or TV show, or a phrase that in the WP:OR opinion of the editor who hears it sounds sort of like the English translation of the phrase, is not. Otto4711 12:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the article has a prose introduction that places the topic in its historical and cultural context before satisfying LIST by presenting the examples in a coherent format. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Veni, vidi, vici already covers the historical and cultural context along with a couple of examples (that need sourcing) and a couple of variants. That is sufficient to cover the material without the boundless laundry list. Otto4711 16:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main article though is not as comprehensive and does not contain references. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The poor quality of the main article is not an excuse for keeping this one. Improve the main article, which is what most people will see and find, instead of working on a splinter article that is largely worthless. Otto4711 00:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being comprehensive is not always an advantage. In the case of an enumeration of the wives of Henry VIII, it's absolutely necessary to be comprehensive, as there is a fixed number, and each is important in her own right. In this case, however, we will never be comprehensive, and if we were, it would be trivial and sad, and would be of no forseeable use to anyone. And as for the main article not containing references, that's a completely separate matter. --Slashme 00:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came, I saw, I merged. Great Caesar's Ghost! Put any non-frivolous content back with Veni, Vidi, Vici instead of making this as a fork. Mandsford 16:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, all the non-frivolous content is already in Veni, vidi, vici, so would that make your vote "delete"? --Slashme 00:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another dumping ground for any mention to a subject. Both trivial and just clutter. A prose should be on the main article, and leave it at that. RobJ1981 17:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, virtually unsourced, original research. Violates WP:V, WP:RS and WP:TRIVIA. Corvus cornix 17:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, listcruft, WP:DIRECTORY. Doctorfluffy 18:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read this essay. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that Dr. Fluffy's objection was based on a personal dislike. Listcruft is by definition non-notable, which is a perfectly proper reason for deletion.--Slashme 00:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's been posting that same essay in several AFD's, and usually it doesn't even apply to what people said. In my view, it's just a disruptive way for him to start problems with people that don't agree with him. RobJ1981 04:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As Slashme has pointed out, all the "non-frivolous" content is in the article on the phrase itself. All this article ends up being is another one of those "spot the reference" games, which is neither encyclopedic nor something which should be encouraged. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:TRIVIA. Does not provide any helpful information beyond main article. Calliopejen1 20:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely indiscriminate collection of trivial mentions of a phrase. Crazysuit 21:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has now been extensively rewritten and sourced, though more work remains to be done. All the above objections no longer apply.--Father Goose 07:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In that it's now a sourced collection of indiscriminate information, then I'm inclined to agree. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So the article started out as a relatively short indiscriminate list and you think it's better now that it's a much larger indiscriminate list?! Otto4711 19:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing stated by WP:IINFO can be meaningfully applied to this article. You cannot invoke it arbitrarily to delete any article youdon'tlike.--Father Goose 21:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, you haven't made the mistake of thinking that the list there is exhaustive, have you? Even if it were exhaustive and this isn't an indiscriminate collection of information, this is still a directory of loosely associated topics since the items on the list are not associated with each other merely by happening to include the same Latin phrase. Otto4711 23:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not exhaustive. Are you suggesting that that's a reason why it should be deleted? (Good god.) It's also neither a directory nor a "loosely associated topic" -- the topic is the cultural prominence of the phrase "Veni, vidi, vici". It's that very prominence that is the reason why we have an article on Veni, vidi, vici in the first place; not every Latin phrase is notable, but this one sure is.--Father Goose 08:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the phrase is notable. That does not make every mention of the phrase notable or worthy of mention. Otto4711 12:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reasonably representative set of examples that illustrate the phrase's use in popular culture. First you argue that the list is not exhaustive, then you argue that it is overlong. You're making up rules as you go along here.--Father Goose 19:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not argue that the list in the article was not exhaustive. I argued that the list of items located at WP:NOT#IINFO is not exhaustive. You have failed to interpret my comments correctly. The point still stands that even if the list isn't indiscriminate, it is still an association of loosely associated items. There is no need for a an entire separate article if the purpose is to illustrate usage of the phrase. Further, thia list will continue to grow with the addition of more and more references as editors spot them, rendering the list even more indiscriminate and its constituent items still unassociated. Otto4711 23:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I misunderstood your comment. Regardless, I see people trying to use "indiscriminate" or "loosely associated" to delete any list on Wikipedia that was not originally compiled outside of Wikipedia. This is foolhardy; all sorts of lists can be a useful supplement to our prose-based coverage of notable subjects.--Father Goose 00:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep — Veni Vidi Vici in popular culture has a significant notability. However, I think this should be in its main article: Veni, vidi, vici — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:01 31 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
- Comment So what you're really suggesting here is that the article Veni, Vidi, Vici in popular culture be merged with the main article, Veni, vidi, vici. Please check whether the treatment of the use of the phrase in popular culture in the main article is sufficient, or whether you would prefer to have a long, indiscriminate list of instances there as well. --Slashme 05:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply I see no reason why this should have its own article, however, I don't think it should be deleted, it should be in the veni vid vici article. — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:56 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
    - Which is a long way of saying "merge". --Slashme 15:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in popular culture. The way to deal with bloated trivia sections is to prune them, not to split them out into whole articles comprised of nothing but trivia. Guy (Help!) 21:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the use of significant cultural artifacts such as this quotation in other significant works is not trivia. Nor is it indiscriminate--indiscriminate means taking every possible use of it, and this is not the case--its limited to those in works significant enough to be included in WP, which is neither indiscriminate or random.Nor is having a theme a loose association. DGG (talk) 02:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that the use of three words of Latin is a "theme" is nonsensical. The list clearly contains mentions of the phrase from material that does not have its own Wikipedia article so that claim is flase on its face. And yes, the fact that different writers use the phrase, or an English translation of the phrase, or a different phrase that is similar to but not the phrase but in the WP:OR and WP:POV opinion of the editor who spots it is close enough for jazz, is indeed trivia. Otto4711 03:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calling something "trivia" is not a basis for deletion. Several of the variations are explicitly described by cited reliable secondary sources as variations of the original phrase, and many of the unadulterated uses of the phrase are commented upon by cited secondary sources as well. Most of the entries furthermore do have Wikipedia articles -- did you notice the dozens of blue links? In fact, based on all the researching I've done by now, "veni, vidi, vici" may very well be the most widely used Latin phrase in popular culture. That specific claim is OR, but suffice it to say the phrase has permeated the culture deeply.--Father Goose 08:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could make a list full of blue links of all sorts of things that include whatever random phrase you can think of. The point still stands, the simple use of a particular phrase in a work of fiction does not create an association between that piece of fiction and every other piece of fiction that uses the same phrase. No one, in considering for example Love's Labor's Lost, is going to think "oh yes, Love's Labor's Lost, it reminds me of the Batman graphic novel Dark Victory because they both include some reference to the same Latin phrase!" It's ludicrous to claim that the things on this list have any relationship to each other. Otto4711 12:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments grow increasingly strange. Entries on lists rarely relate directly to each other; one does not look at list of mountains and exclaim, "K2, that reminds me of Kilimanjaro!"--Father Goose 19:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be willing to bet cash money that if I were to ask a hundred people to identify the commonality between K2 and Kilimanjaro, 95 or more would say they are both mountains. On the other hand, were I to ask those same hundred people to identify the commonality between, say, the book The Cry of the Icemark and the Broadway musical Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, not one of them would say "they both include the words 'veni, vidi, vici'." And I think you'll find that the better lists do contain items that have some relation to each other. Lists of characters from the same book, for example, or lists of hospitals in a particular country. Bad lists, however, contain dozens or hundreds of things that have nothing to do with each other beyond the presence of the same three words. Like this one. Otto4711 23:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How are hospitals in the same country related to each other?--Father Goose 00:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, they're all hospitals, and they're all in the same country. Otto4711 20:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temporarily keep for now. I have placed my recommendation on what to do with this on Veni, vidi, vici talk. If the interested parties don't act on it, then re-AFD it. - LA @ 02:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Topic is covered substantially at Veni, vidi, vici; this article's only purpose is to list every instance of parody or popular culture reference - unnecessary listcruft. •97198 talk 12:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Maybe it's just me, but I think it's fascinating how a single phrase can reverberate through the ages, and it is interesting to read about different "takes" on the phrase. There is a certain irony in criticizing the article of being an just an indiscriminate list, when each entry on the page is an example of it's cultural impact. The article needs more work (perhaps a little trimming), but it should be kept. --Nick Penguin 07:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the kind of treatment that a topic can be given on Wikisource, or in a book. An encyclopedia must summarize information, not just give the raw data. A long list of references to the sentence "Veni, Vidi, Vici" is supporting data for its notability, not encyclopedic material. Look at the discussion on Veni, vidi, vici#Cultural references. You will see that enough instances are quoted to give the reader a clear idea of the cultural significance of the sentence, without recourse to a huge list of trivial items. --Slashme 08:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hilariously enough, I clicked that link when I woke up this morning, only to find that the section you pointed to has since been removed (and the VVV article is now extremely bare, with only one section). Laf. Anyways, I do see your point, and I certainly do not believe the IPC article should attempt to collect every instance, however I think the importance of the phrase is more properly illuminated on Wikipedia by providing some relevant and significant examples. That said, I still believe the VVV in IPC article could use some trimming to remove some of the less notable instances, but I don't think containing these instances is enough to justify some deleting, only to justify some editing. --Nick Penguin 18:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed that. It should never have been deleted - I specifically trimmed it down to a sensible size. And moving content to an article that's up for deletion is a bit risky, IMHO. --Slashme 18:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were the one who moved the IPC content to its own article then nominated it for deletion. What you just said is totally incongruous with your actions. Incidentally, the section you restored to the main article remains unsourced, unlike the IPC article. It probably be better to use an excerpt of the IPC article's lead instead.--Father Goose 23:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be open to some trimming. When fixing the article, I chose to leave in place any entry that was already on the list that I could verify, rather than try to act as an arbiter.

And to expand on what you said: one shouldn't delete articles because of the possibility that they will attract poor additions. We'd have to close down the entire wiki if that were our standard.--Father Goose 00:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of "attracting poor additions." It's that the whole thing is a bad addition, as is every similar list of "this one time in aa movie this guy said Foo" lists. We're always seeing "keep and prune" in these discussions, but no one ever seems to go ahead and do it, nor does anyone ever that I recall offer any sort of guideline for when a mention of the thing should be on the list and when it shouldn't. That's consistently a problem with these "spot every reference" laundry lists. There's no objective standard for determining what should be on the list and what shouldn't. Otto4711 13:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because in your experience you've observed that "no one ever seems to go ahead and do [some pruning]" doesn't mean no one ever will, or that no one ever has. And if I'm not mistaken, Wikipedia does not need to be perfect, and certainly not made perfect overnight. I wish anyone could show me some mysterious "objective standard" with which to measure importance, but since we all know that will likely never happen, I would strongly discourage you from trying to broadly apply your own subjective standard, especially in AfD. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 14:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, that was rather my point, there is no possible objective standard as to what mentions of the phrase should be included in a list like this. For every one that you or I think is too trivial to mention there will be at least one editor (the one who added it) who thinks it isn't. Which is why a section in the main article that discusses how the phrase is used in popular culture, along with a relevant and sourced example or two of each of the notable types of usage, is the way that these sorts of things should be handled. And I don't recall ever suggesting that Wikipedia needs to be perfect so that's a bit of a red herring on your part. While Wikipedia can never be perfect, it can be made better and part of what would IMHO make it better would be for people to come to understand that list after list after list of "Somebody said it in a movie, let's run to the computer to add it to an article" references are not encyclopedic. Otto4711 16:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then it sounds like we both want exactly the same thing, a list of relevant and sourced examples. The only difference is that I see a a developing list of relevant and sourced examples while you see an irrelevant laundry list of cultural references. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 18:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every single time the phrase is used in any medium is not a relevant reference. The material is easily covered in the main article. A sourced prose sentence explaining how it's used for each type of usage, and one or two sourced examples for illustration. A very small number of examples do the job. A list of every usage regardless of how trivial does not. Otto4711 20:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with your first sentence, which is why I believe the article (or at least the content) should be kept and trimmed. If your second sentence was the case, then I don't think there was any need for Slashme to fork the IPC section out and immediately AfD it; this could have easily been handled at the article level. Further more, I think it is notable that a phrase from a language that almost no one even speaks has been manipulated, recreated and reinvented so many times. Thus the content on this page should ultimately be kept, either here or at the main VVV article, because it shows the significant influence the phrase has had in many different shades of Western culture. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 21:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"For every one that you or I think is too trivial to mention there will be at least one editor (the one who added it) who thinks it isn't." So what we're looking at is a difference of opinion between you and other editors. The solution to a difference of opinion is not "delete it."

Incidentally, at least one objective standard is whether the entry is verifiable. Because of that standard, these lists don't grow infinitely, regardless of what you claim. They tend to stabilize once the most culturally prominent instances get added. One can apply an additional restricting condition if the list grows to an unmanageable size -- such as your earlier suggestion, blue-linked entries only.

What's notable about veni, vidi, vici as something more than "something Caesar said" is how much the phrase has permeated the popular imagination. If not for that phenomenon -- which this article serves to document -- the phrase would have no encyclopedic significance on its own.--Father Goose 23:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to be amazed at the apparent inability of so many editors to distinguish between a thing and a reference to a thing. Once again, the phrase is notable. But every single time the phrase is mentioned is not notable. Do you honestly believe that the fact that someone drew the phrase as carved in a tombstone in a comic book really illustrates the cultural significance of the phrase? Really? Does it really contribute to an encyclopedic understanding of the phrase to know that Blink-182 wrote in a song, "I never conquered, rarely came"? Is there even a reliable source that says they were referencing VVV when they wrote it? Is there anything that the four paragraphs already in the main article that discuss the cultural impact of the phrase do not already cover in sufficient encyclopedic detail? Once again, a list of every single time that the phrase is spoken ever is not an encyclopedic treatment of the topic. It is a list of trivia and is exactly what Wikipedia is not supposed to be. This has already grown to an unmanageable size on the basis of its very existence. Any list that consists of nothing but "in this thing there was that thing" is worthless. Otto4711 00:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the distinction you make in the first three sentences is accurate, because a phrase needs to be uttered in order to be notable, and specific utterances demonstrate notability. Again, as I have said before, I completely agree, not every instance is notable. But issues with specific entries can be dealt with at the article level, not through an "all or nothing" AfD debate. I continue to fail to see why all this content needs to be deleted instead of just edited down a little.

