< September 27 September 29 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete as original research. Contact me if you want to merge it, or transwiki it. --Haemo 01:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Society and Star Trek[edit]

Society and Star Trek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Suggest to delete because this article is synthesized original research focused on an in-universe perspective. The content fails our Wikipedia:No original research policy and would be better suited for Memory Alpha or somewhere else. Burntsauce 23:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • User:Krator's reason 1 (that the claims are "of such a nature that they cannot be sources") is at odds with reason 2 ("many of [the books in the main article] could be used here as well"). The notion that old articles require "extreme care" is specious; there's no guideline or policy that suggests that. It's just as likely that this collection of OR has sat in a quiet corner for its contents' non-notability and seldom-searched-for content. Anyhow, in the absence of reliable sources, this article should be deleted. --EEMeltonIV 02:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • he said "None of the claims that are without sources are of such a nature that they cannot be sourced." Meaning that they indeed can be sourced, a statement which I agree with. Viperix 07:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'll provide a copy to anyone who wants to make this a category - leave me a note on my talk page. Daniel 01:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of contract killers[edit]

List of contract killers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This list provides no context and would be best served through categories. My motion is to delete and categorize those that can be reliably sourced. Burntsauce 23:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel 01:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brock Air Services[edit]

Brock Air Services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:N. No non-trivial, third party reliable sources can be found which establishes notability for this small 1 x 4 seat aircraft general aviation operator Russavia 09:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep per Vegaswikian. → AA (talk) — 09:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eluchil404 23:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 01:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cards speak[edit]

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

Suggesting to delete this article because Wikipedia is WP:NOT a game guide, and this article is little more than a dictionary definition that lacks reliable sources. Burntsauce 23:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Double predestination (Hyper-Calvinist)[edit]

Double predestination (Hyper-Calvinist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article has a non-neutral point of view, is unreferenced, and contradicts the Hyper-calvinism page on Wikipedia. StAnselm 23:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, its defined as "a view of Double Predestination where God predestined (or foreordained) those whom He rejects (reprobate) without regard to their sinful nature." ... because the Reformed view of Predestination (infralapsarian mostly), say that God chooses (as it were) from among sinful men, so that foreordination to wrath is passive... that's why I said "without regard to their sinful nature", that is God is choosing men without any consideration at all that they would be sinful because of the fall, He chose, then foreordains them to sin (without Himself being sinful) and to wrath. It's the only way (I could think of) to precisely diffrentiate it from Reformed Double Predestination (which uses the same terms differently- in a really confusing way).Avielh 15:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You say "it's defined" but you don't provide reliable sources that give this definition. External links are not the same as references, and the burden of proof is on you since you are making the claim (BTW, "Search google..." is not a valid reference; specific citations are needed). The rules are that if something is challenged or likely to be challenged then it must be documented from reliable sources. This AfD is challenging your understanding of the facts of the case (see WP:V and WP:OR) as well as the way in which it is stated (see WP:NPOV). Likely, the only way to prevent the article from being deleted is to prove the deleters wrong by citing your reliable sources explicitly inline. Disputed passages from the Bible and Calvin are not sufficient in this case since different groups come to different doctrines of predestination based on their understanding of them. Indeed the litany of verses that you added since the AfD started is more objectionable in my mind than the article without them because of neutrality concerns. --Flex (talk/contribs) 21:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep a proposal for deletion is not the appropriate response to an article which is simply badly written. --S.dedalus 01:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was: speedily deleted by admin after being tagged. Non-admin closure of AfD. Thomjakobsen 00:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The House of Capsani[edit]

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

Why is it considered for deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theenvisionv3 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 28 September 2007

Note that I didn't place the AfD tag on the article (that was done by User:Darklilac), but I'll complete this nomination anyway. As for the reasons: the article is very much like an advert, written by someone closely related to its subject (which is conflict of interest), it has no independent sources, no claim of notability, no reason to think that any outsider has ever even heard of the whole thing. It's nothing like what a Wikipedia article should be. --Derlay 23:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It's a feel good story, but ultimately not encyclopedic - many rescues get similar coverage but BLP1E really applies to this, perhaps more so because the LP is a minor whose situtation was not entirely of his own making. Carlossuarez46 01:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shneur Zalman Friedman[edit]

Shneur Zalman Friedman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article about a young boy who had the misfortune of beeing swept to sea and then resceued. This makes a great news storry, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Apart from a very public resceue there is nothing particularly notable about his life, and per WP:BLP1E we should not have this kind of article. I'd say that goes double when the victim is a young child. Sherool (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay, NOT a policy. The fact that there is a Wikipedia wide president for articles like this is entirely relevant to the current discussion. In good faith I am assuming that you genuinely feel that the deletion of this article would benefit the project, however I’m at a loss for why you targeted this particular one. --S.dedalus 01:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is not judged soley based Google hits and ~3000 hits on Google is not very much. Try a search on "S.dedalus", that's 1.600 hits right there, I hope that doesn't mean you'll write about your Wikipedia username next... Furthermore most of those hits are identical word for word, it's just a case of online newspaper publishing minor storries like this (unedited) because it doesn't cost them anyting to do so. See how many newspapers set aside page space for this incident in theyr paper editions and you might get a better indication as to how importnat they consider the case. Yes there are less notable articles on Wikipedia, but they can be dealth with in due time. You need to convince people that this person is notable not that there are other less notable people with articles. I also fail to see how you figure the attention on the political situation in the Middle East affect the importance of an article about an 8 year old boy who was saved from drowning just because he happens to live in the area. --Sherool (talk) 07:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The number of hits for my username is because I took the name of a well known James Joyce character, a character that DOES have a Wikipedia article in fact. See Stephen Dedalus. This boy is very notable. It was a unified search effort that required the involvement of Israel Defense Forces, Hatzolah, and ZAKA. It was also international in scale, the government of Jordan was notified to avert an international misunderstanding. This incident was highly important also because it is totally unique. At the time it was called a “miracle.” I believe that it is quite evident that this article is sufficiently notable to fulfill current Wikipedia wide standards. --S.dedalus 21:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Search and rescue and Rip current. --S.dedalus 04:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to dual license that version of the article under
Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 so that it can be Move to Wikinews. However, I still maintain that this article is suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia as well. --S.dedalus 19:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For clarity I’d like to point out that many votes for this deletion were obtained through the listing of this discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism. --S.dedalus 19:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Which is perfectly acceptable, since anyone can be a member of the project or watchlist it; see Wikipedia:Canvassing#Friendly notices. Which is completely different from engaging in aggressively contacting individual editors whoe are believed to have specific points of view, to wit canvassing. -- Avi 20:21, 3 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. Carlossuarez46 01:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A-league 2nd division[edit]

A-league 2nd division (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This football competition is not even at the official proposal stage and is merely a discussion point for the media. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. In addition, the lack of citations for claims made and sentences such as "It is expected a side from the Gold Coast and possibly Geelong may be given a go, while a Northern Queensland bid and a Western Sydney/Wollongong bid are likely to be given access straight to the A-League 1st Division" make it look suspiciously like original research. Mattinbgn\ talk 21:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I feel there would be much better grounds for keeping this article if some reliable sources could be provided as references, the Australian football association for example. If there are real verifiable plans to set this league up, rather than just pure speculation the article should be kept. King of the North East (T/C) 11:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 02:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fernald Football League[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Fernald Football League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fantasy football league. — Anarchivist | (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silent protagonist[edit]

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

This article has no references. It does not assert notability. The topic seems to be discussed on things like message boards, but it does not seem to be the subject of multiple reliable secondary sources. As such, the whole article is original research. Croctotheface 21:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't that this article lacks sources for its content, thereby failing WP:V (though it does do that, which is not exactly a point in favor of the article). The problem is that the article lacks sources that show us that this TOPIC has any kind of currency in secondary sources, which, contrary to the above assertion, are the kinds of sources that encyclopedias are built upon. If we are synthesizing material from primary sources, then we are engaging in original research, which is outside the scope of WIkipedia. Croctotheface 06:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are any of those sources ABOUT this topic, or do they just mention it? In other words, they go for notability, not just verifiability? If they do go to notability, then great, let's fix the article. Croctotheface 09:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of sources is no cause for deletion for an article on a notable subject, just for a ((unreferenced)) template--Victor falk 09:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not thrilled that I need to explain my argument yet again after making like five comments on this page already, but I never said that unreferenced meant not notable. Maybe it was a mistake to have "this article cites no sources" as the first sentence in my nomination, since it seems that some people didn't read past that. I think I've been very clear about this point, including in the above comment that you responded to. We need evidence of notability. It is my contention that the current article does not assert notability. It does not assert notability by pointing to sources because it has none. The article reads as though this concept is basically exclusive to video games and there are a few other cases such as Mr. Bean and Silent Bob. From the article, I don't see any evidence that this is not OR. Victor, your comment on the talk page seems to belie the whole article, basically. So it's possible that the concept is notable, but it really needs to be fixed in a major way. All the content that is there now is basically an original synthesis of people playing a video game and saying, "Well, the playable character never speaks, so I'd better write it up in Wikipedia." There could be an article here, and I would be happy if one came about, but right now, I don't see why what's there now is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Croctotheface 09:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, perhaps others are not thrilled that instead of fixing the article through normal editing you have chosen to send it to AfD. Per WP:AFD - If you can fix the article through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. I will start to go through some of those sources to establish which might best help address the article's needs. Benjiboi 10:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the time I nominated, I did not see any evidence that it could be fixed. It's not my responsibility to prove that the concept is not notable if the article does not assert notability itself. Croctotheface 01:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These seem to be decent source material and can be viewed by anyone whereas most on the Scholar search were subscription journals of one sort or another. Benjiboi 11:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the time I nominated, I did not see any evidence that it could be fixed. It's not my responsibility to prove that the concept is not notable if the article does not assert notability itself. Croctotheface 01:34, 4 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. Carlossuarez46 01:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Penny Dog[edit]

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

A toy, with no sources, no evidence of actual significance, no sales figures, no sign that it made any of the Disney cartoons, and 50% of the information is openly speculative. Cruftbane 21:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources found in searching. The only results appear to be eBay type listings for Disney collectibles. But there doesn't appear to be any articles about this toy. -- Whpq 21:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not significant. ScarianTalk 21:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of the Philippines College of Business Administration Student Awards[edit]

University of the Philippines College of Business Administration Student Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable "event"...actually reads more like a compilation of articles about one of the University's student organizations. --- Tito Pao 21:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While the delete !votes seem to hinge on the poor state of the article, enough editors believe that the subject is notable and therefore the list satisfies our inclusion standards (non-admin closure). Pablo Talk | Contributions 01:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of early 20th-century British children's magazines and annuals[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of early 20th-century British children's magazines and annuals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Sad. Only one bluelink, and there only ever has been one. Not a useful "to-do" because, for example, the "Greyfriars Holiday Annual" is much more likely to be covered under Billy Bunter. Trivia fans: I used to live next door but one to the son of the man who drew Billy Bunter. Cruftbane 21:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not particularly notable. That one blue link does nothing to save it! ScarianTalk 21:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article about early 20th Century British children's magazines would probably be well worth having, but a list which contains only one bluelink is not much use as a navigational tool. If you want to expand it into an article about that subject I guess you could always move it. Cruftbane 10:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
nothing wrong with a stub--I know some people here who might be interested. DGG (talk) 04:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was merge/redirect. W.marsh 19:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chozo[edit]