Also, and you may not be aware, but the sentence "Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia", or whatever the phrase was, has since been removed from WP:NOT. Please update your worldview accordingly.--Nick Penguin_(contribs) 00:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need to update anything despite your little snark attack. WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#DIR serve perfectly well just as is. And sorry, but "specific utterances" do not demonstrate notability. If you actually read WP:N, you would see that notability is established by reliable secondary sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. There are no reliable secondary sources that discuss directly and in detail the presence of the phrase in any of the examples offered. I agree that the examples should be dealt with at the article level, and the article in which they should be dealt with is the main article. This pile of shit should never have been split off into its own article. A list of times somene says the phrase is not encyclopedic and the article should be deleted. Put the time and energy into the article on the phrase itself, not this useless compendium of waste. Otto4711 03:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:36, 11/4/2007

Six million[edit]

This article serves no purpose Vidor 06:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails the notability criteria for numbers as it is a basically uninteresting number. The holocaust claims are already covered in the appropriate article. - Peripitus (Talk) 06:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because what a shiny coatrack it is. As if the article 19 (number) were all about how 9/11 was a conspiracy. --Dhartung | Talk 08:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, agree with the coatrack analogy. Good policy, thanks for pointing it out. THE KING 08:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to keep, revert, trim and move as per Eager Contributor. The stuff about Jewish populations today has to be removed, as WP:Coatrack clearly applies, but other than that, the old version would be acceptable as Six Million (number). THE KING 09:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Among Jews it is not a "basically uninteresting number" but is emotive because of the Holocaust. Anthony Appleyard 09:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, revert, trim and move, change back to this, cut out the stuff on the world's current Jewish population but leave the bit in about the emotive connection to WW2, then move to Six Million (number). This article is about a number and as such is inherently notable and avaliable for expansion, plus it has a historical connection which can be mentioned Eager Contributor 09:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The artice is not inherently notable, serves no discernible function, and contains no information that doesn't belong in other articles, principally the article on the Holocaust. Why have some article on "six million" hanging out there when the article on the Holocaust examines in detail the various death toll estimates? This is clearly a coatrack for Holocaust denial. Vidor 10:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, there are an estimated 6 million Jews in America. And yes, an estimated 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust. But we don't have articles for 2974, three million, or 162,653,774, nor should we. There is no particular meaning to this number outside a discussion of the Holocaust, and thus any discussion of it in relation to the Holocaust should stay in the Holocaust article(s). This is a coatrack redirect. - Che Nuevara 15:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coatrack or not, this number doesn't seem to meet the notability requirement. Someguy1221 15:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Wow. Textbook case of coatrack. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Switch to keep and follow Eager Contributor's lead. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the phrase has caltural meening [39][40] [41] [42] Deror 08:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a number, and the article is about the number of people killed in the holocaust. We have an article about the holocaust. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless article, possible Coatrack and non-notable.Alberon 12:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and arguments above. It might also be argued it is a breach of wp:memorial.--victor falk 17:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I have never nominated an article for deletion before. How long do we wait? An admin would do it, correct? Vidor 19:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: An admin will come along in no less than five days to close. Someguy1221 19:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Six million" is sometimes used in popular reference as shorthand for the holocaust - by Jews, historians and deniers alike - and that needs to be acknowledged somewhere. On the other hand it would be inane to make this article a redirect to "holocaust" or a disambiguation page. Run a google search for "six million", weed out the references to Steve Austin, and see what you get: websites, book titles, etc. referring to the holocaust. This is on of my favorites (humor alert). --woggly 07:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm with you on this, but the way the article existed at the time of the AfD's start was very much a coatrackish article. The article as it existed per Eager Contributor I think is an acceptable compromise, and is more encyclopedic than what is there right now. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "that needs to be acknowledged somewhere". Sure. In the article about the Holocaust. Vidor 22:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and coatrack. Greswik 18:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bodekbeska[edit]

It's a "word created by a group of students". Enough said. MER-C 06:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced article about a neologism which doesn't even clearly define the word in question. --Metropolitan90 06:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, wikipedia is WP:NOT for something you make up one day. Davewild 18:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per... per... Well, per all of it. Pigman^what?/trail 02:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clear failure of WP:NEO. Doctorfluffy 02:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. east.718 at 09:50, 11/4/2007

Llap Goch[edit]

Contested PROD. Appears to fail WP:N; while Monty Python is obviously notable, and some of their sketches and creations also have independent notability, there is no evidence of specific, non-trivial coverage of this particular meme by independent, reliable secondary sources. MastCell ^Talk 05:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, as much as I'd like it every joke Monty Python ever made can't get it's own article Mad031683 18:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, as the author, I'm naturally inclined toward a "keep", here, but really I'd just like to see the information remain available on Wikipedia. Would it be more appropriate to fold it into the article about the book from whence it came? (Ironically, Llap Goch is much more well-known than the book, but I don't think there's any question the book meets the notability guidelines.)

For what it's worth, I'm a martial artist as well as...well, a lot of other things, actually, and Llap Gogh is second only to Ti Kwan Leep in my experience as the fake martial art of reference. Admittedly, it's a distant second, but it's still out there. What other kinds of sources would you like? It's a Monty Python sketch, so it's unlikely to be in academic journals. Stephen Aquila 04:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not so; if it were notable enough, it would be. "Dead parrot sketch" gets 37 hits in Google Scholar (as well as 59 in Google Books and 768 in NewsBank, the UK newspaper archive) that lead to a number of specific discussions of the topic. These are exactly the sources we're looking for as demonstration of notability, and Llap Goch doesn't turn up in any of them. Gordonofcartoon 04:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judging the notability of a comedy sketch by the number of scholarly articles it generates strikes me as analogous to judging the notability of a journal article by how often it gets mentioned on SNL. You can do it, of course, but examining them in their natural habitats is probably a better way to gauge their actual relevance. Stephen Aquila 12:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not up on our Monty Python articles, but perhaps information could be folded into a list of Monty Python sketches (we must have some such article). Alternately, in terms of sources, if Llap Goch has been mentioned in martial-arts literature, or had some sort of demonstrable, concrete cultural resonance that we could point to, that would go a long way. MastCell ^Talk 18:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I've done some digging, and while I've found a number of high-readership blog references and one small-circ. magazine reference, I haven't found any solid print sources of the type that I believe you're looking for. The best solution might be to fold it into the article on the book in which the sketch debuted. Do you think that would be reasonable? Stephen Aquila 01:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except it wasn't a sketch. A good comparison of what would constitute demonstrable, concrete cultural resonance is the Goodies episode Kung Fu Kapers, which featured the fictional martial art Ecky Thump. That, unlike Llap Goch, was seen by a mass mainstream audience and is still getting newspaper comment and allusion. Gordonofcartoon 19:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to your assertions about its lack of cultural relevance, a simple Google search demonstrates that the memory of Llap Goch is alive and well in the martial arts community and blogosphere. I personally believe this is sufficient evidence of its continued relevance to public discourse, but IIRC Wikipedia policy is to the contrary. I disagree with this policy, but it's well-settled and this is neither the time nor the place to fight City Hall. Furthermore, the sketch was published in a Monty Python book that sold well, making it (in my opinion) at least as notable as a short television sketch. Stephen Aquila 01:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't edit the articles in question, but I don't think there would be a problem, in principle, with covering this in the article on the book. MastCell ^Talk 04:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Then how about the following solution? I do some research on the most famous sketches in the book (my research thus far has discovered several), then include summaries of those plus this sketch in the book's section and you delete the Llap Goch independent article. Stephen Aquila 00:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. MastCell ^Talk 05:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - as long as the weight given and any claims or assessment of importance are based on reliable sources: not blogs, forums, personal webpages and unpublished niche reputation. At the end of the day, it's one page in a book, with no reliable assertions of its importance I can find. Gordonofcartoon 14:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Stephen Aquila 02:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen, if you have no objection, I'll go ahead and close this AfD and delete the Llap Goch article. MastCell ^Talk 17:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have no objection. I maintain my original contention the Llap Goch is worthy of its own Wikipedia article (I would not have created it otherwise), but given the evidentiary and notability rules currently in place I do not believe I can prove that to anyone's satisfaction. If a sea change in those rules takes place, I will reconsider this position, but for the foreseeable future I consider this case lost. Stephen Aquila 22:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agreed about NN. It was merely a one-page spoof ad in one of the Python spinoff books: funny, but ephemeral. Incidentally, the external link is almost certainly to a copyright violation (see Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works on that matter). Gordonofcartoon 04:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. Louis Santa Crawl[edit]

Another non-notable pub/bar crawl. Masaruemoto 05:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. JJL 11:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only non-wikipedia google hit is their website. Not notable.--chaser - t 13:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly non-notable. Doctorfluffy 05:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. PeaceNT 04:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Engines Save Christmas[edit]

Not planned for release until 2010.Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. — ERcheck (talk) 05:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd guess hoax, as there don't seem to be any nonwiki ghits. If not, it's crystalballery. Deor 07:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A Thomas the tank engine direct to dvd special being released in 2010. Do I even need to give a reason? THE KING 08:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure fan fiction. We get a lot of that about future seasons of the Thomas & Friends TV series, and the characters who may appear. Hadn't spotted this one (here) before. (For WP:THOMAS) -- EdJogg 13:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX. No information about this exists online outside of Wikipedia and mirrors. Doctorfluffy 03:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Riverwest Pub Crawl[edit]

Non-notable, few Ghits, all of which are trivial announcements. Masaruemoto 05:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. JJL 12:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pub crawls are non-notable by definition. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources / not notable Think outside the box 14:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete. Don't people realise that making articles about pub crawls on Wikipedia is completely futile? Every new user should be made to read WP:MADEUP before contributing.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 01:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, absolutely non-notable. Doctorfluffy 05:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. I don't particularly like doing this, but the arguments for keeping aren't strong, and consensus is consensus. east.718 at 00:35, 11/4/2007

Rage (fictional virus)[edit]

Non-notable, in-universe only subject. Unlikely reliable sources can be found to indicate notability. Fails WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy 05:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The parent articles - 28 Days/Weeks Later Characters, 28 Days Later, 28 Weeks Later and 28 Days Later: The Aftermath - have done nothing but spawn huge piles of in-universe fancruft of which this is yet another. Wikipedia is not a fan site or a free web host. The writers are looking for Geocities, not Wikipedia. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 09:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reason for this to have its own page. Just the page for the movie is enough. --Alessandro ♫^{T • C} 12:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Many other articles on fictional "in-universe" subjects for movie/television. This is no less legitimate a subject than all the others. -- Voldemore 19:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. For this particular article, reliable sources are needed to demonstrate it's notability or it is subject to deletion. Doctorfluffy 20:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, a lot of our editors seem unaware what "in-universe" means and are perhaps unaware of the guideline in the Manual of Style covering writing about fiction without pretending it's real. This leads editors into thinking that we persecute articles about fiction, when in fact all we require is that they are encyclopaedic and meet the specific notability guideline for fiction-related subjects by including independent reliable secondary sources. When Voldemore becomes more familiar with the guidelines, I'm sure s/he'll change opinion immediately. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 21:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I should have explicitly stated it, but WP:FICT is the basis for my nom. I'll add that above. Also, I found your response to be eloquently succinct. Doctorfluffy 22:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The virus is just a MacGuffin for a rather superior zombie movie and its sequel, a satire on the War on Terror. --Tony Sidaway 04:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sequel is rather inferior, precisely because of that ham-handed attempt at satire....--victor falk 10:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to utter b******* the article for the film. agree with Tony Sidaway D.C.Rigate 07:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Medical details are interesting encyclopedic trivia, and should be integrated in the film's article--victor falk 10:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the movie - surely this would be sufficient? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not notable for people who aren't into the movie, but neither are the United States Democratic presidential candidates, 2008 to someone who doesn't follow American politics. I know there's a difference, but it's a difference of degree. I found the article because I was intrigued about the depictions of fictional diseases in media, not because I'm a huge fan of a zombie movie. This is a decent article and of distinctly different interest than it's parent film. Let it live. --Just Some Guy 12:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notability has absolutely nothing to do with how fans or non-fans or anybody else feels about the topic. It has to do with reliable, independent sources devoting significant coverage to the topic. The Rage virus does not meet that criteria, whereas, per your example, there are 100s of newspaper articles, webpages, news reports, interviews, essays, etc from reliable, independent sources devoted to the presidential candidates every day. Doctorfluffy 18:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the entire article is unsourced and appears, to someone who hasn't seen the film, to be almost entirely speculation. This entire article could be shrunk to two lines and dumped into the original 28 Days Later - and, in fact, effectively already is. — Xenoveritas 14:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for only being of in-universe importance. - Chardish 15:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was initially inclined to a Merge, since it does contain semi-useful information. However, since it deals with information that is in more than one film, and that develops across the films, I feel after contemplation that it's more desirable to have a separate entry to reduce cross-movie spoilers, MacGuffin though it may be. It definitely needs more explicit referencing as to which info comes from which movie (or book); however, that is a reason to Improve the article, not delete it. That there is massive amounts of fancruft out there is not a justification for deletion; one must show THIS is fancruft. I might be willing to consider amending my vote if someone who's seen the movie(s) and read the graphic novel can show there's extensive fancruft involved here. Abb3w 15:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is doubtful the article can be improved to meet the requirements of WP:FICT as reliable secondary sources do not appear to exist. Also, your assertion that it must be demonstrated that this is fancruft is incorrect; the burden of evidence lies with establishing notability. It is not required to prove non-notability. Doctorfluffy 17:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You misunderstand my point. If the contents are (as Redvers suggests) largely fancruft, that would be grounds for deletion. However, unless someone with the relevant minimal expertise (IE, saw the movies and read the book(s)) asserts that the contents are fancruft, then fancruft is irrelevant until substantiated by that first knowledgeable affirmation. Also, while it's a McGuffin, it's a central McGuffin to the fictional universe. The separate page seems justified for style reasons, as WP:FICT allows, until and unless a "28 days/weeks/whatever" universe page evolves. Abb3w 21:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly clear on your argument regarding the cruftery, but I think it's obvious that at least a few people here think the article is fancruft. Regardless, I'm still not seeing reliable sources independent of the subject indicating its notability from anybody in this discussion, and WP:FICT only allows for subpages for content that is itself notable to at least a moderate degree. Just look at the references provided for those clauses; element of the universes of Superman, Hamlet, Final Fantasy, and Star Wars. Those are some of the most important subjects in their respective genres, and I don't think anything nearing that level of notability can be established for an element of the 28 Days Later universe. Doctorfluffy 21:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the article itself is fairly poor, the Rage virus does cross two major movies and a graphic novel spin-off (with a third movie apparently on the way). We also risk opening a can of worms here with District 1 currently having it's own page. I suggest that we should have a think about how to rewrite this article instead of putting it through AfD. 193.128.2.2 15:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The subject matter could exist in 10 times as many movies, but that still does not establish notability per WP:FICT. The topic needs to be covered by reliable secondary sources to establish notability, and such sources do not appear to exist for the Rage virus. I usually refrain from mentioning other stuff, but it is likely that the District 1 article also does not meet the notability criteria per WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy 17:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There should be no need to read four different articles to scrape together all the bits of information about this when we can put all the salient facts in one place and insert ((main)) templates in the other articles as needed. Bryan Derksen 16:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the material in this fictional topic is not notable per WP:FICT then it should not be on Wikipedia period. As I have stated in the above two comments, this topic does not meet the criteria for coverage from reliable secondary sources. If a limited portion of the material can be used to improve the main articles on the movies (which is questionable in my opinion as this is almost entirely WP:NOT#PLOT) then it should be there. The Rage virus on its own simply doesn't have the necessary notability. Doctorfluffy 17:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article has its place, regardless of another submitter's flawed sense notability. There are other articles on fictionsl viruses. I think the fact that other people have created articles around this theme and different viruses makes it notable in itself. Note that WP:OTHERSTUFF is not really applicable against my argument, as there are a plurality of fictional virus articles and not just another single one - all created by different people. Also WP:FICT is a guideline, not official policy. Also note that the submitter's primary goal is deletion, and not Editing. Furthermore, submitter's arguments go against WP:NOTPAPER, which is official policy. Taken all together, it is pretty clear that this article should be a Keep. -Nodekeeper 20:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You're correct, WP:FICT is not policy per se, but it is the logical combination of two official policies, WP:N and WP:NOT#PLOT. WP:N itself states that fot all topics significant coverage must come from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Regardless of how many sources have covered the movie, it is very unlikely there is a credible source that has devoted substantial coverage to the virus itself. Without such sources, there is nothing to indicate this doesn't break WP:NOT#PLOT. This subject of this article - which to be clear is only the virus in the movies, not the movies themselves - has no real-world context, analysis from external sources, cultural impact, or historical significance. Doctorfluffy 20:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

but it is the logical combination of two official policies

To clarify, it's your logical conclusion of the two policies, not Wikipedia's. In your singleminded zeal to achieve your goal of deletion, your provide a policy framework that simply does not exist. In addition, you give no other substantial arguments for deletion. I could understand if the article had large faults in other ways, but as it is the policy WP:NOTPAPER outweighs your jury rigged nonpolicy attempt for deletion. -Nodekeeper 23:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever read WP:FICT? Taken directly from its first section, "Defining notability for fiction":

From Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#PLOT:

Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.

From Wikipedia:Notability:

A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

Based on this reasoning and the above excerpts, fictional concepts are deemed notable if they have received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources.

The above clearly shows the premise of WP:FICT is a direct logical derivative of the combination of WP:N and WP:NOT#PLOT. That fact is indisputable. To be honest, I don't understand how you could be making the rest of the arguments you present. The logical framework I present was not written by me, it's been included on official policy/guidelines pages for as long as I can remember, and there is a mountain of precedent regarding it in numerous AfDs. Just pick a few at random from the fictional cat and I am sure you will see others talking about WP:FICT and the need for secondary sources.

You also keep refrencing WP:NOTPAPER; have you actually read that either? Taken directly from it; "there is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page". Even assuming all the information in the Rage article is WP:V, which it probably isn't due to the lack of independent sources, it still breaks WP:NOT#PLOT and likely breaks WP:NOT#OR.

I am starting to have trouble taking you serious at this point and will likely not respond to any more comments you make unless you actually show an understanding of policy. Doctorfluffy 23:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<-----

Even assuming all the information in the Rage article is WP:V, which it probably isn't due to the lack of independent sources, it still breaks WP:NOT#PLOT and likely breaks WP:NOT#OR.

This discussion belongs on the article's talk page, as it's related to content, not on the AfD page. You have not proved that it breaks WP:V. This is just a wild assumption you use to flail about in your attempt to achieve deletion.

The logical framework I present was not written by me, it's been included on official policy/guidelines pages for as long as I can remember,

But yet you fail to point to any specific place describing it.

and there is a mountain of precedent regarding it in numerous AfDs.

You conveniently forget that Wikipedia is not a moot court. WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY. BTW this is official policy.

Just pick a few at random from the fictional cat and I am sure you will see others talking about WP:FICT and the need for secondary sources.

That's all it is. Just talk and not policy. Unfortunately there is a plague of deletionism taking place on Wikpedia. I'm sure that in time policy may change to reflect all the idle conversation, when others are not around to answer the endless drone put forth by deletionists. But until then, I see no justification for it. The reference to "some talk" doesn't cut it, especially when dealing with fictional topics, as questions about content belongs on the article talk pages, not AfD where nary an editor ever sees it. You may disagree, but all that amounts to is your opinion at this point.

which it probably isn't due to the lack of independent sources, it still breaks WP:NOT#PLOT and likely breaks WP:NOT#OR

Fictional viruses are covered extensively by fictional movies and books. That is objective proof that they are notable according to guidelines. Rage is a fictional virus, and hence is worthy of an article and should not be deleted. Q.E.D. You are wrong.

likely breaks WP:NOT#OR

Likely is not does. This is nothing more than an insinuation that you pull out of the air. I really wish that AfD arguments were held to the same standard that articles are. Meaning WP:NOR. You have not done the research required or sourced anything that a Wikipedia editor needs to do when writing an article. You just make an unjustified assumption so you can score another delete. I'd be far more receptive to suggestions (as others on this page have cared to suggest) to reshaping the article, but at this point you have not done so. That is not in your goal anyway, maybe because that requires too much work rather than spurging phony policy.

I am starting to have trouble taking you serious at this point and will likely not respond

Codewords for "I am out of arguments in my deletionist toolkit and I want you to go away now." -Nodekeeper 09:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a non-response indicating that I read your comment, but you still don't appear to have read WP:N, WP:V, or WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy 20:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to consider this question: have sources other than those writing the articles studied the subject in depth? Bearing in mind that this is a fictional disease and not a real one, I'd look for the following:
- comments by medically qualified people on medical aspects of this fictional construction;
- comments by critics on the use of the disease motif in the movie; in particular, comparisons to other disease-themed works of fiction, such as Camus' masterpiece, La Peste, Defoe's A Journal of the Plague Year, and so on;
The question in my mind is: is this article here simply because a fan of these excellent films fancied writing in detail, from the film itself and the statements of those involved in its production and distribution, about aspects the fictional disease, or is there a deeper, underlying reason why we should consider this subject to require an encyclopedia article of its own? And for that I'd be looking for comments on its medical or literary significance. It might help us to make the decision if we could see sourced statements of the kind I've alluded to. --Tony Sidaway 23:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What you're asking about is precisely why the policies (mainly WP:N and WP:FICT) that I keep referencing exist in the first place. In layman's terms, the mere fact that something exists doesn't warrant its inclusion in Wikipedia, so we need to define notability as being the subject of significant coverage by reliable, independent sources. This is one of the core tenets of Wikipedia and the real reason we're here - if I thought such sources existed to indicate notability then I wouldn't have nominated it for deletion. Doctorfluffy 23:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, though in practice I find the term "notability" rather ill-defined and subject to abuse. The real concept I'm getting at is the existence of multiple independent verifiable comments, for which we don't (yet) appear to have a precise name on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 14:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Notability" is defined as plainly as can be in WP:N. A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. During this AfD, a few sources have been presented, but I don't know they meet the criteria for "significant coverage". Doctorfluffy 20:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect to 28 Days Later I added some references. I see no Wikipedia policy on "in-universe only" subjects. Mdwh 00:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In wikipedia context, "in-universe" typically refers to this guideline and the problems it lays out. Your sources have slightly more than a passing mention of the virus, but they're mainly plot summaries that acknowledge the virus's existence as an element of that plot. I'm not sure if I'd classify them as significant or substantial coverage. Doctorfluffy 00:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge. Any of the plot points can be discussed within the context of the movies themselves; as it is, the page is rife with speculation. (I can't say that the list of other fictional viruses is convincing, either; if nothing else, it provides more fodder for AfD.) --moof 09:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But where do we merge it into? (See my comment above of 15:51, 31 October 2007 along with those of others). The Rage virus is part of a canon and an anchor point for mainstream fiction crossing multiple films, books and comics; hence my support for the existence of the page if not its current content. If we spent as much time working on tidying up the article as we have debating it in AfD we'd have all been done by now. 193.128.2.2 10:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the rage virus is deleted - then the information on the game half-life must also be deleted. The half-life series on wiki covers all aspects of the game. Then there is information on the games Doom and quake that will also have to be deleted. 21kev 14:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - one in a long series of arguments you don't want to make at AfD. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 19:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Plot summary that violates WP:NOT#PLOT, no secondary sources to demonstrate notability. --Phirazo 00:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd like to say ((sofixit)) and find them, but I understand that as you want it deleted you're not willing to make the effort. Anyway, you can find sources in 28 days later and 28 weeks later. Nowhere it says there must be sources in the article itself (as it leads to ugly and unnecessary redundance), if sources are available in other articles. Especially if it is a subarticle per WP:SS.--victor falk 11:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources are insufficient to demonstrate notability. Editors cannot decide what is and is not notable in a work of fiction, that is original research. "Nowhere it says there must be sources in the article itself (as it leads to ugly and unnecessary redundance), if sources are available in other articles." Or, articles could stand on thier own and not use other articles as a crutch. Summary style is not a free pass for fancruft. It is a suggestion to split articles on large topics like History of France into smaller pieces when each piece can be handled in an encylopedic matter. Even if you consider this part of the 28 Days Later article, it is still half unsourced speculation and half inappropriately long plot summary. --Phirazo 16:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is clearly relevant to the 28 Days Later series (being a basis for three different works within the series), and thus becomes notable. I also believe the article was nominated in bad faith as per Doctorfluffy's user page. -- Veled 05:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I responded to one of your other !votes in more detail at the Gavadon deletion page. You really need to read up on notability policy before you make comments such as this. Doctorfluffy 05:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Run this by me again then: why is this article going through AfD? Is it because its (a) non-notable, (b) very poor or (c) both? As I mentioned a few paragraphs up, the Rage virus is an anchor "for mainstream fiction crossing multiple films, books and comics". While the article is unimpressive in its structure, declaring the subject matter to be simply a MacGuffin does seem a bit harsh. 193.128.2.2 11:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I AFDed it because it's non-notable and secondary sources independent of the subject do not appear to exist and because it's mainly a WP:NOT#PLOT summary with a good measure of WP:NOT#OR mixed in. To fix such problems, you need to find reliable sources per WP:RS that confirm per WP:V any sort of real-world significance, cultural impact, historical impact, etc. Merely making statements like "the Rage virus is an anchor for mainstream fiction crossing multiple films, books and comics" without a source to back it up do not prove notability per WP:N. Per WP:V, the burden of evidence lies with those adding information. Doctorfluffy 17:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I’m having a little bit of trouble getting my head around the corollary of sourcing facts for works of fiction. I’m not really able to help much further (I’ve only seen each movie once) so I’m just going to have to maintain my "keep" view for the reasons that I have previously given. I do like how the AfD discussion is now five times larger than the article we’re debating. 193.128.2.2 17:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. In fact, I would say the article is notable for the amount of discussion it's generated. I'm serious. In any event, I think it should be kept if for no other reason than that its "cruftiness" is clearly in dispute and that the the cautious response is then to leave it alone. It can always be deleted later should consensus be reached, but once it's gone it's pretty much gone. Just Some Guy 19:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. You can ask for the page to be userfied, as you're one of the contributors. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 21:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete - fails WP:NOR, no sources given, no sourcing added during discussion, needs some sort of outside sources to meet WP:FICT. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 21:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is a personal attack on me and should be counted as this user not liking me and not against the article itself. Thanks! Just Some Guy 23:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:30, 11/4/2007

Good Management Practice[edit]

No significant content. One link to company website. Advertisement? Busy Stubber 04:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, businessmen always devise long terms to say simple things and to cover up the lack of meaning in their lives. Speciate 05:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this one sentence article is pure tautology. Agree with Speciate; but wonder whether lack of meaning, or self-importance, or a felt need to make platitudes seem novel or proprietary is to blame. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect. east.718 at 00:30, 11/4/2007

Medieval Combat Society[edit]

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

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

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

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

The result was Delete as Hoax. the_undertow ^talk 06:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brazos (Amtrak)[edit]

Prod removed by anon without comment. Probable hoax, uncited and unverifiable. Nothing I could find on Amtrak's site, and the "logo" is borderline vandalism. — Coren ^(talk) 03:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly a hoax. Might qualify for speedy as vandalism. Doctorfluffy 03:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I already speedily deleted the "logo" as WP:CSD#G1 nonsense. The article itself doesn't qualify as nonsense, since it's readable text that tells the reader something, but it's telling the reader something that's an unsourced hoax. So, delete this one. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I won't even bother notifying WikiProject Trains on this one as its a hoax. --Oakshade 04:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:28, 11/4/2007

Ambry (band)[edit]

With only one album released, I don't believe this band passes WP:MUSIC. Lots of MySpace links, zero reliable sources showing what makes this particular band different from the millions of other MySpace bands. Bongwarrior 03:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem to pass WP:MUSIC. Punkmorten 11:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Regrettable, but indeed, it fails to meet WP:MUSIC standards. (Author) SPL Wolf 14:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I managed to dig up two small album reviews, which I put into the article's external links, but nothing sufficient to meet criterion #1 of WP:MUSIC. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The minority of "keep" opinions generally fails to address the issue of the apparent lack of real-world coverage for this fictional character. Sandstein 06:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miska the Wolf-Spider[edit]