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

The article was merged to Universe of the Metroid series because of its lack of individual notability. The conversation went on for a month, and after that it was merged. Now, someone has unilaterally re-created the article, and there is no expectation that it will be any more notable than before. It is just a regurgitation of the plot of the Metroid games as told in an unencyclopedic in universe perspective, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 20:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, as stated elsewhere, there is no dispute, and I want the articles merits considered since it doesn't merit inclusion in the encyclopedia. Judgesurreal777 18:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 03:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The solaris bug situation[edit]

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

This is about a perceived effect of a "synchronistic phenomenon perceived to take place between the 1972 Russian film Solaris and The Lightning Bug Situation's 2007 CD... ", mainly posted on MySpacepages, by some fans of the band. The band itself could possibly warrant an article, but no-one has written this (as I can see.) If they had an article, this effect could be a section there, but being a perceived effect shouldn't warrant an article by itself. The creators claim since a similar effect for Pink Floyd (Dark Side of the Rainbow)warrant an article their bands similar effect should warrant an article too, but this is faulty logic- Pink Floyd is a mega-band. My first instinct was db- |hoax/sillyness to promote NN or near-NN -band here, but I guess it's not clear-cut enough for a speedy delete. Greswik 20:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Miller (the front man of The Lightning Bug Situation and partly the subject of this article) co-wrote two songs on Jolie Holland's last album, wrote the music for one of the songs on her first album, and appears on all three of her albums. To me, if Jolie Holland qualifies for Wiki, then so does this article. Mint Seawalls 20:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Google of "Yeats is Greats," Brian Miller's last album, shows that it "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network," as per the Wiki Notability guidelines. Also, a Google of both "Yeats is Greats" and "A Leaf; A Stream" separately shows that they were both "frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture" as per Wiki Notability guidelines as well.

If I have to write a dang Lightning Bug Situation article I will! But this, to me, was a much more interesting phenomenon than some write up about a band.

Mint Seawalls 21:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two appearances in the San Francisco Chronicle: here and here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mint Seawalls (talk • contribs) 22:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dang! I was just trying to show noteworthy-ness. Wow. I had never written an article for Wiki before (though have used it countless times)--and I thought I had written a pretty cool article--but I had no idea the wrath that was going to come down! Mint Seawalls 22:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC) -- please dont think of it as wrath, just read WP:FIRST and try on something more substantial. DGG (talk) 04:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mint Seawalls 22:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This probably has nothing to do with Wikipedia, but the whole reason I wrote this article at all was because I actually tried the "Solaris Bug Situation" effect--playing "A Leaf; A Stream" while watching Solaris with the sound off--and it actually worked! Really well! But alas unfortunately I'm not a reliable source... Mint Seawalls 02:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 03:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Symbolic Interaction (journal)[edit]

Symbolic Interaction (journal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Journal with no claims of notability. There is no article for the society whose journal this is. As usual, my db tag was removed by User:DGG Corvus cornix 20:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jreferee t/c 05:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metroid Prime (creature)[edit]

Metroid Prime (creature) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article was merged to Universe of the Metroid series because of its lack of individual notability. The conversation went on for a month, and after that it was merged. Now, someone has unilaterally re-created the article, and there is no expectation that it will be any more notable than before. It is just a regurgitation of the plot of the Metroid Prime games as told in an unencyclopedic in universe perspective, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 20:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change it back to a redirect. There's no need for an AfD discussion. If it doesn't stay as a redirect, go through dispute resolution. Corvus cornix 20:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, this time it should stay gone. If a month long discussion wasn't official enough, this will be. Judgesurreal777 20:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no dispute, the articles fate was discussed for a month and someone did their own thing, and so I would like a more official resolution. Are there any arguments as to why it should be kept? Judgesurreal777 12:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if a person is reverting to their version, it is a dispute (even if it's against consensus). The correct course of action is to revert to the redirect and get it protected. Will (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But there is no dispute, they simply recreated the article; I have not tried to revert it or make him do so. Since there is a question of notability, this is the appropriate forum to address it. Judgesurreal777 18:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the correct place is the talk page or WikiProject. Will (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the third time, there is no dispute, there is only a nomination for deletion. Any thoughts on the articles notability? Judgesurreal777 18:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the third time, there is a dispute. Reading the merge discussion, there is a clear consensus to merge Metroid Prime with Dark Samus and not into the Universe page. In actual fact, the only mention besides the merge proposal to merge the Prime/DS articles anywhere but themselves was by an IP, and that was into the article Phazon. Therefore, your claim of a consensus is invalid. So it's an editing dispute. Deletion is not an acceptable way to end a dispute. Will (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
THERE IS NO DISPUTE! The person who recreated the article, the person I am supposed to be disputing with, AGREES that the article should be gotten ride of, aka DELETED, because it lacks notability, and I imagine he will way in soon in favor of deletion. Now, lets discuss the article and its merits. Judgesurreal777 21:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, the merger of Dark Samus and Metroid Prime (creature) was one of several possible mergers discussed. And agains, there is no dispute between me or anyone else. The article lacks notability and should be deleted and redirected to the Metroid (series) article. Judgesurreal777 14:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know, according to policy, you are supposed to put a notability issue tag on the page, wait one month, and then nom it for deletion if it still isn't notable? Besides, I just read WP:N, and the article seems notable to me. It meets all five of the general notability criteria. Are you sure this isn't a deletion based your views? I would recommend reading WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 00:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the argument here is criteria #4: sources. The article itself has only one cite, and all the info in the article, while direct from the games, very much toes the line with WP:FICTION, as the creature Metroid Prime has received little to no "substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources" except maybe forums with people complaining how hard he is to kill. As for the month long policy, it was about four days from that when the deletion review started, although a merge and recreation kind of messed with the timing there. Arrowned 01:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And there was a discussion of its merging into the Metroid series article for over a month. Judgesurreal777 01:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's cool; his name is User:Zxcvbnm Judgesurreal777 13:52, 3 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. Carlossuarez46 03:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music Theory Spectrum[edit]

Music Theory Spectrum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An article about a journal with no claims of notability. There isn't even an article about the organization whose journal this is. My speedy tag was removed. Corvus cornix 20:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is a general purpose encyclopedia . . . -- But|seriously|folks  16:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
so they will, David-- people need to be reminded that the notability guidelines are guidelines--guidelines are meant to be applied with the appropropriate flexibility. Notability is a policy, but how it is determined depends on the nature of the article. But there are good independent sources for notability available for most titles. 1/ Journal Citation Reports is an very reliable source for notability within a subject field as measured by impact factor. Even inclusion of it is an indication that it is one of the top 8000 of the estimated 20 or 30 thousand academic journals. (unfortunately they do not cover the humanities) . 2/Ulrich's is an equally reliable source for how long the journal has been published and what indexes cover it, 2 other major factors in notability. 3/WorldCat is a RS for how many libraries hold a journal, another factor of notability. Though all of these are in a sense lists, the information they provide gives the notability.

*Keep per the current sources and indirect indications of notability. --Tikiwont 10:00, 3 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. Carlossuarez46 03:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Champlain Centre South[edit]

Champlain Centre South (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This was bundled with its twin, Champlain Centre North, in a previous AfD. For some reason, North got deleted, but this one stayed, even though the consensus was to delete both. This one was kept because it had been listed twice before in other bundle AfDs (one keep, one no consensus). The sources on this article aren't that good, and a Google search turns up almost nothing, so I think the page should be deleted; the mall obviously fails WP:RS and WP:N. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Martial BACQUET 11:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

London tunnel run / Tunnel Running (moved)[edit]


London tunnel run (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Although this mentions some media coverage, I can't find any coverage other than on blogs & fansites. As this article has been up for some months — and is a long and reasonably well written article — it doesn't seem appropriate either to prod it as non-notable or speedy it as an advert (which it does read like). However, despite all the effort that's gone into it I can't see anything that stops this article being a puff-piece for a non-notable club, albeit a far better quality one than most; the sole mention I can find on anything approaching a reliable source is nothing but a Youtube clip with no text. — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for now, AFD view reserved - the actual subject matter seems potentially notable. But the article is so full of fancruft and fan oriented, and so unencyclopedic in style and approach, it's hard to tell. If it were trimmed back and put in a proper structure and context, cited, and so on, it could well possibly be encyclopedic. But AFD custom is very clear: articles that are sufficiently poorly written and cited may be deleted without prejudice until such a time a proper article is written. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To add to this part of the discussion; Sky one and Autocar reference material both refers to the subject directly by name and states that no racing takes place which were the main assertions of the original article submitted. I will review it to have less "fancruft" as you put it. I did include the negative aspect Islington Gazette reference material to give more balance to the article. If I find any more articles either positive or negative I will host and add them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ME-tan2 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources exist - Having worked on the article somewhat, it seems likely it's encyclopedic. But unless reliable independent sources that give significant coverage are demonstrated, the decision has to be delete without prejudice. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Update - Two comments containing possibly valuable links had been moved to the talk page. AFD closer should be aware these were identified as SPA's. Now reverted since potentially useful. Sorry 'bout the messy refactor user:FT2:
  1. Keep [SPA]. Media citations below: [3] [4] [5] Tina Kant-Bearssed 21:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)— Tina Kant-Bearssed (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  2. Keep [SPA] - Scan of published Autocar article http://me-tan.wtfux.org/vehicles/TunnelRun/Autocar0206TunnelRun.jpg - Scan of published USA magazine article http://me-tan.wtfux.org/vehicles/TunnelRun/USA-TunnelRunRides.jpg - ME-tan2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by ME-tan2 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC) — ME-tan2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richland Mall (Johnstown)[edit]

Richland Mall (Johnstown) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Very short article on a dead mall in Pennsylvania. Fails WP:RS, WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete--JForget 23:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Controversial Anime[edit]

List of Controversial Anime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Yet another indiscriminate list of information waiting to happen. "Controversial" is such a vague (and inherently POV) term that I don't see how this could ever be encyclopaedic. — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating

List of Live Action Anime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 19:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Stevens[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Completely unreferenced. Some of the article seems like a hoax. Davnel03 19:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fatal highway accidents in the Florida Keys[edit]

List of fatal highway accidents in the Florida Keys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

sourced article, but the name explains it all, car accidents are very common and hundreds of thousands are killed every year,Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Delete Secret 19:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think the full article would really fit into the context of the Florida Keys article by itself. A paragraph, coupled with a link to the list, would be helpful, but I don't think more than that is necessary. As a separate list, a reader could discover the basic information in the Florida Keys article, then access the list for more information about the effect traffic and fatal accidents have in the Florida Keys. After all, if something's important enough to include in a parent article (as you recommend), it's worth creating a separate page if enough information is available -- which it is. JKBrooks85 19:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a section about the Adam Arnold Act in Florida state law, which was inspired by an 11-year campaign following a fatal crash on U.S. 1 in the Florida Keys. JKBrooks85 01:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a new section to Florida Keys and included a link to the page. I'm just afraid that because this is notable on a smaller scale than, say, Earth, it's going to be deleted on a WP:IDONTKNOWIT steamroller. I'd further like to object to the suggestions of WP:IINFO violations: this article covers a repeated series of events that have large impacts on the area in which they occur and for the people they involve. Every listing in the article can be backed up with a verifiable news source, and if the article was older than 48 hours, they already would be. It's just a matter of searching the websites of local newspapers. I wouldn't have started this if I thought it would violate rules #2 and #5 of WP:IINFO, and am more than happy to make requested changes to fix problems an editor sees with the article. JKBrooks85 20:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-rhetorical question: if those are your criteria for inclusion, how would you feel about a "List of suicides on the London Underground"? There are around 50 a year, all sourceable, each one causing major disruption on a network which carries more passengers in a day (3 million) than the Keys get visitors in a year.