I fell that this particular wolf-spider is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in the Wikipedia. I also believe that Wikipedia is being used as a game guide and we need to remember that this is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There is no real world context established in this article. Pilotbob 02:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn (only in-universe gaming refs.). JJL 03:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:NN, non-notable in-universe character that does not have enough outside references to establish notability. --Hdt83 ^Chat 03:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd suggest that rather than randomly putting articles up for deletion, you might first suggest improvements to be made to flesh the article out, which can be done given an expanding publication history in the past year or so regarding Miska. Or perhaps take some time of your own to do the necessary research for such improvements.Shemeska 04:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 15:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No improvement can be made when there are no reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Ghits show that this fictional creature is unknown outside of the a gaming adventure from which it is derived. --Gavin Collins 17:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Miska has a history dating back to the Rod of Seven Parts from the 1979 Dungeon Master's Guide. If the article is kept, it needs to be edited to reflect this. BOZ 17:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how this establishes real world notability or a real world context Pilotbob 17:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BOZ.--Robbstrd 00:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no references to reliable, third-party, real-world sources to demonstrate the significance of this fictional creature beyond the reaches of the D&D fan base. Garrett^Talk 09:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Demon lord (Dungeons & Dragons) -- it already has a list that could be expanded with a limited amount of the detail from this article. Pinball22 16:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly fictive and non-notable. Same goes for all D&D Deities: they simply do not reach outside of D&D hobbying to affect the rest of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BreathingMeat (talk • contribs) 19:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Strictly speaking, Zeus, Odin, and Jehovah don't "reach outside" of their literature to "affect the rest of the world," either. Would you advocate deleting those articles as well?--Robbstrd 23:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, that's wrong. :-) Odin, as just one example, has been written about in many works written by people who didn't worship him or work for his church. In fact, he's been a subject of all sorts of third-party works, including famous ones, many of which have used "poetic license" to expand upon the character in-universe, or have analyzed him externally from the standpoint of comparative religion, and so on. On the other hand, there don't seem to be any third-party scholarly works that delve into the character of Miska the Wolf-Spider - and, well, I dunno if we'd find any, since the character is owned by a corporation. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you think Odin's real? Does he "reach out" to you?--Robbstrd 19:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per real-world and secondary sources arguments above, or alternately merge just the most vital information to Demon lord (Dungeons & Dragons) per Pinball22. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge Adequate notability and sourcing. The D&D hobby is part of the real world and Wikipedia supports such specialised interests per its Five Pillars. Colonel Warden 12:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D&D certainly is part of the real world; its coverage in many 3rd-party sources proves so. Miska the Wolf-Spider, unfortunately, is an in-game character, and the article is analogous to a plot summary. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. I hate deleting decent articles on real people. =( east.718 at 09:44, 11/4/2007

Igor Babailov[edit]

Self-promotion with no legitimate assertion of notability; largely ripped from here. Biruitorul 02:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 18:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Too many grandiose and unverified claims. Freshacconci | Talk 02:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I couldn't find reliable sources to indicate notability. Doctorfluffy 17:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Biruitorul - Modernist 20:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the admin who declined speedy. I can see quite a lot on the net that's independent and reliable. This certainly asserts plenty of notability. Pedro : Chat 11:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly has a stunning VIP client base of heads of state etc as a commissioned portraitist, and therefore notable. The article is terrible, but the sources are there. Johnbod 13:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then again, with circa 69 Google hits and no third-party references, how would we know any of this is true? Biruitorul 17:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I have to agree with Biruitorul here: someone can claim whatever they want on their own webpage, but there are little if any verifiable sources for this. It may all be true, but until those sources can be found, this should be deleted. freshacconci: speak to me 17:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The unveiling photos with Mandela, Pope JP2, Putin, Brian Mulroney, Guliani etc on the website look pretty convincing to me. There is enough on Google to verify several of these independantly. Johnbod 18:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He painted Mulroney? That won't earn him too many points where I come from. freshacconcispeaktome 18:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A serious question: if the only evidence of notability comes from photos, can we use that? How do we use that? I'd be willing to change my !vote (I see this article as a good test of my objectivity; I don't care for this artist or what he stands for, but of course, that should be completely beside the point when discussing notability). How do we establish notability with what is available? If this article is saved, it needs a complete rewrite. freshacconcispeaktome 18:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Multiple authoritative sources do not seem to be present to confirm the notability of the artist (apart from the reflected notability of his subjects). I think this is a case of an artist working within a particular world but not achieving notability beyond it. We should not be seduced by pictures of him shaking hands with celebrities. Pedro was right to decline the speedy, but in the final analysis if the artist isn't the subject of press articles or books, if he hasn't won major awards, if his works are not held in the collections of major museums, he shouldn't be in the encyclopedia.--Ethicoaestheticist 23:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If he is commissioned by major heads of state arouind the world, that makes him notable, though clearly he won't be appearing in the normal contemporary art press. But that world is not the only world. There is evidence from Google and his site that I can't be bothered to work up of many articles etc. I think there is an element of aesthetic snobbishness in some of these comments. I don't like his art either, but think he is notable. 23:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbod (talk • contribs)

The result was keep the country, delete the song. east.718 at 09:42, 11/4/2007

Sackalia[edit]

Bundled with this nomination is also:

Deletion Nomination Possible hoax article. Bears striking resemblence to another probably Estonian related hoax "Principality of Estland", see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Principality of Estland. Some of the problems: 1) Google search turns up SQUADOOSH, except this article and its mirrors. 2) The article is unreferenced. 3) The only external link is to a website for a college fraternity site. The article on the national anthem, with Guitar Chords? (odd for an anthem for a from the 11th century???)Both articles have tingled my spidey-sense. I am not 100% convinced these are hoaxes, but given the problems with other Estonian history articles, I thought it prudent to bring these up for discussion. Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but move to Sakala (county). Sackalia is a Latin name for ancient Sakala county, see Scholar, Books, for example here. Delete the anthem, though. Might be a hoax, but is non-notable and doesn't belong to Wikipedia in any case. -- Sander Säde 03:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sackalia per Sander Säde--Termer 04:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article needs to be renamed and cleaned up, I'll take care of it right now.--Termer 04:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Anthem of Sackalia, again per Sander Säde--Termer 04:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the bundling. It's confusing. The first needs to be kept, at least the title is legit. Anthem is a total hoax tho and needs to be deleted.--Alexia Death the Grey 07:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please note that independent eldership in any related article and any ref to a folk song from is nonsense and would need to go. Just pointing it out because User:Victor_falk has restored the things in the article after I cleaned up everything that was questionable. Nobody has ever called the political structure of these counties anything like an independent eldership. There is more to the restored things but I'll remove these later and replace with refd facts as time permits. For now I just added the clean up tag. Thanks--Termer 07:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I confused the before and after versions which each other; I self-reverted my edits a couple of times when editing the infobox, and it looks like I lost track of which was which. Sorry for the confusion--victor falk 13:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The anthem article comes with series of redirects that must go with the article. Sakala hümn, Sakala ylemlaal, Anthem of Sakala.--Alexia Death the Grey 07:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, According to my copy of History of Estonia, 2nd Ed., by Tõnu Tannberg, et al. ISBN 9985206061, on page 31 is discussed the ancient eldership of Sakala that existed in the 13th Century as described by Henry of Livonia. Note the authors of this book call these administrative divisons as "regions", rather than "counties". Also, while the book doesn't explicitly state they were "independent elderships" it does state: "By the end of the Ancient Times, some notable tendencies of co-operation between regions indicate the development of elements of statehood. According to the Chronicles of Henry of Livonia, even annual joint consultations of county elders were supposedly held in Raikküla". To me this implies they were independant. Martintg 10:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Martintg Re: @ Talk:Sakala_County--Termer 16:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Anthem of Sackalia, probable hoax. Martintg 11:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sackalia, abstain on the anthem.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I made the bundled nomination because it appeared BOTH articles were hoaxes, ala "principality of Estland". Based on the discussion here, and the addition of the references, I would Withdraw Nomination for the province/county/whatever article on Sakala/Sackalia and still maintain the nomination for the Anthem. The bundling was done in good faith, as I did do due diligence on the name Sackalia, and found nothing at all save Wikipedia mirrors, and so both looked like part of the same hoax. It appears that others with access to print sources I did not have access to have removed the hoax-y aspect of the Province article, including a good move to the more proper name. However, the anthem article still has to go, in my opinion. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a good catch... will be a while before all these hoax articles are fully fixed/gone. All of them have a grain of truth, but they use obscure sources and spellings, are very WP:POINTy etc. Like I've said before, we should have a discussion about suspected User:Bloomfield hoaxes in WikiProject Estonia - ie list probable hoaxes there to see if AfD is needed. -- Sander Säde 04:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32, I think since the article has now been moved to Sakala County and kept, Sackalia is now a redirect which should be now deleted, because as you say, there is nothing found for the name "Sackalia". So I would support deletion of the redirect Sackalia and the anthem. Martintg 23:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect should be kept, see Special:Whatlinkshere/Sackalia. -- Sander Säde 04:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, indeed you are correct. Martintg 19:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both unless someone can verify they are hoaxes. Really. Greswik 18:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sackalia has been fixed already, moved to its real name - and I don't think anyone wants it to be deleted. Please read the previous discussion first. -- Sander Säde 21:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:27, 11/4/2007

Wind Dukes of Aaqa[edit]

Notability of the subject cannot be establised from independent reliable sources. Sources listed are all D&D related publications. Regardless, there is no real world context for this information. Pilotbob 02:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn D&Dcruft. JJL 03:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - has no or little presence in the real world. Law & Disorder 06:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Wind Dukes have a history dating back to the Rod of Seven Parts from the 1979 Dungeon Master's Guide. If the article is kept, it needs to be edited to reflect this. BOZ 18:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thats a reason to keep? what about the notability issues? Law & Disorder 17:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per BOZ. Several D&D products have been influenced by the Wind Dukes, including a novel, a boxed set, and an Adventure Path. Also, this propossal is Cruftcruft, and a result of Pilotbob wishing to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.--Robbstrd 21:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment since the WP:POINTs seem to be WP:N and WP:RS, that may not be so bad. JJL 00:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Robbstrd unjustified attempt to discredit the nominator is out of order; if he had reliable secondary sources to support his assertion, you would have thought he would have put them in the article when he wrote it. --Gavin Collins 09:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeon & Dragon are both reliable secondary sources.--Robbstrd 19:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 08:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this article has insufficient content, context or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate the notability of fictional characters outside of the game settings from which they are derived. --Gavin Collins 09:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment i don't see anyone giving evidence why this is notable. ^Law/_Disorder 14:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comments about the novel, boxed set, etc.--Robbstrd 19:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of that looks like it's independent of the subject... ^Law/_Disorder 06:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, aren't Dungeon and Dragon published by the same company that makes these very products? JJL 12:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Check the references. Dungeon #124, 129, & the Age of Worms Overload are published by an independent company.--Robbstrd 23:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, in the old days, TSR's wacky lawyers would have sued someone just for having an accessible web page on the topic. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Irrelevant. This isn't the "old days," and TSR is no longer the IP holder.--Robbstrd 23:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - cruft, no real world perspective, no secondary sources, Wikipedia's not a role-playing game manual. I wish there'd be a D&D Wikipedia to transwiki these things into. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. PeaceNT 04:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Mi Manera[edit]

This article is about a Mexican television program which is described as being scheduled for broadcast in the U.S. starting next month. However, the U.S. broadcaster, Univision, has no mention of the show on its website that I could find, and in fact I could find no relevant Google hits at all. (The title "a mi manera" is a common expression which means "my way", but none of the Google hits appear to be relevant.) I submitted the article for proposed deletion, but the article creator removed the PROD tag and placed a comment on my talk page stating that the show is scheduled for broadcast. But with no sources provided, it would be better to wait until reliable sources exist before creating an article about this show. I recommend a delete. --Metropolitan90 02:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect I created this page as a redirect to My Way (song)#Alternate Versions for the Gipsy Kings song. I'm dismayed to find out some random yahoo hijacked it. JuJube 06:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The creator also made the category Category:Albums that rock! which was recently deleted. JuJube 06:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - has no sources and is more prediction then reality. Law & Disorder 06:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Tiptoety 02:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the current article and return the page to its prior use as a redirect. There are no sources to verify the subject television show. —C.Fred (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and return to redirect per C.Fred. No sources, much less any assertion of notability Bfigura ^(talk) 03:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the 13 year old kid is probably the creator of this article too. — jacĸrм (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Doctorfluffy 08:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benford's law of controversy
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect as required by GFDL after merge. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung \| Talk 22:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Benford's law of controversy[edit] Benford's law of controversy (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Nonnotable; "law" seems to be at best occasionally true, and is unoriginal as well(see talk page). Even supporters of article have (understandably, given its unimportance) done little work to flesh out the article--we don't even know the chapter in Timescape where law stated,(if it ever was in the book at all). This article inflates the Wikipedia article count, and Encyclopedia Britannica could point to it when Wikipedians crow about our 2 million articles. Rich 02:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] whether it is true or original is not the point. the question is, have other people referred to it in RSs?DGG (talk) 03:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Oppose deletion. The citations in the article itself are sufficient to establish notability under Wikipedia's standards, which are significantly more inclusive than Britannica's. I would remove the stub tag, because there isn't much more that should be said. A page reference in the novel can easily be found by someone who has the book (I don't).Finell (Talk) 04:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Oppose deletion. This article is insufficient as it stands, of course, but it comes up often enough to require Wikipedia discussion, simply as a current cultural meme. Another, more rigorous "Benford's law"— more fully Benford's Law of Anomalous Numbers— concerning the First digit phenomenon in the field of statistics, is Frank Benford's, which he first expressed in "The law of anomalous numbers" Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 78 551-72. I'm not competent to discuss that Benford' Law, but it appears often enough through JSTOR. Examples: Lawrence M. Leemis; Bruce W. Schmeiser; Diane L. Evans, "Survival Distributions Satisfying Benford's Law", The American Statistician 54.4 (November 2000:236-241); Pieter C. Allaart, "An Invariant-Sum Characterization of Benford's Law" Journal of Applied Probability 34.1 (March 1997:288-291), etc etc.. Can't begin to improve this article myself, I hasten to add. --Wetman 04:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Merge and redirect to Gregory Benford. This "law" has no independent, credible sources demonstrating that it has notability. We don't actually have to maintain a directory of every "law" someone thought up one day, even if they're famous. In those cases, it's easy; they have an article, so mention the "law" there. (I'm not fond of the scare quotes, btw, but I wonder if there's a word akin to protologism for these -- aphorism is close, but an imprecise match.) --Dhartung \| Talk 13:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Merge done--victor falk 13:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep per Wetman's answer to DGG'd question. Frivolous, but so is Murphy's Law, and being inaccurate does not prevent it from making a statement any more than being nonsensical prevents Zen koans from communicating ideas. --Kizor 14:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Merge and redirect to Gregory Benford. I can't see that there is enough independent information to fill a whole article. Most possible additions would probably be OR. - Che Nuevara 14:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Redirect to Gregory Benford, with relevant information merged. Mandsford 16:12, 29 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 00:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Subcrawl[edit] Subcrawl (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Non-notable, original research, and no significant coverage in reliable sources. Masaruemoto 02:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete nn. JJL 03:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete student OR. A funny read though, I've remember writing the exact same sort of garbage in my earlier days. How times change :-) THE KING 08:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete "wikipedia is not for stuff you made up at the pub one night"--victor falk 13:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete, blatant OR. Doctorfluffy 18:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete not notable at all, OR problems Hut 8.5 20:07, 29 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. east.718 at 00:25, 11/4/2007 Oliver Koomsatira[edit] Oliver Koomsatira (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) I debated whether this was the best course but I think I need feedback to confirm my opinion. This is obviously a vanity/resume bio. I haven't been through all the links at the end of the article but I suspect they are all resume or program listings, not independent WP:RS or WP:V sources. I was stumped by the massive number of stage roles as well as by the films. Must be notable, right? But an IMDb seach came up empty. A Google search on his name came up with only 47 hits. Sometimes I'm blinded by a flurry of words. I think he fails WP:BIO. Pig^man 02:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete fails WP:BIO Mad031683 17:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. Greswik 18:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was no consensus to delete. Whether or not it should be merged is an editorial matter and need not be decided here. Sandstein 06:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Phone Call to Putin[edit] Phone Call to Putin (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Reason: non-notable slang term Content can be moved to List of torture methods and devices. DonaldDuck 01:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. This expression is widely known in Russia and supported by several reliable third-party English sources.Biophys 04:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] This expression is in no way widely known in Russia. Google search for "Phone call to Putin" and "torture" in Russian give only several dozen links and basically, they refer to only one newspaper article. Google search in English gives only a dozen relevant links which describe only one case of police brutality.DonaldDuck 06:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] I included several references in the article that describe such method of torture as very common in Russia.Biophys 14:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] All references describe single case of police brutality. There is no evidence that the phrase "Phone call to Putin" is common.DonaldDuck 07:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Merge and redirect to electric shock#Torture. It's not even clear that this is a widely used term among police, only among these particular police in the incident. It's probably one of just many nicknames that the method has acquired in different locations and times. --Dhartung \| Talk 13:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment. According to RFE/RL report, this method is "so common" that it even has a name: the "phone call to Putin." (see My Only Thought Was To Escape The Torture). Hence the notability of the retm can be established.Biophys 14:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Merge per Dhartung. This is a neologism whose notability and widespread use cannot particularly be verified. The article Besides, when Putin leaves office, I bet they'll start calling it something else. This information can all be handled elsewhere (and there's nothing to say about it beyond what's already there). - Che Nuevara 14:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Of course one could easily create a more general article Torture in Russia, but this specific subject is still notable in my opinion.Biophys 14:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Yes, one could write such an article, and, if it were appropriately sourced and written, I would endorse such an article. But there isn't much to this topic that isn't already said in its proper place, the electric shock article. - Che Nuevara 15:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Please see WP:Notability policy. It tells: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." That has been established here in my opinion. This article does not tell about electric shock. It tells about a specific term, which is also connected to a notable human rights case submitted to Europen Court.Biophys 15:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] As I said, there could be an article about torture in Russia, and this case (or series of cases) may even warrant its own article. But allow me to call your attention to a few related clauses in WP:N: "Presumed" means a rebuttable presumption. Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable. However, many subjects with such coverage may still not be worthy of inclusion – they fail What Wikipedia is not, or the coverage does not actually speak to notability when examined. This neologism is not known to be in wide use. We have to take the journalists' word for it that it is, but they offer no evidence thereof. In addition, there is almost nothing that can be said about this that is unique from the electric shock#torture section. Wikinews, not Wikipedia, is better suited to present topics receiving a short burst of present news coverage. Thus, this guideline properly considers the long-term written coverage of persons and events. In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability. What are the odds that anyone will call it this in 10 years? Very unlikely. This terms is real, yes. But that does not make it encyclopedic. - Che Nuevara 17:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep It's notable as a specific type of torture used as part of one nation's political process. I would expect that there's a similar article concerning interrogation methods used at Gitmo, whether one disagrees over whether those are justified, or "torture" . Mandsford 16:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] It is not a specific type of torture -- electric shock#Torture is a specific type of torture, and "phone call to Putin" is a cutesie neologism for it. As I said, Torture in Russia would be a legitimate article. A silly name which may or may not be in wide use (we have no real evidence of its use, just the claim of a journalist) is not a legitimate article. And to say it is "used as part of one nation's political process" is nigh on libel, especially because it has the president's name in it. - Che Nuevara 16:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Merge or just plain Delete: But certainly does not require its own page. Most of the "references" are incidental, referring to torture rather than the specific subject; those that do all relate to the same event. Even searching with the Russian звонок Путину and its transliteration, zvonok Putinu, does not reveal other cases. Though I'm inclined to believe it's a genuine term, it's currently more of a news item than an encyclopaedic article. ObfuscatePenguin 05:10, 30 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 Deleted as per WP:SNOW. Capitalistroadster 01:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Port road pub crawl[edit] Port road pub crawl (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Non-notable, unverifiable, and possibly made-up. Fails WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS, and most likely WP:MADEUP. Masaruemoto 01:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Longhair\^talk 01:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete Every WP:TLA in the book can be thrown at this one. EVERY college town in the KNOWN WORLD has a pub crawl. This is no more notable than any of them. WP:NFT is all that is needed here. --Jayron32\|talk\|contribs 02:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete Wikipedia is not for something made up by enthusiastic drinkers one day. I would be happy to keep an article on Pubs in Port Adelaide (although many wouldn't: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pubs of Newtown) but in its current state the article is a collection of trivia linked by a tenuous thread. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Strong Delete. Fails numerous policies. Doctorfluffy 03:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Strong Delete Urgh! Too many reasons to pick from! Pig^man 06:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] delete this non-notable pub-crawl. Law & Disorder 06:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete this article. Encourage creators to find reliable sources and write encyclopedia quality article Pubs in Port Adelaide as suggested earlier. THE KING 08:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete belongs on wikitravel. Orderinchaos 13:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete as per WP:N. Pub crawls aren't notable. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 20:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Snowball close and delete as completely WP:OR.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:24, 29 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. east.718 at 00:22, 11/4/2007 E5150[edit] E5150 (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Uninformative page, not even a usable disambig. "E5150" is the title of a brief sound effect track on a Black Sabbath album. The rest of this page is about 5150, unrelated. edg ☺ ★ 01:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete, possible redirect to Mob Rules (album). There is not enough to say about the track to fill any more than a stub. - Che Nuevara 14:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] For what it's worth, I've merged what little information there is back into Mob Rules (album). / edg ☺ ★ 19:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Redirect to Mob Rules (album). Seems like something a Black Sabbath fan might put into the search bar. Zagalejo^^^ 19:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Redirect per Zagalejo. I had expected to recommend deletion since the song doesn't seem inherently notable, but if it's true that "Black Sabbath opens every concert with the piece" (which is hard to say, since it's not sourced), then the song may be notable enough to inspire a search by a Sabbath fan. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. east.718 at 00:25, 11/4/2007 Salt and Demetri the Greek[edit] Salt and Demetri the Greek (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) non-notable, local show with limited audience, not encyclopedic Rtphokie 01:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. I'm a strong inclusionist but this is beyond the pale of non-notability. - Dravecky 05:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete, non-notable, fails WP:BIO. Doctorfluffy —Preceding comment was added at 01:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete, seems non-notable, if I assume correctly when I think this is an American radio-show on a smallish station (the article is really bad, too. I know, that's not an argument for deletion. Hence the parenthesis.) Greswik 17:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was DeleteJForget 00:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Maturing of sir gawain[edit] Maturing of sir gawain (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Also nominating the duplicate article The maturing of Sir Gawain (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) This article is a personal essay fork of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. John254 01:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] delete Under WP:OR and WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a place for original research nor is it a place for personal web hosting. --*Hdt83* ^Chat 02:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete Appears to be an unsourced essay. Delete as original research Bfigura ^(talk) 03:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per WP:OR and WP:NOT. Nothing salvageable here. Pig^man 06:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete as original research. I tried to come up with something witty to say here, but was too lazy. - Che Nuevara 14:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] 'Delete as OR. Majoreditor 18:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete, per what it fails as said above. Thanks, Codelyoko193 (T/C) 23:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per others. Doctorfluffy 20:13, 31 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 to delete, default to keep. A merge to Fiddy2 might be considered, but that is not to be determined here. Neil ☎ 15:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Dane Rauschenberg[edit] Dane Rauschenberg (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) This article about a runner is not notable and may be self promotion. The editors have been deleted or are anonymous IP addresses. A good amateur male marathon runner can finish in under 2 hours and 30 minutes, while Rauscheberg has barely broken 3 hours. Although a person volunteering to run 52 marathons in a year to raise funds for a charity is admirable, and may attract some local publicity along the way, it is not of enduring significance.Racepacket 01:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep -- The sources cited in Dane Rauschenberg#References and Dane Rauschenberg#External links are sufficient to establish a presumption of the notability of this person per Wikipedia's general notability guideline. John254 01:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep, fulfills WP:BIO through coverage in multiple independent credible sources. Note that the status of editors has little bearing on an article's deletion, unless there is a persistent spammer or vandal. And anyway, editors aren't "deleted" other than the rare invocation of the right to vanish. --Dhartung \| Talk 08:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] ~~Delete~~ WP:N demands that athletes have competed at the highest levels -- either in a professional league (which is ridiculous for a runner) or at the "top amateur level." For running, for me, I think Olympics are the top amateur level, but I know little about the subject. Since this guy has run in a bunch of amateur, local marathons, and has been recognized by some local running associations, he appears to me to be non-notable per guideline. Deltopia 09:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment -- While Wikipedia:Notability (people) does state that "Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports" are notable, this does not imply that other amateur athletes are non-notable, when they clearly satisfy the standard of notability articulated in the general notability guideline. John254 12:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Nevermind Upon rereading WP:N, I think you're right. Deltopia 12:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. His accomplishments seem to be independently verifiable. - Che Nuevara 13:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete - The notability guidelines say, "For example, advertisements, announcements columns, minor news stories, and coverage with low levels of discrimination, are all examples of matters that may not be evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation, despite the existence of reliable sources" and the external references cited in the article fit this description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.91.86.2 (talk • contribs) Delete -- Not notable above and beyond any other "pretty good" marathon runner. This person is not notable in the world of running. In fact, statistics show that he is just an average fish in a HUGE pond. Millions of runners raise money for their marathon efforts. Many, many runners do as many marathons (and even longer more arduous challenge races)as he does, but his obscure "qualifiers" (as in "certified," "consecutive," etc) are the only thing making him stand out at all. And those qualifiers are just not that special in the world of running or anywhere else. Also, the tone is awkward: It has obviously been written by Raushenburg himself. While his accomplishments seem verifiable, their notability is dubious at best. (Parrson) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parrson (talk • contribs) 17:58, 29 October 2007 NOTE: I am Parrson and I had to open a new account because I forgot my password. I am a runner andd have seen this entry before and I always wondered why it was here. (PARRSON)(UTC) — Parrson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Comment -- I have to disagree with "not notable in the world of running" - in addition to the coverage in Sports Illustrated (which argues in favor of his notability as an amateur athlete), I'd read about him in at least one running publication (I don't remember which one, and I'm not going to go through stacks of back issues just to argue the point in an AFD, especially since the SI coverage is already documented) prior to hearing of him as a result of this AFD. As far as "the tone is awkward" that's an irrelevant argument for an AFD - badly written articles justify a rewrite, not deletion. CruiserBob 18:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep Running 52 marathons in 52 weeks is quite an accomplishment, but might well not be Wikiworthy. There are ample reliable and verifiable sources included in the article, which does satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. I would suggest that some of the sources be better integrated into the article. Alansohn 18:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC The Marathon Maniac website: http://mm.littlemarathon.com/ScoreCard.asp lists a number of people who have matched or exceeded Dane's 52 marathons in 52 weeks. For example: Raymond Scharenbrock ran 52 in 2001 (before Dane). Craig Holcomb ran 50 marathons in 50 different states in one year. Larry Macon ran 79 in 2005-2006. There are websites for bragging about such