Thomjakobsen 21:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wants to create it, I'd fully support them. After all, Wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopedia, and there's no reason not to include that information. A list is of marginal utility for someone uninterested in the subject, but plenty of reference works have appendicies for readers seeking more information. This is exactly the same thing, and so would your hypothetical article. Nothing is lost by including this information, and for the person who abolutely needs the information, much can be gained. JKBrooks85 22:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A memorial wasn't my intention. If/when the article is kept, what would you change? JKBrooks85 22:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd delete that unencyclopedic list, for starters. You do realize that when there's an accident on any limited-access highway that people can be trapped for hours? It doesn't matter if you have an alternate route to your destination if you can't get off the highway. --Dhartung | Talk 05:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. W.marsh 19:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World Tourism Rankings[edit]

World Tourism Rankings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is essentially a mirror of the World Tourism Rankings published by the World Tourism Organisation. It is, of course, not authoritative, as Wikipedia is not the publisher. The article contains no analysis of the rankings or how they are compiled, only the information, so I believe this article fails Wikipedia is not a random collection of information. I would suggest that it be deleted, a redirect placed pointing to World Tourism Organisation, and we then wait to see if that article ever contains an encyclopaedic coverage of the rankings sufficient to split out again. And we should of course link to the rankings in the main article. Cruftbane 18:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 03:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cookshow[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:WEB. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Cookshow. Brand new site this year, only references are self ref's. Hu12 18:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 03:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The District of Tustin Legacy[edit]

The District of Tustin Legacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Finishing unfinished nom by an IP, who claims that this article was already deleted before. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, a1 empty when you remove the unsourced material. NawlinWiki 18:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Journals of the Last Stand[edit]

Journals of the Last Stand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, no good A7 criteria for speedy (fail to assert for film would cut down on AfD)  superβεεcat  18:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 03:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jurassic Boy 2[edit]

Jurassic Boy 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable hack of a hack. No reliable sources. Most of the google hits seem to be places to download it. Smashville 18:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jreferee t/c 13:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of ancient Jedi[edit]

List of ancient Jedi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The list contains biographies of many unsourced star wars characters who at best appeared in the Knights of the Old Republic games and it is written mainly inuniverse, its style nor its content warrants inclusion on Wikipedia Sherzo 18:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ancient Jedi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryan Derksen (talk • contribs) 08:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion doesn't save on bits.Geni 13:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please be civil, and argue keep or not based on wikipedia policies. Judgesurreal777 15:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It seems like people are using the what would Britannica do criteria for an articles notability. This isn't Britannica. The resources are greater, and the number of users is larger. It's factual information that is useful as a reference for people watching the movies or reading the books. Sorry if I offend your sensibilities, but ones snobbish opinion of what is or isn't "encyclopedic" doesn't play a part in it. If you really want to do something useful, break the article into subs for each Jedi, and keep the list linking to the article. As to the "sources, yes, but sources that are verifiable" comment, I'm sure I don't know, understand, or care to know what your bureaucratic definition of verifiable is, but I'm sure you could go and look at the original sources, as in the books, that they were referenced in, and verify the information. —Slipgrid 18:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, thanks. So, a work of fiction is published, and an article is written about one of it's characters. The work that character was mentioned in is cited as a source. How is that not verifiable? In any reasonable definition of the word, being able to go to the direct source of the information and reading it, is verification. Saying that isn't verifiable, is breaking the English language.
Also, why would you want a "very small encyclopedia?" Is less information somehow better? —Slipgrid 13:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it's verifiable. I don't think anyone said it wasn't (I asked if the sources were verifiable, that's slightly different). There's other issues. First off, how does one define an "ancient Jedi", and what makes one different from a modern one? There's still several unsourced entries (not a reason for deletion itself, but still an issue), and there's no out-of-universe context in a lot of entries. I think the some of the entries can go in other lists, but I don't really think they go well in -this- list.--UsaSatsui 14:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, repeatedly deleted under this and other titles. NawlinWiki 18:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Energy comprehension and contol organization[edit]

Energy comprehension and contol organization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I've declined a speedy request on this as it seems to make a vague assertion of notability, but don't believe it warrants keeping. Zero Ghits and veers close to the blurry line that separates "legitimate belief system" from "patent nonsense". — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/merge. Wizardman 01:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rüdiger Sünner[edit]

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

I nominate articles about this author, a book he wrote, and a film he made. Only one independent source is cited in these articles: Another book on the topic, where he seems to be quoted. But I'm not convinced that this is enough to establish notability. A merger has been proposed long ago, but also the merged pages would not be notable, I think.

As said, I also nominate the following related articles:

-- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 18:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The group's article was deleted in the cited afd, and no other notability was asserted. Carlossuarez46 03:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Visible Idea of Perfection[edit]

Visible Idea of Perfection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Full album released by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Super Insurgent Group of Intemperance Talent (link to the group's own AfD discussion). No evidence that the album ever charted or was released by a notable label. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 03:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self Titled (Indonesia)[edit]

Self Titled (Indonesia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Sister EP to Self Titled (Australia) Article admits only 1,500 cassette copies sold. That's pretty non-notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 03:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self Titled (Australia)[edit]

Self Titled (Australia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable EP by a musical group that is itself up for AfD. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete--JForget 23:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Fulton (guitarist)[edit]

John Fulton (guitarist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The current article (and its accompanying image) reeks of a hoax. There are eight different versions of this article in the history; however, the only valid version I can find is a two-year-old, two-sentence sub-stub. A Google search shows that he does exist, but I can't see anything other than blogs & wikis from which to expand it. — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 03:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chantel Shafie[edit]

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

Non-notable TV presenter. Has appeared on a number of very obscure satellite-channel shows. Claims to have been in some notable films, but they would appear to be as an uncredited extra as this IMDB.com entry would be listing them if otherwise. Thomjakobsen 16:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 03:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source (magazine)[edit]

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

This magazine does not seem to be notable. Many organizations publish in-house newsletters. This seems to be nothing more than that. There are no secondary sources cited that mention it. Steve Dufour 16:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bravehartbear 12:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 03:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Casal[edit]

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

Non-notable DJ, sources given are not independent of the subject, talk page says he was recognized as "the most important DJ in Costa Rica by thedjlist.com" but that site appears to be an unreliable directory site to which over 170,000 DJs have submitted profiles. Thomjakobsen 16:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 03:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rsii virus[edit]

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

Just information about a non-notable computer virus. Couldn't find any mention of it on google or yahoo either. ARendedWinter 16:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know I have not followed the Verifiability guideline, but I had didn't know this virus existed until two or three variants of it showed up on my computer a few weeks ago. I run AVG Anti-Virus and McAfee on my machine (it's Windows XP), and neither of them even found any of them. I was unable to find any help on the Internet. I finally tracked it down and got rid of it by brute force, in the process discovering the information which I put in this article. I hope that this info will help other people with the same problem. However, I understand that violating the Verifiability rule makes it subject to deletion, and if it does get deleted, I fully understand. Tolkien fan 16:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There must be other sites which deal with that kind of thing. Steve Dufour 16:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 03:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pristine (Realmlist Management)[edit]

Pristine (Realmlist Management) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable software, few Google hits, conflict of interest. Mushroom (Talk) 15:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g6, inadvertently created. NawlinWiki 15:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avogadro (Rapper)[edit]

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

Requesting a salt if possible. Fourth article with exact same content. All have been speedied. ARendedWinter 15:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Vacations[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Classic Vacations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Classic Vacations. Hu12 14:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep. The controversy is notable, which is really the subject of the article. Whether the article should be retitled to something other than her name is not a AFD. The BLP issues raised are not persuasive: the contentious claims are all sourced, and she has projected herself into the controversy rather than being a non-participant swept up in events beyond her control. Carlossuarez46 03:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tania Head[edit]

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

The article is a WP:COATRACK created about this person only after an article in the New York Times questioned the veracity of many claims she had made about being a survivor of the 9/11 attack. This article seems contrary to WP:BLP, but I leave it to the Wikipedia community to discuss it and decide. She did not seem to have encyclopedic notability before the expose. Per WP:NOT#NEWS, not everyone who is in the newspapers needs an encyclopedia article. Edison 14:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the key to the nomination above is that she has no independent notability, and "15 minutes of fame" isn't enough to make someone notable. I think we'd have to see if this story persists or not. --Nlu (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But she was in the public eye before the scandal broke. She certainly had "independent notability since she's been written up in publications that have nothing to do with her or organizations with which she participated. But perhaps her 15mins is almost up -- that's a valid argument for removal. My opinion is still the same though: keep. ask123 19:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you must be reading the wrong article because The NY Times that I linked to in my post above was entirely about her. It didn't just mention her in passing. The entire article was dedicated to her and the alleged deception she perpetrated. Second of all, I'm afraid you're wrong, per WP:Notability. Read it and you will see the following text regarding "significant coverage" (i.e. "notability") of a subject:
"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content.
"Significant coverage" is clearly defined and has nothing to do with the amount of coverage or with your personal idea or definition of the word, "siginificant." ask123 16:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article we are talking about is In a 9/11 Survival Tale, the Pieces Just Don’t Fit September 27, 2007.--Mightyms 16:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the article. Thanks, Mightyms! ask123 19:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, i put an S there when I shouldn't have. the TIME article that Nick mallory posted as a source, does not count as a source, it mentions her in passing, as a quote. And again, I will reitterate that ONE source is NOT enough to establish notability. Please read Wp:bio#Criteria_for_notability_of_people. It clearly states sources (as in plural -- more than one). This lady is not notable. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 19:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the coatrack in question is: The article title suggests the article is about Tania Head whereas the article is actually about the Tania Head controversy. To help subside those fears, we need to try to balance the article content between the controversy, and other general biographical information. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is WP:NOT#NEWS valid for this event? She has made many claims over the years, this was not all said and done in a day. -- Kl4m T C 04:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 03:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goodna Shopping Centre[edit]

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

No sources to verify the content. Google gives less than 30 uniwue hits, including Wikipedia mirrors, none look like a good source. It has a short mention in the Goodna, Queensland article, and that's all we should have unless we have sources. (The "other businesses" section should be removed in any case per WP:NOT#DIR, but that's an editing issue, not a deletion issue.) Huon 14:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The shopping centre's actual name is St Ives Shopping Centre. Orderinchaos 01:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:RP Data has been put down originally as a reference which does provide this information with paid login. Have further added Ipswich City Council reference which provides another point of reference. This and the other businesses section provide detailed information for the area and a very important link back to the Goodna, Queensland article.
If further references are needed for article to those already provided, please advise and I will make the necessary additions. Goodstone 14:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also have added further reference for the shop list being the centre manager - Ray White Commercial who manage on behalf of Geewood P/L. Goodstone 14:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:The RPData link is a paid service. However the Ipswich City Council PDOnline website http://pdonline.ipswich.qld.gov.au/pdonline/masterplan/enquirer/default.aspx?page=wrapper&key=237735&container=on which was added as the second reference out of three is certainly an independent and reliable government source which displays the shopping centre owner. (Note need to enter the “2 Smiths Road; Goodna” address to verify this.)
The suburb it is in does have a population of 7,939 based on the 2006 census (Growth of over 20% over the 2001 census.) However it is also the major shopping centre that services neighbouring suburbs bellbird park, gailes, and wacol with a wider catchment of additional suburbs. The population in Bellbird Park (4,178), Gailes (1,652) and Wacol (2,584) combined is 8,414 and combined with Goodna brings total population to over 16,000 + extra catchment areas. With the size of Australia and the huge sparse area covered by the Australian population this is considered a reasonable size (Remember Australia’s population is 20 million compared to over 300 million for USA).
I would agree with this - Goodna is a major service suburb in outer western Brisbane, and is on a major transport route between two major regional centres (Brisbane itself and Ipswich). This is not clear from the Goodna article, at least partly because there's been some debate between Brisbane and the rest of the project as to whether suburbs outside the Brisbane City Council area are suburbs of Brisbane, and no-one outside is game enough to go in and fix them all :P Orderinchaos 01:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Goodna Shopping Centre is not just a strip mall. Initially I only took two photos as I did not want to have too large a gallery initially. This could be added upon as desired.
With regards to the external reference link on (Those 1982 Australia-specific governmental or trade organization standards for Australia[1]have not yet been added to the Shopping center this is a Western Australian planning document and would not be applicable to Queensland where this is based.
Having said that I am very open to recommendations on how to improve this article further and a FA Class or similar Shopping Centre article (especially an Australian one if it exists) to assist in developing this article further.
Again I would certainly continue to argue the case against deletion and this article is within the scope of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australia as well as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Shopping_Centers which was added afterwards. Goodstone 09:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Initial Shopping Centre Mall infobox has now been added. Goodstone 10:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. W.marsh 19:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freq out[edit]

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

Does not appear notable to me, IMHO. Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. TexasAndroid 13:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You are correct. There is a difference between verifiability and notability and this just is not notable according to the standards in WP:MUSIC. - Rjd0060 14:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep (non-admin closure). Pablo Talk | Contributions 04:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B. J. Nilsen[edit]

B. J. Nilsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not appear to me to meet WP:MUSIC requirements. AFD instead of Speedy in case I'm missing something, but as it is he just does not appear notable to me. TexasAndroid 13:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jana Winderen[edit]

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

Does not appear to me to meet WP:MUSIC requirements. AFD instead of Speedy in case I'm missing something, but as it is she just does not appear notable to me. TexasAndroid 13:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 03:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Video Strategy Guide[edit]

Video Strategy Guide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Neologism. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 19:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Content cut from Half-Life 2[edit]

Content cut from Half-Life 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The fact that content was cut from the early storyboards of Half-Life 2 is probably notable enough for inclusion in that article, but what we have here is a level of detail vastly in excess of what is appropriate to a general encyclopaedia. A very long article describing in minute detail by reference to essentially a single source the elements which are not in a game? I think that's the stuff of game websites and blogs, not for an encyclopaedia. Cruftbane 13:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 19:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Festival for Peace[edit]

Festival for Peace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Was originally nominated for speedy deletion, and I felt uncomfortable doing so. Appears to be fully original research and lacking in notability, considering this line from the text: "This is a first-hand eyewitness account and there are few, if any, corroborating sources that still exist today." SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bebopnjazz 16:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 03:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of seiyū[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of seiyū (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This list is redundant, as all notable seiyū should be in the Category:Japanese voice actors. The reasons for keeping this during the previous nomination are a bit weak: adding red links to non-notable voice actors is against WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. I don't think the list is very usefull, as it doesn't seem to be maintained: the history shows mostly Ip users adding and removing seiyū without giving any reasons. Ninja neko 13:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 16:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indo G[edit]

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

The only assert of notability is that the artist worked in a short period with Three 6 Mafia. The artists is not even signed to a major labe. Tasc0 00:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). — Gordonofcartoon 13:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burcu Güneş[edit]

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

There are no sources to confirm notability. I looked, but couldn't find any sources in English. There's an article on another Wiki, but it doesn't appear to have sources verifying notability either. FisherQueen (Talk) 12:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. Burcu Gunes is very popular even here in Australia. Eregli bob 12:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks also, and to Denizz for checking it out. I think I'm allowed to close the AFD. Gordonofcartoon 13:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Shanks[edit]

Josh Shanks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ludeonly>(View AfD)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep (non-admin closure). Pablo Talk | Contributions 18:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World Laughter Day[edit]

World Laughter Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

unofficial day started my non-notable group/movement. Sfacets 12:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- non-notable. --Haemo 01:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I...[edit]

If I... (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article previously deleted [14] at AFD so bringing it here rather than prodding. Unable to find proof of praise in article (although music video apparently did feature in DVD extras, the song was on a "from and inspired by" soundtrack and did not appear in the film ([15]). Notability is not inherited. All I have found are very brief (one word) passing reviews when discussing DVD extras of [Crash (2004 film)]]. Kateshortforbob 12:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC) (ETA: I moved this article to removed quotation marks before nominating it. Original title "If I...". Kateshortforbob 12:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Comment. Administrators can see the deleted page log. Useight 15:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I looked at the deleted version of the page ("If I..."), and, it's a lot shorter, and, IMO, worded differently. Created by the same user, however. Same subject, however. SQL(Query Me!) 19:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I also looked and the new version is not eligible for speedy deletion as re-created content. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Illawarra Pelister[edit]

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

This appears to be a defunct team in a non-notable league, and the article provides no assertion of notability. Lou.weird 11:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 16:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Centre 2000[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Centre 2000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability. Defunct shopping mall. Nothing asserting notability in Google news archives. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 10:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This AFD has been spammed to many users by the above IP. See their contributions. Metros 03:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This was not "spammed", I simply invited those that participated in the original discussion to renew discussion. Not only are you threatened that this article might survive deletion, but you're so frightened by the idea you send me threatening messages to the talk page? How sad for you that you should care so much about what does or doesn't go up on someone else's website. Do you know what fascist countries do to stop the truth from being disseminated - they send threatening messages and prevent people from talking to each other. Whomever emailed me to warn me just took the first step down a dark road. Good luck with your "victory" here. User:68.144.31.71
      • Comment Oddly those who participated in the original discussion and !voted delete were not invited to this. Please see WP:CANVAS. Metros 23:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sigh' WP:CANVAS isn't a policy, merely a behavioural guideline. If you want to invite the rest of the Deletionist Brigade™ to the party, I see no way in which I can stop you? In fact, I see you've already done so. Let the debate continue in good faith.139.48.81.98 15:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment I've done nothing of the like and would appreciate it if you stopped your wild accusations and comparisons to facism. Metros 19:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the fact that the mall is demolished is not a ground for deletion; the total absence of any sourced notability is. The page needs sourcing to show that, at some stage, it was notable. TerriersFan 03:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As TruthbringerToronto stated in the first afd "Once notable, always notable. A mall that was notable when it was operating does not cease to be notable after it is demolished."  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 15:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability does not just expire, the building appears significant enough to retain an article about it. Burntsauce 16:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The one source that would lend me to move to a keep stance would be the one about the Armenian festival. The festival is a big event. But, it coincidentally ocurrs at the site of the former mall. The other three sources, to me, are not worth noting and appear to be lists of some sort indicating dates when stores were in business. Can you find anymore good secondary, verifiable sources like the one about the festival? --BlindEagletalk~contribs 19:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This was a small mall that was not notable while it was open. Internet references are, in and of themselves, not signs of notability. An article with the mall as the main focus from an independent source would help. Lacking that, delete. Vegaswikian 06:14, 3 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. Carlossuarez46 04:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Centennial Mall[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. Nothing asserting notability in Google news archives. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 10:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC) Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 10:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 04:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Consulate Siege[edit]

Italian Consulate Siege (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A fictional siege in a minor British TV series, of no provable independent significance, written in-universe, completely unreferenced. I believe this fails the guidelines for fictional subjects. Cruftbane 10:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 04:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Dividing Line[edit]

The Dividing Line (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Never Go Back (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unreferenced since creation, also tagged as lacking evidence of significance, episodes of a minor British TV series and there is sufficient information about the episode in the main article to satisfy the encyclopaedic purpose of documenting the series. Cruftbane 09:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Redirecting doesn't require an AFD W.marsh 19:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charla and Mirna[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Charla and Mirna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article about two Amazing Race contestants as a team.

Not worthy of a separate article, if these people were so notable they would surely deserve their own separate entry for each person. All of the information on the page is already covered in The Amazing Race 5 contestants, and as there is no significantly new information on their page, Charla and Mirna are not worthy of their own article.