things, but Wikipedia is not one of them. The sources cited are "coverage with low levels of discrimination" Racepacket 04:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete--Entries of this kind threaten to turn wikipedia into myspace. Looking through the history, it is obvious that Raushenburg wrote this entry himself (the initial versions included undocumented references to his family life and high school track meets). Notability would seem to require that someone took the time to note the achievement. Thousands of amateur athletes could post resumes and accomplishments that are equally impressive. Allowing them to do so undermines the website's objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrtotemfrog (talk • contribs) — Mrtotemfrog (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Every single one of the nearly thirty edits made by this account to date has been to the Dane Rauschenberg article or directly related to Dane Rauschenberg. User has made no other unrelated Wikipedia edits. Alansohn 00:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Your claim of a WP:COI violation might well have some merit, if this AfD had been kicked off before March 2007. Since that point, there have been over 100 different edits to this article by several dozen different editors who have edited the article and added multiple reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. There is no WP:WHAT-IF-EVERYBODY-ELSE-DID-THIS standard, nor is there any justification for using it to delete this (or any other) article. The issue of notability for this article, as it exists, has not been addressed. Alansohn 23:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Your reference to the number of edits might have some merit except all the edits are between the same handful of users. There are some constructive edits, but by and large, the edits consist of vandalism and then reversions. I don't condone vandalism, but its prevalence on this site is evidence that people don't take it seriously. While there are verifiable references in the article, the references are almost exclusively local. Ultimately, the problem is not of documentation. I'm convinced that the subject of the site ran 52 marathons in 2006 at an average time of a little over 3 hours. More documentation might better prove that point, but it won't do any more to convince me that this is notable content. By the site's own admission, two other people have done this same feat, can anyone name them? Do they have wikipedia sites? Chuck Engle also ran 50+ marathons in 2006 and his slowest time was fastest than Dane's fastest, does he have a wikipedia site? Sam Thompson and Dean Karnazes ran 50 marathons in 50 days in 50 states in the same year. Recently runners ran 7 marathons in 7 days on 7 continents. The only feat arguably worthy of mention is the 52 marathons in one year, which receives one sentence on this site. 52 marathons in one year is an impressive feat, but in my opinion, not one that meets notability standards. I do not believe it warrants an encyclopedia entry. Others are free to disagree, but it's a difficult argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrtotemfrog (talk • contribs) 03:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] We started out objecting because this article will encourage every guy who's run around the block a few times to demand their own Wikipedia article. Now we've moved on to Dane Rauschenberg is one of three people in the world to have run 52 marathons in 52 weeks, but the other folks did it faster and they don't even have articles. Normally I'd remind you that WP:OTHERCRAPDOESNTEXIST is not an argument for deletion, but if you can give the names and reliable sources for these other individuals, I'd be more than happy to create articles for them. I can't judge notability based on who else doesn't have an article; I can tell you that this article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn 03:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep NPR, Sports Illustrated... sounds good to me. Not notable as an athlete - in fact, some of his athletic 'accomplishments' should probably be taken out - but instead as a sort of minor celebrity. Brianyoumans 04:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep -- I'm not pleased about the WP:COI aspects of the article, but his coverage by NPR, BBC & Sports Illustrated get him over the bar for Wikipedia's general notability guideline. CruiserBob 18:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete - the coverage was for a charity "fiddy2" (which raised less than its goal of $50,000) and not for the person. If anything, the article should be "fiddy2" which might mention the individual, rather than the other way around. Alternatively, the Wikiproject:Running people could start a List of Multiple Marathon Endurance Running Achievements and place the individual on the list, along with all of the others discussed above. Why is this individual more notable than all of the runners who finished ahead of him in these various races?Xcstar 18:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] — Xcstar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. users only contribution has been to this AfD. Alansohn 18:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] According to Google, only 5 sites link to www.fiddy2.orgXcstar 12:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete - the article Fiddy2 is more than sufficient for our purpose. This man's "fame" is only from that project. Greswik 17:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete - Guinness Book of Records has long recognized that some people will be driven do to self-destructive things for publicity, (e.g., set the record for the most self-inflicted stab wounds, go over Niagra Falls in a barrel), and they have a policy excluding such feats from their book. Perhaps Wikipedia needs a similar policy - people should not be motivated to go out and undertake potentially harmful activities in the hopes of having (or writing) a Wikipedia page about the experience. The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Brunswick Computer Museum[edit] Non-notable museum. The article provides no independent reliable sources asserting its notability and a google search does not reveal any relevant sources either. Mattinbgn\^talk 00:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. I agree, on the basis on the Google results. Shawn in Montreal 01:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete, nothing in Google News Archive either. Not sure if being housed in a shed is a joke or a dialect issue ... --Dhartung \| Talk 01:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. No reliable sources in the article and it seems it can be found. The shed reference in the article appears to indicate that it is in a shed in its founders house. Capitalistroadster 01:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per all above. What more can I add? Pig^man 06:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. I'd absolutely love to have an article on the Brunswick Computer Museum, and would have voted keep at even the slightest evidence that this isn't just some dude who has a shed full of computers. Alas. THE KING 09:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete I'm having trouble imagining that a real museum, especially one that's all about computers, would have 0 Google hits besides Wikipedia itself. Suspect this is either a hoax or some guy's self-aggrandising name for his shed full o' junk. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment, got a chuckle from your "shed full o' junk" phrase. Doctorfluffy 02:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per others. The zero ghit link above is really condemning. Doctorfluffy 02:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete, no reliable sources given to back up the claims made in the article. I find it really hard to believe that a computer museum in someone's shed deserves an article here in the first place. ~ Sebi 04:38, 31 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 00:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Self-dependence[edit] Self-dependence (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) I mistakenly tried to speedy this for WP:OR which is not a proper reason. My bad. However, this is more an essay/analysis of the poem. I really don't see this becoming a proper WP article. Assuming proper sources could be found to support an analysis, I still think it would be OR. I suspect this is school project. Pig^man 00:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete, original research, and a C-plus on the Grade 9 Language Arts assignment. Accounting4Taste 01:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete, yes it's a school essay, if barely, and quite incomprehensible at that. I think this could have been dealt with via WP:PROD, if not speedily deleted.Shawn in Montreal 01:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment I admit I consistently neglect to use PRODs in situations where it is obviously the better choice than bringing them to AfD. A lesson I've been trying to learn for a while now. (hammers own head with fist) "Pay attention!! Remember now!! Don't be stoopid!!" Thanks for the pointer. Pig^man 02:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Not enough usable material for a stub at this point. May be copyvio, too; this web page has the same test, but it was apparently posted the same day as the wp article was created so it's hard to say. --Allen 01:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 05:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete without prejudice. The poem may be worthy of an article; this is not that article. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete without prejudice per Smerdis of Tlön, and note to passing admins that WP:SNOW might be applicable here soon... - Che Nuevara 14:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete as previous two Think outside the box 14:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was Delete--JForget 00:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Giulia ottonello[edit] AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Giulia ottonello Articles for deletion/Giulia ottonello (2nd nomination) Giulia ottonello (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Delete nn entertainment personality. This was deleted a short while ago but it's back - a few more sources and more text, so not exactly the same as what was deleted, but still fundamentally nn and still no WP:RS coverage re: notability - You tube isn't a RS. The essential claim to fame here is that she's famous in Italy. The editors at the Italian Wikipedia disagree and deleted her bio from their site. I think we got it right the first time, the Italian editors got it right, and this ought to be deleted again. Carlossuarez46 23:44, 23 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, TonyBallioni 00:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] delete per nom --Rtphokie 01:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Cancellare/delete, I trust the Italian Wikipedia editors and the consensus to delete over on that side seems solid. --Stormie 02:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] delete per nom. I mean if even the Italian WP editors said so, it seems obvious to me. Pig^man 05:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. I concur with our Italian colleagues. If the subject becomes more notable, an article might be in order - maybe a year or two from now. At this point, given the subject's body of work (or lack thereof), no notability exists. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:17, 30 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. east.718 at 00:22, 11/4/2007 Tribal Wars MMOG[edit] Tribal Wars MMOG (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Contested PROD; browser-based game with no assertion of notability, no sources beyond the website itself. Stormie 01:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep. TribalWars.Net has an Alexa rank of 1,126 and has 641 incoming links on Technorati. It's a notable game. Jamesdennis 05:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete as failing to have the website notability required here. No news articles, no books on it, no significant awards won. Alexa etc.. links are not a sign of notability. Without third-party commentary there is no way to verify the detail in the article from reliable sources. Culling out the site, wikipedia, forums and blogs leaves nothing on google that even hints at notability - Peripitus (Talk) 06:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete fails WP:WEB due to lack of awards and reliable press coverage, had a look for sources but no reliable ones presented themselves. Someone another 14:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] KEEP>> This game has over 390,000 players, is a well known and loved MMOG.I would say the number of players alone is notable as well as fairly good graphics and fun gameplay and strategy for a browser based game.--Check It Out. 20:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete it doesn't need to be here, I myself play the game although I feel it is irrelevant in the area of wikipedia andrewrox424 ^Bleep 05:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was Speedy delete. Hut 8.5 20:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Midi the Squirrel[edit] Midi the Squirrel (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) ~~Non-notable furry artist.-- Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)~~[reply] Nevermind, CSDed as copyvio and vanity. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:14, 29 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. (Non admin closure). Qst 17:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Principality of Pindus and Voivodship of Macedonia[edit] AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Principality of Pindus and Voivodship of Macedonia Principality of Pindus and Voivodship of Macedonia (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) No reliable sources given It seems that so such thing exists outside Wikipedia. See Google. Matthiasb-DE 15:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Speedy keep. I was studying and editing the the article and that is true that the topic is controversial and maybe some statements in the article are not well sourced, but I do not think that the whole article is unsourced. Your google link shows only German language results, and do not forget that it was known under different names: Principality of Pindus, Pindos, Pindo, Valachian Principality, Principato del Pindo etc. It is evident that this principality was not an internationally recognized or even fully established state, much more an initiative to form an emerging autonomous state. Fixed borders, governmental structure and public administration were lacking. As I understand the case, Diamandi and his pro-Italian supporters was controlling some rural aereas in the Pindus montain and these zones were called cantons of the Principality. The Aromanian and Macedonian separatists called it principality, but it might be called even kingdom or empire, the Italians did not care as long as the prince was able to keep away Greek partizans and maintain a relative order in the Aromanian populated montaneous zone. When the prince was not able to fulfill this task anymore and started to cause trouble, he was sustituted by the Italian occupators with another guy. I'd draw a paralel between Diamandi's principality and Avhustyn Voloshyn's Republic of Carpatho-Ukraine or Lajtabánság or Baranya-Baja Republic. I'd rather encourage the search for further sources, while unsourced parts should be labelled as ^{[citation needed]}. For example it was me who have found Diamandi's dates of birth and death in a Romanian sources --Koppany 15:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep Appears to be enough sources to establish the existence of the Principality of Pindus and it is definitly notable enough. Davewild 08:06, 30 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 07:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The Wizard of Oz (1976 film)[edit] The Wizard of Oz (1976 film) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Not only is this film not notable, it's not even clear it existed. IMDB has almost no information on it at all.—Chowbok ☠ 15:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Addendum. I also note that the International Wizard of Oz Club's comprehensive filmography has no reference to this.—Chowbok ☠ 15:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete Although this might rate a mention in one of the Oz articles, this one has zero information and its only source is imdb.com; whereas im the movie database is excellent, there is a gray area that includes films that were rumored to have been made, so it's not an exclusive source. Mandsford 16:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete as non-existent, though I assume good faith if the article creator took the information from IMDb. (Anyone connected with IMDb should notify them of this potential bogus listing). Cross-referencing "Wizard of Oz" and "Films Inc." I could find no reference to such a production. There was an adults-only version of Wizard of Oz produced in Australia in 1976 but that seems to be a full-length film. One possibility I can think of is this was some super-obscure television production. 23skidoo 20:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] An Australian porn version of The Wizard of Oz? Disgusting, and at the same time intriguing. However, it's something I would hope that never becomes an article here. Mandsford 22:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete IMDB reports that this is an edited version of the 1939 version, which makes it completely non-relevant, other than the fact that it was made. -Nodekeeper 01:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. east.718 at 00:21, 11/4/2007 CT Coalition[edit] CT Coalition (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Unverifiable Sydney based street gang. Longhair\^talk 23:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Longhair\^talk 23:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Speedy delete per WP:CSD#a7. Entirely non-notable. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment i dont see how we can verify this as street gangs are not official groups.CTCO 00:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Strong delete: Completely unverifiable with reliable secondary sources; short existence of gang limits notability; reads like a vanity page; creator's username highly indicative of conflict of interest. Guidelines for speedy delete provide a fairly good summary. ObfuscatePenguin 01:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete No reliable references, therefore not notable. I disagree about a speedy delete. It doesn't fit into one of the categories. Assize 02:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment Speedy deletion criteria A7 - "An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, organisation, or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." A gang is surely a group of people and this article surely fails to establish significance. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Sorry, I should have been clearer. The article asserts that the alleged gang has a "strong reputation" and is "perhaps the most notorious gang on the South-West Side of Sydney". I'd love to see some notable references for these claims. As an aside, what a pointless criteria. So now, we are going to have every article start with xxx is notable because..... Assize 10:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] I don't know if this is relevant, but an article for the leader of the gang was recently created: Henson Zhang. VivioFa teFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 08:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] I just speedy deleted that article. It was a one liner with no supporting references. -- Longhair\^talk 08:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per WP:HOAX. No secondary sources are provided and a newspaper archive search reveals no mentions of any such gang. This casts serious doubt on the claims of "special significance to Law Enforcement" and "the most notorious gang in southwest Sydney". The statement that the "gang" has a large Leumeah cell "the name of which is unknown" does not imply a very high profile for the organisation. Even if the "gang" is genuine the entire article is original research, especially the history section referring to the flurry of name changes due to "online gaming/nerd" concerns. The constant changing of the names of the leaders suggests the authors of the article are simply making it up as they go along. Plus, the assertion that members of "the most notorious gang in southwest Sydney" were recruited through the online MUD Runescape? Somewhere in a school in Campbelltown there's a 15 year old having a laugh at Wikipedia's expense. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Euryalus 22:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment I am not a member of this gang but just live out in Cambell Town, the area that CT Coalition rule. To me all the facts seem to match up from what I have heard about them. Personally I think this article shouldn't be deleted.-.poonqwerty Comment Welcome to Wikipedia, Poonqwerty. The trouble with this article is that there are no reliable sources, which are a requirement of the notability guideline. while the facts might match up with what you've heard, this is original research which is not enough to support the inclusion of the article. Euryalus 01:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment: Longhair how come you keep changing the article you dont know anything about CT Coalition — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergio_cabanossi (talk • contribs) I'm reinserting the AfD notice which is being removed time and time again, as well as the ((unreferenced)) notice. I don't need to know anything of the subject to ensure those remain in place until the issues with the article are fixed. -- Longhair\^talk 07:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Be Reasonable You guys, let's be reasonable here, sure there are a few patchy areas of this article, but is there really a need to delete the *whole entire thing?. Wikipedia is free to be edited, so edit the page if you have anything to contribute, but just don't delete for the sole reason that one piece of information is unreliable. As for the lack of references, what kind of references are there for this type of article? Gang historys are passed down by word of mouth, and as a resident of the Campbell Town area, and a previous member of CT, i can assure you that all* of the information is reliable. James dil 07:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment - If only one piece of information in the article was unverifiable it could be removed. The problem is the entire article is unverifiable. A review of the edit history shows that the aticle creator(s) keep changing key statements of "fact" in the article such as the names of the "leaders". This suggests a startling lack of confidence in the accuracy of the material by the very people who created it. The major claims of the article would inevitably have sources if they were true, but none can be provided despite extensive searching. The minor claims are original research at best. Euryalus 23:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete, most of the article is unverifiable, and what might perhaps be verified, isn't. Lankiveil 12:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC).[reply] Speedy delete as per WP:ORG. Does not return any Google searches apart from the Wikipedia page (removing results with 'Connecticut' in title - see here) so it is obviously non-notable. Auroranorth (sign) 09:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benford's law of controversy