The article has been nominated for deletion before, but the entire discussion basically consisted of WP:ITSNOTABLE without any reason or elaboration. I suggest this be redirected to The Amazing Race 5 contestants. Hoogiman 09:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete but ensure that whichever season of the programme is relevant (seasons 5 and 10?) contains their names. This doesn't meet the notability requirements for reality-show contestants, in that these people have not won a season's competition, or become notable for some activity outside the programme, or have appeared on two different programs, etc. Accounting4Taste 17:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I should have been more clear. These two have not appeared on two different programs such as "Survivor'" and "Amazing Race" -- like Rob and Amber, upon whom this does confer notability. Appearing on two different seasons of "Amazing Race" does not confer notability if Charla and Mirna didn't win in either instance, at least that's how I read the policy. Accounting4Taste 17:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Amazing Race 5 contestants. They are not notable for anything else. --Sc straker 14:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this alrady passed on AfD less than a year ago as a keep (not even a no consensus, or merge and redirect without deleting as suggested above. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep due to "consensus keep" earlier this year. They have been on more than one AR season, and I believe as individuals, more than one reality show (according to my quick read of last AfD). Still notable. R. Baley 21:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:NOTAGAIN, there are several issues addressed here that have not been addressed in the previous discussion. The only other assertions of notability in the article were: one had a guest appearance on one episode of a Celebrity Poker Challenge and one went on a few episodes of a Celebrity Challenge program on a cable network. An appearance on one of those programs alone is definitely not enough to assert notability. These subjects did not appear in any more major reality TV shows, nor have any of them won individually any show. The last AFD discussion failed to assert notability, with one exception, a comment of WP:GHITS. Can you say anything else to actually assert real notability towards the subjects of the article? Hoogiman 23:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Sc straker. Tiptopper 09:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Charla and Mirna, are, I believe, only notable for Charla being the only Amazing Race contestant with dwarfism. It is quite frankly condescending to give them an article constantly praising the team, as while they did race well on occasions, they were definitely not outstanding in any way. Redirect to Amazing Race 5 contestants, they are not deserving of their own article. User:IStalkKirby 13:06, 7 October 2007


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

The result was Speedy delete through WP:IAR. A hoax this obvious deserves no more attention. Fram 11:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jon H. 3:16[edit]

Jon H. 3:16 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a hoax. No Google hits for "Mikah Yasthabon" and no relevant Google hits for "Jon H"+"Greek Orthodox Church". Nothing for "Jon H 3:16" either. BencherliteTalk 09:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thought about that, briefly, then remembered that hoax isn't a speedy delete criteria. BencherliteTalk 10:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is that the topic lacks significant coverage to meet WP:N. Jreferee t/c 07:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alchemy (festival)[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non notable new festival with 375 visitors. I haven't found one reliable independent source reporting on the festival (a newspaper or some such). Fram 08:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There does not appear to be significant coverage of this event and thus fails WP:N. --BlindEagletalk~contribs 16:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it's news, not really an article. Can anyone find cites? Bearian 15:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the alumni or attendees were notable, I could support a keep...JJJ999 02:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DoNotDelete A quick search of burning related websites turns up several links to the festival. Outside of that it should be kept as it is a subset of a much larger sub culture that was started with Burning Man. As to cites I had no problem with finding posts on LiveJournal as well as MySpace about it. And given court rulings over the last couple of years blogging IS a form of journalism with all the protections that say a newspaper gets. For a wide range of comments and reviews on the festival search Dirty Southern Burners. CLHorus 18:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep then.JJJ999 23:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You agree to keep it based on the arguments of a single purpose account which have absolutely no grounds in any policy or guideline? Court rulings have no impact on Wikipedia's considerations of blogs, and Livejournal and MySpace are definitely not reliable sources for Wikipedia. As for "Dirty Southern Burners", coupled with Alchemy it gives only 5 Google hits[16], two of them from MySpace, one unrelated to the festival, and two of the DSB page with reports, indicating that it happened (which wasn't doubted), and that those who went had a good time. Great, but why exactly do you want to keep this article? Fram 07:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete by User:Philippe. Non-admin closure. ~Eliz81(C) 20:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trenches (band)[edit]

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

It does not follow the WP:MUSIC#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles guidlines. The band has not released an album, no sources are cited in the article except for a self made myspace page. Gh5046 07:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rapture debate[edit]

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

This unreferenced (and liberally ((fact)) tagged) article appears to be a fork of Summary of Christian eschatological differences and rapture, both of which cover the debate more than adequately.

As a substantial and unreferenced article, it reads as a personal essay. It is essentially as monograph. Cruftbane 07:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 04:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unreleased Victoria Beckham Album[edit]

Unreleased Victoria Beckham Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Demo album, unreleased and abandoned. NN per WP:MUSIC#Albums "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs and promo-only records are in general not notable." Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 07:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I feel its notable because of whos career it is. Beckham only officially released one CD and whether or not she is doing music is a big part of her career which is wikipedia worthy. This particular unreleased album has been the source of much speculation and news by the media and fans around her. I pretty much spelled it out in the article. Its not merely a bootleg or demo (there is mixes of booth in there) but its actually about 2 and a half cancelled albums that have leaked or been involved in her career. She even released 2 singles from these cancelled albums and released another 4 songs from them. So there is some notability there. There's a lot of disinformation floating out on the net about it; I think it would help if there was a place that was legit and had the legit history of it. Im not sure why it wouldnt be worthy by that; as its an intergral part of her career. However I guess thats an editors decision to make. --Thegingerone 07:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regular editors like you and me can't delete articles. It'll be up to whichever admin closes the AfD. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 08:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only demos/unrelease albums I could see being notable would be from Elvis, the Beetles, Frank Sinatra, or other Major Music stars. Unfortunately, if a regular singer has an Unrelease, Unpublished, forgotten albums, I don't see how those are notable (regardless if she was in the Spice Girls prior to her solo career). --Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 20:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability of artist is not automatically transferable their work. In the case of unreleased albums and bootlegs I hold that only if the artist is famous and revered on a par with (for example) The Beatles, and the unpublished album in question has large scale (underground) distribution, following, and - most importantly - independent reviews - then it is simply not notable. A1octopus 17:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G1 Pedro :  Chat  08:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny "Angles" Oakley[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Johnny "Angles" Oakley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails both WP:HOAX and WP:NOTE. Note zero G-hits for both "Johnny Angles Oakley" and ["Johnny Oakley" +Angles]. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 07:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. 2 year olds winning $17,000 in 2 hours of pool, dating an absurd list of celebrities before the age of 23, and winning a total of $157mil, all without a single mention anywhere else, kinda sails way past remote plausibility... -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 07:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted per author request. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 11:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Hills Divide (film)[edit]

The Dark Hills Divide (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The user who created this article would like to have it deleted, as explained by him on my talk page. ||| antiuser 05:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prison Mike[edit]

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

The subject matter (but not the actual content, which is poorly written) of this article has been merged to the parent article, The Convict, with consensus of three editors opposed by the original author. There are no GFDL issues. The character "Prison Mike" has only ever appeared in one episode of one show, and at this stage it does not seem likely that the character (actually merely a persona adopted by the main character) will appear in any other episodes. I suggest that we discuss this article with a view to deleting and restoring as redirect, rather than accept the protracted attempts of the original author to remove the link to the merged article. Tony Sidaway 05:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 04:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Guteklint[edit]

AfDs for this article:
    Stefan Guteklint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This musician is not notable; fails WP:MUSIC. The band in which he played bass for 1 year is notable, but he has not inherited that, as a quick google search confirms. Any useful content that could go in the article in the future could be merged. As it stands, there is no useful content. Markdsgraham 04:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Need It Feat. Dane[edit]

    Need It Feat. Dane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Delete nn single from nn album by red-linked (and nn) group, fails WP:MUSIC Carlossuarez46 04:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Dane Farwell[edit]

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

    Delete basically sub-stub BLP of nn stuntman and actor, fails WP:BIO with those red flags of non-notability of modern-day bios: we don't know where or when he was born Carlossuarez46 04:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 04:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    CryptArchiver[edit]

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

    Software article with no reliable third-party sources attesting to notability. A search turns up download sites, but not the kind of coverage required. Thomjakobsen 03:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 or at least, there's clearly no consensus to delete all of these. W.marsh 16:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    My Mirror Image[edit]

    My Mirror Image (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    My Best Friend's Baby's Baby and My Baby's Baby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    My Coffee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    My House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    My Friend With Money (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    His Story IV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    My Road to Nowhere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    My Perspective (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    My Therapeutic Month (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    My Night to Remember (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    My Fishbowl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    My Scrubs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    My No Good Reason (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    My Long Goodbye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    My Words of Wisdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Their Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    My Turf War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    My Cold Shower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    My Conventional Wisdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    My Rabbit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    My Point of No Return (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I've packaged in all the articles in the sixth season of Scrubs except for My Musical. Wikipedia:Notability states that articles should have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." These episodes haven't received much, or in most cases nearly any, coverage from secondary sources and consist of plot summaries, trivia, songs used, and other primary information. 17Drew 03:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Speedy Keep. They just need more sources. Like any other TV show or movie, primary information is going to dominate the article, as it should. In this case, it's Scrubs which I don't even need Google to know it's notable. And may I ask, why just season 6? All the other seasons still have their episodes. - Rocket000 03:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, Scrubs is notable, but individual episodes are not since notability is not inherited and there is not out-of-universe information from secondary sources. I only nominated season 6 since nominating every (or nearly every) Scrubs episode would be rejected since there would be too many articles for people to have the chance to evaluate each one's notability. 17Drew 03:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, please don't cite "essays" to argue your case, since consensus has not been previously established. Second, I meant because of the notability of Scrubs I don't have to use Google to know there's information out there on each episode, not the show itself. Actually, nevermind, I'll just point you to WP:IMRIGHTPOLICY ...once I write it. -Rocket000 04:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How about this then: The fact that the show is notable and has received coverage by secondary sources does not mean that each individual episode has received coverage by secondary sources. Referring to the essay is a quicker and less patronizing way of saying the same thing, where as referring to WP:IMRIGHTPOLICY (which would be an essay, not a policy) could easily be rebutted since there's no reasoning behind it. If you are aware of significant coverage by secondary sources, please provide it. From what I see, almost all of the information out there is from unreliable sources, and there's not enough information to provide an encyclopedic article with out-of-universe information from independent sources. 17Drew 07:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, fair enough, I just searched for an episode at random - My Turf War - on Goggle yielding independent information (which simply confirmed stuff already in the articles) in addition to reviews/commentary, which I added a few links to the bottom of the page. Honestly, I don't watch the show and have little interest in expanding the articles, so the burden of proof shouldn't be on me, even though that's what happen in a situation like this. If we had some really dedicated fans trying to keep these articles, significant references would be provided, and they would be kept. It all comes down to timing - when an article is nominated and who is reading/responding the nomination at the time. That's why things are nominated over and over again until the desired result is obtained. POV deletionism. Another thing, this season comes out next month on DVD[17], which will generate a lot more secondary source coverage. - Rocket000 16:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    From the sources Rocket provided i was able to start a critical reception passage on My Turf War, only a paragraph, but thats all i have time to do tonight. However, just from a quick google source, Rocket has instantly removed the main source of your complaint, Real-world info does exist, it just isn't on the articles yet. Be patient, remember that wikipedia has no deadline, and is not Paper, and you'll get your sources--Jac16888 18:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Two links were added. Two sources cannot sustain a whole article. Especially considering TV Squad is not a reliable source. It's published by Weblogs, Inc. and has little to no editorial oversight, essentially amounting to an organized blog. 17Drew 18:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats why i said it was a start, How many links do you want?. TV Squad has its own article, and its writers are "expert bloggers" basically another way of calling them reviewers. You want real world sources, and some have been added, and more will be--Jac16888 18:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, "expert bloggers" are "expert bloggers", meaning that the site doesn't have much editorial oversight and shouldn't be considered a reliable source. There should be enough sources to establish the article's notability and that the articles don't fail WP:NOT#PLOT. 17Drew 17:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment They don't need "more" references - they need "some" references. Without secondary sources, each episode must go. And primary sources should not dominate articles - television shows are not exceptions to Wikipedia requirements. Plot summaries do not make encyclopedic entries. MarkBul 04:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you, but why delete these, I think they're at least a start. Why have someone re-do what's already there? I always hated do the summary part anyway. With these in place, it'll be much easier to make worthy article. By the wording of your first sentence, you make it sound like there are no sources. No, they need more/other/different/additional references. Anyway, with all the books out there on TV show seasons, I know there are plenty to choose from. Or just pick up a Entertainment Weekly or a TV Guide. By the way, I meant primary information should dominate not primary sources. When you go to a article about a movie, your gonna want to know what it's about, who's in it, what's it rated, when it came out, what songs are in it, etc. That's primary information. Things obtain directly from the source. It should be dominate. I mean reviews are important, but, since those are POV, not so much in a encyclopedia. Facts are better. - Rocket000 05:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I am tired of seeing things like episodes of notable TV shows and albums by notable artists WP:LAWYERed into deletion based on WP:NOTINHERITED. A description of each episode of a wildly popular TV show is inherently encyclopedic, but would be way too long to merge into the parent article, so it makes sense to split them off from the parent article. Demanding multiple independent source coverage for every episode does nothing but remove relevant, encyclopedic content and make this website less worthwhile for people seeking information about the show. Some of us are trying to write an encyclopedia, here. Chubbles 06:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      If you disagree with subjects needing coverage by secondary sources, discuss that at Wikipedia talk:Notability. But the fact that you disagree with a pretty fundamental guideline doesn't mean that there isn't consensus behind it and that it shouldn't be followed. 17Drew 07:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Again, you are adhering to the letter of the policy while violating its spirit. The notability of Scrubs is unquestionable; the content of its episodes is the only reason it has an article, because if it did not have episodes, it would not be a TV show, no one would watch it and no one would write about it in reliable sources. The content of the episodes is encyclopedic. If you have a better suggestion for where this content belongs on Wikipedia, I'll hear it, but "in the circular file" is a foolish answer. Chubbles 07:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:NOT#PLOT unequivocally states that articles about fiction require out-of-universe information from secondary sources, in both letter and spirit. It also states that it applies to series and stand-alone works. An appropriate level of detail is already present in List of Scrubs episodes. 17Drew 07:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Wikipedia is not paper. Scrubs isn't Doctor Who but it's a notable TV programme and there is enough useful information about each show to warrant an individual article. How would wikipedia be improved by removing these pages? Nick mallory 06:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      It would be improved because it prevents Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate collection of information. TV episodes should not have articles unless they have out-of-universe information from secondary sources. 17Drew 07:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —17Drew 07:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete- Guys, this unquestionably violates WP:EPISODE (and yes, that's a consensus-approved policy). Read it, this is precisely the sort of thing it was written for. This is not WikiLawyering, it's called enforcing consensus, which is sort of what this place is supposed to run on. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 08:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep - the deletion proposal itself violates WP:EPISODE, which is quite specific about promoting merges and discouraging deletion. Furthermore, there are numerous additional sources available for most if not all of the episodes, including independent reviews from notable secondary sources, and cast and crew commentaries. "Needing improvement" is not grounds for deletion. --Ckatzchatspy 08:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - further to my note above, WP:EPISODE specifically states:

    "Avoid listing episodes for AfD unless they are completely unverifiable and original research."

    This is clearly not the case with these articles. --Ckatzchatspy 08:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    None of what you've said amounts to a speedy keep. Regardless, nobody has shown yet that "there are numerous additional sources", and it's hard to argue that cast/crew commentaries being published by ABC would be independent sources. WP:EPISODE suggests merging and redirecting before AfD. List of Scrubs episodes already has brief plot summaries, so I AfDed the articles since it seems unlikely that there are many people searching for a TV episode titled My Coffee, though I wouldn't oppose redirecting. 17Drew 09:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How about his, episode My Fifteen Seconds, a mid-season article of little importance compared to other episodes. Do a little rummaging, and oh wait, whats this [18]? Why its an article from a Nursing organisation, critising scrubs for portraying Nurses wrongly. Hmm, that sounds like an independent, 3rd party source providing critcism. Hows that?--Jac16888 10:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In reference to 17Drew's comment above about no one searching for the episodes, I actually have been. I've been looking at each episode page lately and I've been glad they were there finding them quite useful with all the information they contained. DeathJake34 7:48, September 28, 2007 (EST). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.219.224.111 (talk)
    See this is exactly what i mean, just a random person, not a regular editor, with 1 edit not including this one. Usually, this would make his !vote pointless, but here, its arguably the most valid argument? It shows that at least one person tonight has gone on one of these episode articles, not to edit, not because its on their watchlist, but because they actually want to read it. Remember, there are more readers than there are editors, and how do you think all these people would react if they came one day, and the info wasn't here. Do you think they'd say "oh well, it didn't meet WP:Episode and broke WP:NOT#Plot" I very much doubt it.--Jac16888 01:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My comment was stating that since it's unlikely that people will search for individual articles, I nominated them for deletion rather than redirecting them to List of Scrubs episodes. Most of what I've said still holds, and a comment like this doesn't affect whether or not the articles should exist, only if there should be redirects in their places. 17Drew 17:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Chubbles. --Itub 09:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, this nomination reeks of someone trying to WP:Point, and notability can be established, see My Musical, well on its way to be a FAC, and it won't be the last. Also Keep per Ckatz's quote from WP:EPISODE, actually telling you not to do this. Finally, Keep because, even if you do delete all these, it won't last, because these episode articles are essentially why thousands of people come to wikipedia, to read the episode articles for all the hundreds of tv shows that have articles. You've got a problem Drew, you're looking at this the complete wrong way, as an editor trying to follow policy(far too rigidly by the way). What you need to do is try and put yourselves in the shoes of a reader, remember there are far more people who come here purely to read articles than there are who edit. What do you think a person who misses an episode of a program and comes on here to find out what happened wants? a brief entry in a list, or a detailed plot summary with some other bits of info thrown in. And yes you can say something "they can go to another wiki", but they wouldn't. They would(and do, in July the scrubs article was the 40th most viewed article on the whole of wikipedia, [19]) and if they found no entry, that could put them off wikipedia, which is nothing without editors. Why do you think trivia sections are so common on episode articles, its because people, ordinary non-wikipedian people watch the show, notice something they think is amusing and decide to add it to an article. I know because thats how i became a regular editor, a plot summary wasn't long enough, so i added to it. I bet there are many, many other editors who started out this way. Lets say for a second you did delete all these articles, how long do you think it will be before someone signs up and makes a new one? If you want an example of this, look at The Todd's article. A while ago, the list of his "high-fives" had gotten too big so it was removed, it was unencylopedic anyway. But practically everyday, someone adds another one to the short paragraph making it bigger and bigger, till eventually we will have to remove in again. You need to stop thinking like an Editor, and try thinking like a reader. Sorry for the long rant--Jac16888 10:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh and by the way, what made you choose Scrubs? It wouldn't be because you though you could get these deleted easier because its not one of the most popular shows. Why didn't you nominate the Heroes articles? Would it be because you know that there would be that much backlash against you, they'd all be speedy kept, even though those articles are even worse than the scrubs ones, with about as much "real world" details as one of Dubya's speech's--Jac16888 10:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:POINT has nothing to do with this; WP:NOT#PLOT does. It's really quite straightforward; TV episodes that don't have significant out-of-universe information from secondary sources don't belong on Wikipedia. These aren't the first in-universe fiction articles I've nominated; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toy Meets Girl (redirect), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All My Circuits (delete), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Futurama products (2nd nomination) (delete), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of secondary characters from Futurama (delete). If people are coming to Wikipedia looking for plot summaries, that's a problem. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. I didn't "choose" Scrubs, by the way. I was surprised that there were article episodes for it, so I brought them here. If the Heroes ones are bad, they should be deleted or redirected too. In fact, that was going to happen but didn't because of a revamp project that doesn't appear to have done anything. 17Drew 11:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Jac16888. Nominations like this need to stop. POV deletionism, hatred of trivia, policycruft, and applying blanket exclusion rules to things that need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis are hurting Wikipedia. Some people forget what Wikipedia really is, and would be better off working for Encyclopædia Britannica Online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocket000 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep If Wikipedia has policies saying individual episodes aren't notable, then Wiki needs to change. Scrubs is very popular. Lots42 11:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all. There is List of Scrubs episodes which covers the matter in a quite appropriate level of detail, therefore merge is not necessary. I must note that the nominator is right citing WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:EPISODE and WP:N, and most keepers are quoting WP:NOTPOLICY, WP:PERABOVE, WP:ITSINHERITED and WP:ITSNOTABLE. We merge only when there's something to merge, and all I see are plots, plots, plots. Duja► 12:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete All: Per WP:EPISODE. These clearly do not meet that guideline. - Rjd0060 14:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all per the nomination, fails the WP:EPISODE guidelines. Burntsauce 17:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Once again, WP:EPISODE does not endorse deleting these articles. They are not "unverifiable" and they are not "original research", which are the only cases where the guideline even mentions AfD. In fact, these episodes quite specifically meet many of the points in the guideline that would suggest keeping the articles. There are qualified independent reviews available (not fan sites, but reliable sources such as IGN), and the episode commentaries do count as valid sources. Add even the few items other editors have found from quick searches, and WP:EPISODE dictates keeping and expanding the articles. --Ckatzchatspy 17:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete All You naughty boys didn't tell me there was already a List page of all these episodes. MarkBul 17:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep due to WP:EPISODE telling you specifically not to. No prejudice against a merge, however. Will (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Your reason doesn't support speedy keeping at all. I also don't see what there is to merge. List of Scrubs episodes already has brief plot summaries. Since WP:EPISODE's first suggestion for problem articles is to merge the episode articles, the next logical step is to finish the merge and get rid of the original article pages. 17Drew 18:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, but I think you've misunderstood part of the WP:EPISODE process. It specifically does not include deleting pages after a merge; if an article is merged, the page is redirected, so that the content remains accessible. It is never deleted, except possibly for cases I've mentioned earlier. --Ckatzchatspy 19:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Either way, the information becomes unavailable to the average reader. So how then does this support your !vote to speedy keep everything? 17Drew 17:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Because this is a vote regarding deletion. WP:EPISODE quite specifically recommends against deletion for these articles, as they are not OR or unverifiable. (In fact, given the availability of sources and the interest in improving them, the guideline recommends keeping them rather than merging.) Therefore, in this discussion, where the choice is between "delete" and "keep", it should be "keep". --Ckatzchatspy 04:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Anyone who's been involved with deletion discussions knows that keep and delete are not the only choices. And so far, it's been established that there is one reliable source (the IGN reviews) available for each article. That's hardly "significant coverage". 17Drew 05:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      (reset indent) It looks like Buddy TV has recaps that frequently mix in a review. TV Squad seems to have reviews for at least the later episodes. Google's free news archive has a number of reviews. Looking at "My Mirror Image," we might be able to establish notabiity for it with a Google archive search, but it would cost about six bucks. - Peregrine Fisher 05:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep – These establish they're episodes of Scrubs, therefore they are inherently notable (you can quote your essays all you like, essays are equally opinion.) A search turned up numerous potential sources that could be used, so yea… there's no problem. Matthew 18:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing is inherently notable', that's a pointless statement - and even if they were notable simply by virtue of existing they would still violate fundamental policies if we could not demonstrate that they have each been the subject of substantial independent coverage in reliable secondary sources (because Wikipedia is not a directory or episode guide and absolutely requires independent sources). The sooner we can get rid of the many hundreds of huge and useless articles on individual articles of programs, which really belong on fansites not an encyclopaedia, the better it will be for us. In this case we already have a list page, is there any particular reason why we need more than that? Apart from the fact that, for fans of any given show, more information is always better, especially if they were the one to glean it from their ninety-third viewing of the show? Most of the actual content appears to be written from observation of the episodes themselves, so if kept they will need very substantial rewriting to be an encyclopaedic analysis of the episode, its significance and its place in the story development - otherwise all we have is a series of massive forks of an overly bloated plot summary. Cruftbane 18:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Notable. Colonel Warden 21:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep It seems pretty apparent to me that the body of evidence in this case certainly points to them being kept. Being as they are from a fairly popular television show, they are are notable enough to at least be merged, if not kept. There is a plethora of sources on the episodes and with enough time they could certainly be expanded to completely satisfy WP:EPISODE beyond a doubt. Eternalmonkey 22:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      You may want to re-read the discussion. There's nowhere to merge the articles since List of Scrubs episodes already contains the plot summaries. 17Drew 17:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But it seems to me that most of the individual pages are more detailed than List of Scrubs episodes and that level of detail is neccessary for what the common user of wikipedia needs. The List of Scrubs Episodes summaries are not detailed or conclusive enough to be of any value. Eternalmonkey 12:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - If episodes are to be deleted because notability is not inherited (so.. what? We would only have one article per TV show?) then we would have to delete just about every article about every TV show episode on Wikipedia, leaving only those especially significant ones. Nah.. keep 'em. There's nothing in WP:EPISODE that says individual episodes should not have their own articles anyway, so whoever mentioned that seems to have got the wrong end of the stick. If some articles are poorly (or not at all) referenced, then fine.. they need to be improved. But that doesn't mean they should be deleted. Otherwise you would be saying that all stubs must be referenced on creation, or not created at all! EuroSong talk 01:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Scrubs is a popular show. Whenever I see an episode coming up on TV Guide, I always come to Wikipedia and search the title so see what the episode is about and if I have seen it or not. Definitely keep these articles. 65.40.190.100 03:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)— 65.40.190.100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    "few or no other edits"? Exactly what makes their comment so strong a Keep !vote. Because they are a reader, not editor--Jac16888 03:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes! Exactly. And how do you think they found this discussion? Hint: It wasn't a random walk though AfD noms. That in itself should be best reason to keep these. Why take away information from the reader? - Rocket000 06:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Does it matter? WP:NOT says what should be removed, not random readers. If people are using Wikipedia to look up plot summaries of show X, then WP:NOT#PLOT says that's not a good thing. 17Drew 17:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Question: "Why take away information from the reader?" Answer: "Does it matter? policy this policy that blah blah..." I'm sorry I think your intentions are misguided. I don't mean any offense, Drew. I know you do a lot of good for Wikipedia; but in this case, either you're misapplying policy or the current policy has major flaws. Since you like policies, which is fine (especially for an admin), I suggest keeping in mind WP:IAR, following this will stop other policies from getting in the way of improving Wikipedia. Rocket000 20:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And what improves Wikipedia is a very subjective judgment. WP:NOT#PLOT says that Wikipedia is worsened when its articles become dedicated to plot details. If you disagree with this, then the best solution is to re-evaluate if there is consensus behind it by discussing at WT:NOT, not by ignoring the policy and creating an arbitrary and subjective gap between policy and articles. 17Drew 20:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is only a gap if you have a rigid policy, which we don't. Policies are in place to help guide us when we are unsure, not to replace common sense. Policy is not law. Policies shouldn't be used to enforce the idea that Wikipedia is a simply an encyclopedia. It's way more then that.
    Yes, what improves Wikipedia is subjective. That's why we need to maintain a NPOV. The real consensus here on Wikipedia is shown though actions, not though the words of a few (even a couple thousand policy writers would not constitute as a true consensus, as it's just a relatively very small group). The majority of editors and readers are not going to go and discuss policy, but they are heard though their contributions.
    The thing is, editors and readers shouldn't have to fight for what we want Wikipedia to be. It's like having a speed limit that everyone ignores and becomes upset when they get a ticket. And more and more we're forgetting we put that speed limit sign there in the first place (like in real life). We spend time arguing with the self-appointed cops instead of simply taking down the sign. And this may sound silly, but we don't want to take down the sign even though we don't like it, because we do want the reckless drivers (vandals and spammers) to get ticketed, just not ourselves.
    This is no longer just about what was nominated, and I know we both agree this is not the place for this discussion, so may have the last word if you so wish. Thank you for being civil, and remember - policy-name dropping doesn't work on everyone. -Rocket000 00:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously we're unsure when there are people stating in good faith that the articles should be kept or that the articles should be deleted/redirected. Consensus has clearly been indicated through policy discussions from a group representative of the entire community. And although it'd be nice if there wasn't conflict between editors and readers, there always will be. That's why fans of their favorite band don't want it deleted; our policies set requirements for articles that some subjects just don't meet. It'd be nice to have the information, but it goes against the principles of an encyclopedia. The only thing being nominated here are the Scrubs episodes (since there are other seasons that should likely have the same fate). This isn't some new situation; other very similar discussions have also resulted in getting rid of the articles for the average reader (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toy Meets Girl, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil of the Future episodes, or most of the archives at Wikipedia:Television episodes/Review). 17Drew 01:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If this nomination was done purely because of current policy, then our policies are against the reader. Why do you think people keep making articles like these? I could put thousands of articles here if I followed your deletion criteria. You couldn't delete 'em fast enough. That shows that the current policy is not what the people want. No consensus. No policy.
    ...but, I don't think this is an example of policy in action. I think it's a misinterpretation. We can change the policy so this doesn't keep happening. So we don't have to keep wasting our time with this crap, and concentrate on actually make Wikipedia better. Just a thought. - Rocket000 06:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If the policy says that articles shouldn't exist, the appropriate action is to discuss the policy and change it if there is consensus against it (with a few exceptions like copyright). The solution is not to create a huge gap between what policies state Wikipedia is/should be, and what Wikipedia actually is/does. 17Drew 17:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Policy is not against the reader, it's against people watching episodes and writing plot summaries from them. It's against all original research, in fact. This is an encyclopaedia, not an episode guide or plot summary. We can have articles on episodes if the articles discuss the cultural and historical significance of the episode, but we can't have them if they are just plot summaries, because that violates the policies cited above. Cruftbane 20:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep and improve. - Peregrine Fisher 01:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete With respect to the nominator, the current process of discussing merges on the talk pages seems to be going quite well, although you didn't know about the guideline before this. Although, the fact that WP:EPISODE suggests you do the merge process instead of AfD, that doesn't mean you can't. At any rate. These aren't individually notable, and shouldn't be their own articles. TV.com and IMDB are not notability qualifying sources, they even border on unreliable sources. — i said 02:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Repeatedly, proponents of redirecting (through WP:EPISODE) have tried to justify the process by saying that "the information is not deleted". User:I, as a participant in the episode process, why would you endorse deletion now, instead of recommending the use of the merge process that you've just described as "going quite well"? --Ckatzchatspy 04:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly. We tried to justify that process saying the content wouldn't be lost. Technically speaking, that process was rejected, and the current process is not an episode-specific process, just the standard merge procedure. The new process does not preclude nominating for AfD, and certainly does not trump it. I really only support deletion because the entries at the List of Episode page aren't pitiful, and can be filled out well without being able to access the history; the main reason not losing the history was important. — i said 05:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: I don't think the original nominator even read most of these articles. My House points out the many references to the television show, House. As previously pointed out, the DVD will be out soon and editors can add more then. Wikipedia should be about adding information and improving them, not deleting them just because they aren't perfect. 134.68.74.83 18:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Hear ye hear ye. It is sad when the first thing I thought of as I skimmed this discussion was no less than "Damn, that's a lot of friggin policies cited." SO here is why I believe these articles should remain. Not by policy or guideline or essay, but through the idea that Wikipedia is built upon.
    A man tries to build a house. He has a few of his neighbors come to help. They are working very nicely and organized-like, like you would expect from people who are trying to build a house.
    Soon, a building inspector comes by. "Those stairs don't look right," the inspector says, "and by these measurements, they are not wide enough. The man replies, "They aren't finished yet." The inspector ignores him and sends someone to demolish the house.
    Wikipedia, as a general rule, is a work-in-progress. Wikipedia is not published all at once. It evolves and grows. These articles are still being written, albeit slowly. Clearly, these episodes have significance, and secondary sources will soon be available to them. However, I see no reason to 'demolish the house' as it were before it is even close to being completed. Let the editors do their job. Go and add to "the sum of human knowledge", not detract from it. Thank you. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 03:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep all Through reviews, audio commentaries, DVD extras... all have the potential to be sourced encyclopedic articles. At the very least, use that hashed together redirect guideline (which is often mistaken as "policy," though such mistakes a allowed to slip by...) The JPStalk to me 06:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep all. There's no reason to believe that secondary sources have not covered every single episode of this series fairly extensively - this is a television show which airs on a major American network. Hence, by whatever guidelines are currently in vogue at the moment, this would be "notable". --- RockMFR 03:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep all Martync84 10:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep all WiseGuyScunthorpe Perhaps some of these articles need improvement but all of these descriptions of Scrubs episodes are intrinsicly useful to Wikipedia. Also most of these people who want to delete have not read the WP:EPISODE guidelines on the subject.~ --WiseGuy 16:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete All — They are plot summaries of non-notable tv show episodes. It's really simple: they are not encyclopaedic. To the closing admin; quite an array of comments from redlink accounts to sort into the circular file... --Jack Merridew 11:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all and redirect. This is an up and down case per the standards asserted at WP:EPISODE, as well as the requirement that individual episode articles establish real-world notability grounded in reliable third-party sources. It should be noted that almost every single keep !vote above is either an expression of fan support or else makes the fundamental error of inherited notability. Wikipedia is NOT a fansite, it is an encyclopedia with guidelines and policies which determine what content we have and how it should be contextualised. The fact that there exists already a list of episodes page with summary plot descriptions is sufficient to the requirements of encyclopedic treatment. These better belong at a Scrubs wikia. Eusebeus 16:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet Wikipedia's rules hold a vote to be in much greater standing than all of the policies on its site, no matter who votes. These votes count just as much as any other; no matter what WP:AADD may say, especially since WP:AADD is not even policy and just an opinion of a few wikipedia contributors.Eternalmonkey 22:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that this is not a vote, and some people's comments are disregarded if not based in policy. i said 00:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was keep. W.marsh 19:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Dedication 2[edit]