The result was speedy redirect as required by GFDL after merge. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 22:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benford's law of controversy[edit]

Nonnotable; "law" seems to be at best occasionally true, and is unoriginal as well(see talk page). Even supporters of article have (understandably, given its unimportance) done little work to flesh out the article--we don't even know the chapter in Timescape where law stated,(if it ever was in the book at all). This article inflates the Wikipedia article count, and Encyclopedia Britannica could point to it when Wikipedians crow about our 2 million articles. Rich 02:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

whether it is true or original is not the point. the question is, have other people referred to it in RSs?DGG (talk) 03:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. The citations in the article itself are sufficient to establish notability under Wikipedia's standards, which are significantly more inclusive than Britannica's. I would remove the stub tag, because there isn't much more that should be said. A page reference in the novel can easily be found by someone who has the book (I don't).Finell (Talk) 04:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. This article is insufficient as it stands, of course, but it comes up often enough to require Wikipedia discussion, simply as a current cultural meme. Another, more rigorous "Benford's law"— more fully Benford's Law of Anomalous Numbers— concerning the First digit phenomenon in the field of statistics, is Frank Benford's, which he first expressed in "The law of anomalous numbers" Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 78 551-72. I'm not competent to discuss that Benford' Law, but it appears often enough through JSTOR. Examples: Lawrence M. Leemis; Bruce W. Schmeiser; Diane L. Evans, "Survival Distributions Satisfying Benford's Law", The American Statistician 54.4 (November 2000:236-241); Pieter C. Allaart, "An Invariant-Sum Characterization of Benford's Law" Journal of Applied Probability 34.1 (March 1997:288-291), etc etc.. Can't begin to improve this article myself, I hasten to add. --Wetman 04:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Gregory Benford. This "law" has no independent, credible sources demonstrating that it has notability. We don't actually have to maintain a directory of every "law" someone thought up one day, even if they're famous. In those cases, it's easy; they have an article, so mention the "law" there. (I'm not fond of the scare quotes, btw, but I wonder if there's a word akin to protologism for these -- aphorism is close, but an imprecise match.) --Dhartung | Talk 13:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge done--victor falk 13:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wetman's answer to DGG'd question. Frivolous, but so is Murphy's Law, and being inaccurate does not prevent it from making a statement any more than being nonsensical prevents Zen koans from communicating ideas. --Kizor 14:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Gregory Benford. I can't see that there is enough independent information to fill a whole article. Most possible additions would probably be OR. - Che Nuevara 14:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gregory Benford, with relevant information merged. Mandsford 16:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete--JForget 00:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subcrawl[edit]

Non-notable, original research, and no significant coverage in reliable sources. Masaruemoto 02:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. JJL 03:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete student OR. A funny read though, I've remember writing the exact same sort of garbage in my earlier days. How times change :-) THE KING 08:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "wikipedia is not for stuff you made up at the pub one night"--victor falk 13:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, blatant OR. Doctorfluffy 18:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable at all, OR problems Hut 8.5 20:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:25, 11/4/2007

Oliver Koomsatira[edit]

I debated whether this was the best course but I think I need feedback to confirm my opinion. This is obviously a vanity/resume bio. I haven't been through all the links at the end of the article but I suspect they are all resume or program listings, not independent WP:RS or WP:V sources. I was stumped by the massive number of stage roles as well as by the films. Must be notable, right? But an IMDb seach came up empty. A Google search on his name came up with only 47 hits. Sometimes I'm blinded by a flurry of words. I think he fails WP:BIO. Pig^man 02:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO Mad031683 17:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Greswik 18:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus to delete. Whether or not it should be merged is an editorial matter and need not be decided here. Sandstein 06:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phone Call to Putin[edit]

Reason: non-notable slang term Content can be moved to List of torture methods and devices. DonaldDuck 01:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This expression is widely known in Russia and supported by several reliable third-party English sources.Biophys 04:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This expression is in no way widely known in Russia. Google search for "Phone call to Putin" and "torture" in Russian give only several dozen links and basically, they refer to only one newspaper article. Google search in English gives only a dozen relevant links which describe only one case of police brutality.DonaldDuck 06:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I included several references in the article that describe such method of torture as very common in Russia.Biophys 14:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All references describe single case of police brutality. There is no evidence that the phrase "Phone call to Putin" is common.DonaldDuck 07:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to electric shock#Torture. It's not even clear that this is a widely used term among police, only among these particular police in the incident. It's probably one of just many nicknames that the method has acquired in different locations and times. --Dhartung | Talk 13:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. According to RFE/RL report, this method is "so common" that it even has a name: the "phone call to Putin." (see My Only Thought Was To Escape The Torture). Hence the notability of the retm can be established.Biophys 14:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Dhartung. This is a neologism whose notability and widespread use cannot particularly be verified. The article Besides, when Putin leaves office, I bet they'll start calling it something else. This information can all be handled elsewhere (and there's nothing to say about it beyond what's already there). - Che Nuevara 14:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course one could easily create a more general article Torture in Russia, but this specific subject is still notable in my opinion.Biophys 14:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one could write such an article, and, if it were appropriately sourced and written, I would endorse such an article. But there isn't much to this topic that isn't already said in its proper place, the electric shock article. - Che Nuevara 15:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:Notability policy. It tells: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." That has been established here in my opinion. This article does not tell about electric shock. It tells about a specific term, which is also connected to a notable human rights case submitted to Europen Court.Biophys 15:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, there could be an article about torture in Russia, and this case (or series of cases) may even warrant its own article. But allow me to call your attention to a few related clauses in WP:N:

"Presumed" means a rebuttable presumption. Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable. However, many subjects with such coverage may still not be worthy of inclusion – they fail What Wikipedia is not, or the coverage does not actually speak to notability when examined.

This neologism is not known to be in wide use. We have to take the journalists' word for it that it is, but they offer no evidence thereof. In addition, there is almost nothing that can be said about this that is unique from the electric shock#torture section.

Wikinews, not Wikipedia, is better suited to present topics receiving a short burst of present news coverage. Thus, this guideline properly considers the long-term written coverage of persons and events. In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability.

What are the odds that anyone will call it this in 10 years? Very unlikely.

This terms is real, yes. But that does not make it encyclopedic. - Che Nuevara 17:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's notable as a specific type of torture used as part of one nation's political process. I would expect that there's a similar article concerning interrogation methods used at Gitmo, whether one disagrees over whether those are justified, or "torture" . Mandsford 16:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not a specific type of torture -- electric shock#Torture is a specific type of torture, and "phone call to Putin" is a cutesie neologism for it. As I said, Torture in Russia would be a legitimate article. A silly name which may or may not be in wide use (we have no real evidence of its use, just the claim of a journalist) is not a legitimate article. And to say it is "used as part of one nation's political process" is nigh on libel, especially because it has the president's name in it. - Che Nuevara 16:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or just plain Delete: But certainly does not require its own page. Most of the "references" are incidental, referring to torture rather than the specific subject; those that do all relate to the same event. Even searching with the Russian звонок Путину and its transliteration, zvonok Putinu, does not reveal other cases. Though I'm inclined to believe it's a genuine term, it's currently more of a news item than an encyclopaedic article. ObfuscatePenguin 05:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Deleted as per WP:SNOW. Capitalistroadster 01:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Port road pub crawl[edit]

Non-notable, unverifiable, and possibly made-up. Fails WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS, and most likely WP:MADEUP. Masaruemoto 01:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Longhair\^talk 01:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every WP:TLA in the book can be thrown at this one. EVERY college town in the KNOWN WORLD has a pub crawl. This is no more notable than any of them. WP:NFT is all that is needed here. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for something made up by enthusiastic drinkers one day. I would be happy to keep an article on Pubs in Port Adelaide (although many wouldn't: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pubs of Newtown) but in its current state the article is a collection of trivia linked by a tenuous thread. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Fails numerous policies. Doctorfluffy 03:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Urgh! Too many reasons to pick from! Pig^man 06:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete this non-notable pub-crawl. Law & Disorder 06:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article. Encourage creators to find reliable sources and write encyclopedia quality article Pubs in Port Adelaide as suggested earlier. THE KING 08:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete belongs on wikitravel. Orderinchaos 13:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:N. Pub crawls aren't notable. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 20:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball close and delete as completely WP:OR.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect. east.718 at 00:22, 11/4/2007

E5150[edit]

Uninformative page, not even a usable disambig. "E5150" is the title of a brief sound effect track on a Black Sabbath album. The rest of this page is about 5150, unrelated. edg ☺ ★ 01:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possible redirect to Mob Rules (album). There is not enough to say about the track to fill any more than a stub. - Che Nuevara 14:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, I've merged what little information there is back into Mob Rules (album). / edg ☺ ★ 19:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mob Rules (album). Seems like something a Black Sabbath fan might put into the search bar. Zagalejo^^^ 19:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Zagalejo. I had expected to recommend deletion since the song doesn't seem inherently notable, but if it's true that "Black Sabbath opens every concert with the piece" (which is hard to say, since it's not sourced), then the song may be notable enough to inspire a search by a Sabbath fan. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:25, 11/4/2007

Salt and Demetri the Greek[edit]

non-notable, local show with limited audience, not encyclopedic Rtphokie 01:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm a strong inclusionist but this is beyond the pale of non-notability. - Dravecky 05:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable, fails WP:BIO. Doctorfluffy —Preceding comment was added at 01:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems non-notable, if I assume correctly when I think this is an American radio-show on a smallish station (the article is really bad, too. I know, that's not an argument for deletion. Hence the parenthesis.) Greswik 17:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was DeleteJForget 00:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maturing of sir gawain[edit]

This article is a personal essay fork of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. John254 01:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete Under WP:OR and WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a place for original research nor is it a place for personal web hosting. --Hdt83 ^Chat 02:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be an unsourced essay. Delete as original research Bfigura ^(talk) 03:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR and WP:NOT. Nothing salvageable here. Pig^man 06:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. I tried to come up with something witty to say here, but was too lazy. - Che Nuevara 14:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete as OR. Majoreditor 18:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per what it fails as said above. Thanks, Codelyoko193 (T/C) 23:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Doctorfluffy 20:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. A merge to Fiddy2 might be considered, but that is not to be determined here. Neil ☎ 15:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dane Rauschenberg[edit]

This article about a runner is not notable and may be self promotion. The editors have been deleted or are anonymous IP addresses. A good amateur male marathon runner can finish in under 2 hours and 30 minutes, while Rauscheberg has barely broken 3 hours. Although a person volunteering to run 52 marathons in a year to raise funds for a charity is admirable, and may attract some local publicity along the way, it is not of enduring significance.Racepacket 01:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The sources cited in Dane Rauschenberg#References and Dane Rauschenberg#External links are sufficient to establish a presumption of the notability of this person per Wikipedia's general notability guideline. John254 01:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, fulfills WP:BIO through coverage in multiple independent credible sources. Note that the status of editors has little bearing on an article's deletion, unless there is a persistent spammer or vandal. And anyway, editors aren't "deleted" other than the rare invocation of the right to vanish. --Dhartung | Talk 08:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ WP:N demands that athletes have competed at the highest levels -- either in a professional league (which is ridiculous for a runner) or at the "top amateur level." For running, for me, I think Olympics are the top amateur level, but I know little about the subject. Since this guy has run in a bunch of amateur, local marathons, and has been recognized by some local running associations, he appears to me to be non-notable per guideline. Deltopia 09:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- While Wikipedia:Notability (people) does state that "Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports" are notable, this does not imply that other amateur athletes are non-notable, when they clearly satisfy the standard of notability articulated in the general notability guideline. John254 12:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind Upon rereading WP:N, I think you're right. Deltopia 12:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His accomplishments seem to be independently verifiable. - Che Nuevara 13:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The notability guidelines say, "For example, advertisements, announcements columns, minor news stories, and coverage with low levels of discrimination, are all examples of matters that may not be evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation, despite the existence of reliable sources" and the external references cited in the article fit this description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.91.86.2 (talk • contribs)
Delete -- Not notable above and beyond any other "pretty good" marathon runner. This person is not notable in the world of running. In fact, statistics show that he is just an average fish in a HUGE pond. Millions of runners raise money for their marathon efforts. Many, many runners do as many marathons (and even longer more arduous challenge races)as he does, but his obscure "qualifiers" (as in "certified," "consecutive," etc) are the only thing making him stand out at all. And those qualifiers are just not that special in the world of running or anywhere else. Also, the tone is awkward: It has obviously been written by Raushenburg himself. While his accomplishments seem verifiable, their notability is dubious at best. (Parrson) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parrson (talk • contribs) 17:58, 29 October 2007 NOTE: I am Parrson and I had to open a new account because I forgot my password. I am a runner andd have seen this entry before and I always wondered why it was here. (PARRSON)(UTC) — Parrson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment -- I have to disagree with "not notable in the world of running" - in addition to the coverage in Sports Illustrated (which argues in favor of his notability as an amateur athlete), I'd read about him in at least one running publication (I don't remember which one, and I'm not going to go through stacks of back issues just to argue the point in an AFD, especially since the SI coverage is already documented) prior to hearing of him as a result of this AFD. As far as "the tone is awkward" that's an irrelevant argument for an AFD - badly written articles justify a rewrite, not deletion. CruiserBob 18:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Running 52 marathons in 52 weeks is quite an accomplishment, but might well not be Wikiworthy. There are ample reliable and verifiable sources included in the article, which does satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. I would suggest that some of the sources be better integrated into the article. Alansohn 18:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC
- The Marathon Maniac website: http://mm.littlemarathon.com/ScoreCard.asp lists a number of people who have matched or exceeded Dane's 52 marathons in 52 weeks. For example:
  - Raymond Scharenbrock ran 52 in 2001 (before Dane).
  - Craig Holcomb ran 50 marathons in 50 different states in one year.
  - Larry Macon ran 79 in 2005-2006.

There are websites for bragging about such things, but Wikipedia is not one of them. The sources cited are "coverage with low levels of discrimination" Racepacket 04:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Entries of this kind threaten to turn wikipedia into myspace. Looking through the history, it is obvious that Raushenburg wrote this entry himself (the initial versions included undocumented references to his family life and high school track meets). Notability would seem to require that someone took the time to note the achievement. Thousands of amateur athletes could post resumes and accomplishments that are equally impressive. Allowing them to do so undermines the website's objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrtotemfrog (talk • contribs)
- — Mrtotemfrog (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Every single one of the nearly thirty edits made by this account to date has been to the Dane Rauschenberg article or directly related to Dane Rauschenberg. User has made no other unrelated Wikipedia edits. Alansohn 00:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your claim of a WP:COI violation might well have some merit, if this AfD had been kicked off before March 2007. Since that point, there have been over 100 different edits to this article by several dozen different editors who have edited the article and added multiple reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. There is no WP:WHAT-IF-EVERYBODY-ELSE-DID-THIS standard, nor is there any justification for using it to delete this (or any other) article. The issue of notability for this article, as it exists, has not been addressed. Alansohn 23:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your reference to the number of edits might have some merit except all the edits are between the same handful of users. There are some constructive edits, but by and large, the edits consist of vandalism and then reversions. I don't condone vandalism, but its prevalence on this site is evidence that people don't take it seriously. While there are verifiable references in the article, the references are almost exclusively local. Ultimately, the problem is not of documentation. I'm convinced that the subject of the site ran 52 marathons in 2006 at an average time of a little over 3 hours. More documentation might better prove that point, but it won't do any more to convince me that this is notable content. By the site's own admission, two other people have done this same feat, can anyone name them? Do they have wikipedia sites? Chuck Engle also ran 50+ marathons in 2006 and his slowest time was fastest than Dane's fastest, does he have a wikipedia site? Sam Thompson and Dean Karnazes ran 50 marathons in 50 days in 50 states in the same year. Recently runners ran 7 marathons in 7 days on 7 continents. The only feat arguably worthy of mention is the 52 marathons in one year, which receives one sentence on this site. 52 marathons in one year is an impressive feat, but in my opinion, not one that meets notability standards. I do not believe it warrants an encyclopedia entry. Others are free to disagree, but it's a difficult argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrtotemfrog (talk • contribs) 03:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - We started out objecting because this article will encourage every guy who's run around the block a few times to demand their own Wikipedia article. Now we've moved on to Dane Rauschenberg is one of three people in the world to have run 52 marathons in 52 weeks, but the other folks did it faster and they don't even have articles. Normally I'd remind you that WP:OTHERCRAPDOESNTEXIST is not an argument for deletion, but if you can give the names and reliable sources for these other individuals, I'd be more than happy to create articles for them. I can't judge notability based on who else doesn't have an article; I can tell you that this article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn 03:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NPR, Sports Illustrated... sounds good to me. Not notable as an athlete - in fact, some of his athletic 'accomplishments' should probably be taken out - but instead as a sort of minor celebrity. Brianyoumans 04:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I'm not pleased about the WP:COI aspects of the article, but his coverage by NPR, BBC & Sports Illustrated get him over the bar for Wikipedia's general notability guideline. CruiserBob 18:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the coverage was for a charity "fiddy2" (which raised less than its goal of $50,000) and not for the person. If anything, the article should be "fiddy2" which might mention the individual, rather than the other way around. Alternatively, the Wikiproject:Running people could start a List of Multiple Marathon Endurance Running Achievements and place the individual on the list, along with all of the others discussed above. Why is this individual more notable than all of the runners who finished ahead of him in these various races?Xcstar 18:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- — Xcstar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. users only contribution has been to this AfD. Alansohn 18:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- According to Google, only 5 sites link to www.fiddy2.orgXcstar 12:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article Fiddy2 is more than sufficient for our purpose. This man's "fame" is only from that project. Greswik 17:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Guinness Book of Records has long recognized that some people will be driven do to self-destructive things for publicity, (e.g., set the record for the most self-inflicted stab wounds, go over Niagra Falls in a barrel), and they have a policy excluding such feats from their book. Perhaps Wikipedia needs a similar policy - people should not be motivated to go out and undertake potentially harmful activities in the hopes of having (or writing) a Wikipedia page about the experience.

The result was delete. DS 16:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brunswick Computer Museum[edit]

Non-notable museum. The article provides no independent reliable sources asserting its notability and a google search does not reveal any relevant sources either. Mattinbgn\^talk 00:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree, on the basis on the Google results. Shawn in Montreal 01:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing in Google News Archive either. Not sure if being housed in a shed is a joke or a dialect issue ... --Dhartung | Talk 01:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources in the article and it seems it can be found. The shed reference in the article appears to indicate that it is in a shed in its founders house. Capitalistroadster 01:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. What more can I add? Pig^man 06:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd absolutely love to have an article on the Brunswick Computer Museum, and would have voted keep at even the slightest evidence that this isn't just some dude who has a shed full of computers. Alas. THE KING 09:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm having trouble imagining that a real museum, especially one that's all about computers, would have 0 Google hits besides Wikipedia itself. Suspect this is either a hoax or some guy's self-aggrandising name for his shed full o' junk. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, got a chuckle from your "shed full o' junk" phrase. Doctorfluffy 02:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. The zero ghit link above is really condemning. Doctorfluffy 02:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources given to back up the claims made in the article. I find it really hard to believe that a computer museum in someone's shed deserves an article here in the first place. ~ Sebi 04:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete--JForget 00:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-dependence[edit]

I mistakenly tried to speedy this for WP:OR which is not a proper reason. My bad. However, this is more an essay/analysis of the poem. I really don't see this becoming a proper WP article. Assuming proper sources could be found to support an analysis, I still think it would be OR. I suspect this is school project. Pig^man 00:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, original research, and a C-plus on the Grade 9 Language Arts assignment. Accounting4Taste 01:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yes it's a school essay, if barely, and quite incomprehensible at that. I think this could have been dealt with via WP:PROD, if not speedily deleted.Shawn in Montreal 01:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I admit I consistently neglect to use PRODs in situations where it is obviously the better choice than bringing them to AfD. A lesson I've been trying to learn for a while now. (hammers own head with fist) "Pay attention!! Remember now!! Don't be stoopid!!" Thanks for the pointer. Pig^man 02:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough usable material for a stub at this point. May be copyvio, too; this web page has the same test, but it was apparently posted the same day as the wp article was created so it's hard to say. --Allen 01:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 05:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. The poem may be worthy of an article; this is not that article. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice per Smerdis of Tlön, and note to passing admins that WP:SNOW might be applicable here soon... - Che Nuevara 14:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as previous two Think outside the box 14:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete--JForget 00:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giulia ottonello[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete nn entertainment personality. This was deleted a short while ago but it's back - a few more sources and more text, so not exactly the same as what was deleted, but still fundamentally nn and still no WP:RS coverage re: notability - You tube isn't a RS. The essential claim to fame here is that she's famous in Italy. The editors at the Italian Wikipedia disagree and deleted her bio from their site. I think we got it right the first time, the Italian editors got it right, and this ought to be deleted again. Carlossuarez46 23:44, 23 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, TonyBallioni 00:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom --Rtphokie 01:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cancellare/delete, I trust the Italian Wikipedia editors and the consensus to delete over on that side seems solid. --Stormie 02:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. I mean if even the Italian WP editors said so, it seems obvious to me. Pig^man 05:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur with our Italian colleagues. If the subject becomes more notable, an article might be in order - maybe a year or two from now. At this point, given the subject's body of work (or lack thereof), no notability exists. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:22, 11/4/2007

Tribal Wars MMOG[edit]

Contested PROD; browser-based game with no assertion of notability, no sources beyond the website itself. Stormie 01:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. TribalWars.Net has an Alexa rank of 1,126 and has 641 incoming links on Technorati. It's a notable game. Jamesdennis 05:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing to have the website notability required here. No news articles, no books on it, no significant awards won. Alexa etc.. links are not a sign of notability. Without third-party commentary there is no way to verify the detail in the article from reliable sources. Culling out the site, wikipedia, forums and blogs leaves nothing on google that even hints at notability - Peripitus (Talk) 06:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WEB due to lack of awards and reliable press coverage, had a look for sources but no reliable ones presented themselves. Someone another 14:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP>> This game has over 390,000 players, is a well known and loved MMOG.I would say the number of players alone is notable as well as fairly good graphics and fun gameplay and strategy for a browser based game.--Check It Out. 20:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it doesn't need to be here, I myself play the game although I feel it is irrelevant in the area of wikipedia andrewrox424 ^Bleep 05:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete. Hut 8.5 20:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Midi the Squirrel[edit]

~~Non-notable furry artist.-- Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Nevermind, CSDed as copyvio and vanity. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (Non admin closure). Qst 17:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Principality of Pindus and Voivodship of Macedonia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Principality of Pindus and Voivodship of Macedonia

No reliable sources given It seems that so such thing exists outside Wikipedia. See Google. Matthiasb-DE 15:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. I was studying and editing the the article and that is true that the topic is controversial and maybe some statements in the article are not well sourced, but I do not think that the whole article is unsourced. Your google link shows only German language results, and do not forget that it was known under different names: Principality of Pindus, Pindos, Pindo, Valachian Principality, Principato del Pindo etc. It is evident that this principality was not an internationally recognized or even fully established state, much more an initiative to form an emerging autonomous state. Fixed borders, governmental structure and public administration were lacking. As I understand the case, Diamandi and his pro-Italian supporters was controlling some rural aereas in the Pindus montain and these zones were called cantons of the Principality. The Aromanian and Macedonian separatists called it principality, but it might be called even kingdom or empire, the Italians did not care as long as the prince was able to keep away Greek partizans and maintain a relative order in the Aromanian populated montaneous zone. When the prince was not able to fulfill this task anymore and started to cause trouble, he was sustituted by the Italian occupators with another guy. I'd draw a paralel between Diamandi's principality and Avhustyn Voloshyn's Republic of Carpatho-Ukraine or Lajtabánság or Baranya-Baja Republic. I'd rather encourage the search for further sources, while unsourced parts should be labelled as ^{[citation needed]}. For example it was me who have found Diamandi's dates of birth and death in a Romanian sources --Koppany 15:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be enough sources to establish the existence of the Principality of Pindus and it is definitly notable enough. Davewild 08:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wizard of Oz (1976 film)[edit]

Not only is this film not notable, it's not even clear it existed. IMDB has almost no information on it at all.—Chowbok ☠ 15:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum. I also note that the International Wizard of Oz Club's comprehensive filmography has no reference to this.—Chowbok ☠ 15:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although this might rate a mention in one of the Oz articles, this one has zero information and its only source is imdb.com; whereas im the movie database is excellent, there is a gray area that includes films that were rumored to have been made, so it's not an exclusive source. Mandsford 16:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-existent, though I assume good faith if the article creator took the information from IMDb. (Anyone connected with IMDb should notify them of this potential bogus listing). Cross-referencing "Wizard of Oz" and "Films Inc." I could find no reference to such a production. There was an adults-only version of Wizard of Oz produced in Australia in 1976 but that seems to be a full-length film. One possibility I can think of is this was some super-obscure television production. 23skidoo 20:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An Australian porn version of The Wizard of Oz? Disgusting, and at the same time intriguing. However, it's something I would hope that never becomes an article here. Mandsford 22:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMDB reports that this is an edited version of the 1939 version, which makes it completely non-relevant, other than the fact that it was made. -Nodekeeper 01:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:21, 11/4/2007

CT Coalition[edit]

Unverifiable Sydney based street gang. Longhair\^talk 23:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Longhair\^talk 23:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#a7. Entirely non-notable. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i dont see how we can verify this as street gangs are not official groups.CTCO 00:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: Completely unverifiable with reliable secondary sources; short existence of gang limits notability; reads like a vanity page; creator's username highly indicative of conflict of interest. Guidelines for speedy delete provide a fairly good summary. ObfuscatePenguin 01:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable references, therefore not notable. I disagree about a speedy delete. It doesn't fit into one of the categories. Assize 02:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Speedy deletion criteria A7 - "An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, organisation, or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." A gang is surely a group of people and this article surely fails to establish significance. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I should have been clearer. The article asserts that the alleged gang has a "strong reputation" and is "perhaps the most notorious gang on the South-West Side of Sydney". I'd love to see some notable references for these claims. As an aside, what a pointless criteria. So now, we are going to have every article start with xxx is notable because..... Assize 10:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if this is relevant, but an article for the leader of the gang was recently created: Henson Zhang. VivioFa teFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 08:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just speedy deleted that article. It was a one liner with no supporting references. -- Longhair\^talk 08:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HOAX. No secondary sources are provided and a newspaper archive search reveals no mentions of any such gang. This casts serious doubt on the claims of "special significance to Law Enforcement" and "the most notorious gang in southwest Sydney". The statement that the "gang" has a large Leumeah cell "the name of which is unknown" does not imply a very high profile for the organisation. Even if the "gang" is genuine the entire article is original research, especially the history section referring to the flurry of name changes due to "online gaming/nerd" concerns. The constant changing of the names of the leaders suggests the authors of the article are simply making it up as they go along. Plus, the assertion that members of "the most notorious gang in southwest Sydney" were recruited through the online MUD Runescape? Somewhere in a school in Campbelltown there's a 15 year old having a laugh at Wikipedia's expense. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Euryalus 22:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not a member of this gang but just live out in Cambell Town, the area that CT Coalition rule. To me all the facts seem to match up from what I have heard about them. Personally I think this article shouldn't be deleted.-.poonqwerty
- Comment Welcome to Wikipedia, Poonqwerty. The trouble with this article is that there are no reliable sources, which are a requirement of the notability guideline. while the facts might match up with what you've heard, this is original research which is not enough to support the inclusion of the article. Euryalus 01:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Longhair how come you keep changing the article you dont know anything about CT Coalition — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergio_cabanossi (talk • contribs)

I'm reinserting the AfD notice which is being removed time and time again, as well as the ((unreferenced)) notice. I don't need to know anything of the subject to ensure those remain in place until the issues with the article are fixed. -- Longhair\^talk 07:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be Reasonable You guys, let's be reasonable here, sure there are a few patchy areas of this article, but is there really a need to delete the whole entire thing?. Wikipedia is free to be edited, so edit the page if you have anything to contribute, but just don't delete for the sole reason that one piece of information is unreliable. As for the lack of references, what kind of references are there for this type of article? Gang historys are passed down by word of mouth, and as a resident of the Campbell Town area, and a previous member of CT, i can assure you that all of the information is reliable. James dil 07:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If only one piece of information in the article was unverifiable it could be removed. The problem is the entire article is unverifiable. A review of the edit history shows that the aticle creator(s) keep changing key statements of "fact" in the article such as the names of the "leaders". This suggests a startling lack of confidence in the accuracy of the material by the very people who created it. The major claims of the article would inevitably have sources if they were true, but none can be provided despite extensive searching. The minor claims are original research at best. Euryalus 23:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, most of the article is unverifiable, and what might perhaps be verified, isn't. Lankiveil 12:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy delete as per WP:ORG. Does not return any Google searches apart from the Wikipedia page (removing results with 'Connecticut' in title - see here) so it is obviously non-notable. Auroranorth (sign) 09:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]