    Dedication 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Deleted in a group nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Da Drought 3 despite arguments for keeping this individual article. That deletion was overturned by deletion review, with consensus to relist individually. Some sourcing can be found in the AFD, the DRV, and in the infobox of the article. Is it notable? GRBerry 03:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The fact that mixtapes generally aren't notable doesn't mean this particular one isn't.P4k 04:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My main issue with mixtapes is they can never really expand to have sales, certifications, themes, background info, production, critical reviews etc. I know this one has a few reviews, but all this article will ever be is a track list and an infobox. Spellcast 15:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know. From the sources I'm aware of there's enough for at least like a paragraph that would address some of the topics you list (I think several reviews mention his criticism of Bush in the final track, for example). Whether that's enough to justify an article is up to you, I'd just really like this to be about "Dedication 2" rather than "mixtapes"; it's received as much media attention and reviews as some albums so it's not really a useful distinction.P4k 22:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Better sources than those have been produced.P4k 09:09, 4 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. Consensus is that there is not enough reliable source material to expand the existing material into a neutral and unbiased compilation of previously written, verifiable facts. -- Jreferee t/c 07:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ida Frabboni-Saletta[edit]

    Ida Frabboni-Saletta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Does not pass WP:BIO. The only English source for her existence is grg.org and of the 21 Ghits, many are mirrors and none contain any substantial coverage of or information on the subject of the article. Thus it has little potential for expansion and contains no information aside from what is present in List of living supercentenarians. She may be the oldest Italian one day, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Cheers, CP 02:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC) Clarification: My basic problem with this article is that there is little, if any, information out there that could be added to this article aside from what is already present at the list of living supercentenarians. Cheers, CP 04:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note For Closing Admin: User:Bart Versieck has posted a message on the World's Oldest People Forum telling people to come to this page and vote against deletion: "Please, all of you, do vote against deletion of it at this page." In case the message is removed by the user, a screen shot can be provided privately. Cheers, CP 01:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Robert already did this before me many times for other articles about supercentenarians in danger of being deleted, people. Extremely sexy 11:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I didn't tell people 'how' to vote, I told people there 'was' a vote. There is a difference. Ryoung122 17:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    'Comment: No, but since you are in fact the moderator of a yahoo group about the world's oldest people, it's logical you then always imply to vote against deletion of the article mentioned, hence. Extremely sexy 14:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The Gerontology Research Group publishes here a table in the peer-reviewed journal Rejuvenation Research. She's already one of the oldest women alive (33rd or so). --Dhartung | Talk 04:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or redirect Verifiable, per Dhartung above, but there are no sources (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) with which to actually write an article or to say anything about her at all. Once she starts getting some media attention (say, in Italy), then we can write an article on her. Until then, per nom, the single entry in List of living supercentenarians is sufficient. Most of the other super-oldsters with articles have at least have had a profile done about them in a newspaper or something. cab 04:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. No information besides the bare bones for a supercentenarian article, her mention on List of living supercentenarians is sufficient enough. --RandomOrca2 20:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or Keep, but improve. - *Comment. The bottom-line issue with this article is NOT that she COULD be a 'notable' person...it's that someone started an article prematurely, and no effort has been made to upgrade it or fill it out. In regards to how old someone must be to be 'notable,' there is generally a sliding-scale: the older, the more likely one is to be considered notable. However, there must also be a degree of subjectivity. Note the list of living supercentenarians covers the objective aspect of extreme ages: anyone validated to be 110 or older is listed, regardless of whether they are 'still alive' or a bedridden vegetable. The primary purposes of adding additional, individual articles are twofold: one is to note a person's individual records achievement (i.e. 'oldest person,' 'state recordholder,' etc); two is to flesh out a more subjective understanding. Thus, we can say that Asa Takii was the oldest person in Japan in 1998 and, at 114, one of the top 100 oldest people ever. But Marie-Rose Mueller doesn't meet any personal-records criteria. Yet the article there might still be arguably notable because she provides a good subjective case, a qualitative analysis of a person at age 111. For example, Ms. Mueller doesn't live in a nursing home; doesn't like to watch TV; takes few prescription pills, etc. Ms. Mueller might even be a good article candidate due to her history: born in the tiny part of Alsace retained by France after France lost most to Germany in the Franco-Prussian war, her existence is a living link to an almost-forgotten aspect of history. With Ida Frabboni-Saletta, someone COULD make a convincing case IF she were well-cited in the news AND the article here gave a good subjective history (i.e. born in what is now Austria-Hungary, migrated during war, etc). But we don't have that. All we have is a restatement of everything we know from the current list of living supercentenarians. Even worse, however, is that when people see no redlink, they are often moved to create an article. With a perma-stub attached an no sourcing, this article's existence actually makes it less likely for someone to realize that more could be done here (if it need be done). Finally, this article was created at a time when Ms. Frabboni-Saletta was THOUGHT to be the oldest living person in Italy. Later someone older was discovered. Yet Ms. Saletta is still living, so this article could improve and her notability could increase. Thus, I would recommend: *Delete or Keep but Improve. We could either delete this article now, without prejudice (allowing its recreation later, should circumstances change), or we could keep the stub, but note that it needs to be expanded or risks future deletion. -- Ryoung122 00:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep, as per Robert Young, with the addition of an expansion tag though, as he also suggested then. Extremely sexy 12:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep -- Statistician 22:47, 01.10.2007 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 20:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, explain your reasoning, as AfD is not a vote. Cheers, CP 22:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete of course, no legitimate claim to notability here. Congratulations to Ms. Frabboni-Saletta for her longevity, but that's not the kind of thing that gets you into an encyclopedia... PrinceGloria 10:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Rafael Acosta[edit]

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

    Not notable person DimaG 02:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

    FTPEditor[edit]

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

    Software article with no sources attesting to notability. A search only turns up the usual download sites. Thomjakobsen 03:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was early close as keep, no chance of this ending in anything else. See WP:SNOW. Neil ム 10:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikitruth[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Wikitruth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    That is right, I am nominating the Wikitruth article for deletion. Here's why. All the attention this website got was a brief spurt of "Hey, look at this!" Since then, no one outside of the Wikipedia and Wikitruth communities have given non-negligible attention to it. If I remember correctly, things that get their fifteen minutes of fame on the Internet from Slashdot and then are not heard of again do not constitute notable subjects. MessedRocker (talk) 02:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (resetting indent) - Ok I'm not a fan of arguing but my first comment was that it put Mr. Wales on the defensive (calling it hoax) not because he rewarded it with his glorious presence or something. I think something is very wrong with this Afd since it is already the 5th time and most of them is based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and a Google screwup.--Lenticel (talk) 07:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - I'd also like to say that perhaps being nominated for deletion a number of time and kept each time would suggest that this should not be nominated again. Ever. Fosnez 04:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment On DRV recently DGG proposed that a "keep" result should give an article a six-month immunity from AFD, which sounds good to me. At least this was, what, three months? I would disagree that any number of nominations means permanent immunity, though. Consensus can change (look at BLP). --Dhartung | Talk 04:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would argue that it would take increasing periods after successive keeps. I dont regard a 2nd nomination after 3 to 6 months abusive, nor do i regard even rapid renomination after non-consensus abusive. But this was not the 2nd nomination. The first nom in April 06 was no-consensus; reasonably nominated again in Oct 06, and the decision was keep. So far, so good. The 3rd in April 07 was speedy keep. Again, a reasonable interval, but given that strong confirmation ofthe previous decision, a rapid renomination would not be in order. So the 4th just two months later in June 07--and after first removing citations from the article--which is not a sign of good faith-- was already abusive. It was properly closed again as another speedy keep. That should settle the matter for some time to come. This 5th Afd 3 months after that is abusive, is an attempt to misuse WP process, and I would suggest an immediate snow close. Two speedy keeps in a row establishes a very firm consensus. Unless there is some evidence that the general view of these articles has turned sharply more negative, this nomination was totally unjustified. An individual might disagree with all the keeps, but to insist on repeating the process again after only a few months is POINT at the least. At the least, SNOW close, keep. And, though we dont have a rule yet to say it, in my opinion any further AfD should require the permission of Deletion Review. DGG (talk) 05:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The fourth AfD was speedy kept because it was a bad faith nomination, not because it was too soon or because the article was worth keeping (that was not discussed in the two hours the AfD was open, only the motivation of the nominator). Such an AfD should in no way count as a real AfD, and to claim that this AfD is too soon after that one is therefor incorrect. Fram 11:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, notability, once attained, stays to remain. --Dhartung | Talk 04:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question Was its notability ever really established though or is that being based on the survival of past AfDs? It is an honest question, I'm not trying to upset anyone. I've known about it for quite awhile, as have most of you here I imagine, but that does not equal notability. Some of the google news archive stories seem to mention them in passing, although I admit that I haven't looked very closely at them yet. I am on the fence on this one right now. daveh4h 04:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete These sources are too weak. Very few are actually about the subject of this article, and those that are are largely not features, but just blurbs, and the Metafilter source isn't an article at all. If no better sources are found, there's really no other choice but to get rid of it. Some of the material could be merged to criticism of Wikipedia.--Cúchullain t/c 06:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. This is just one of several Wikipedia critical websites on the web, and it is not, and has not ever been, one of the largest or most active of the websites. The sources which have been used to keep the last times (and, I am sad to see, probably this time) are trivial, Wikitruth is mentioned in passing when interviewing some person critical of Wikipedia who just happens to run the website. Sources aside, and judging on merits, the website has not published a single article, opinion, editorial, or whatever, which has been taken seriously by the mainstream media, a journalist looking for something critical to write about Wikipedia will not be turning to Wikitruth for such material, A journalist will be looking for mistakes, gaps, and falsehoods in Wikipedia articles, not the rants and attack pages over contributors which Wikitruth provides. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This has survived four AfDs, trying to remove it now is purely procedural. It's clearly established as notable; the fact that there are other, more popular criticism sites, has nothing to do with anything. If it was notable then, it's notable now. Xihr 06:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep for the record I hate this fucking site, its nothing but slimy attacks on people like FCYTravis, Kelly Martin, SlimVirgin, Danny, etc... the list goes on... but at this point this is becoming extreme WP:POINT material. I'm all for keeping any article thats already survived 4 AFD debates. Even if that article is something as disgusting as this website.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Sorry, I thought this was obvious. There are a lot less worthy website articles out there, why pick on "close-call" ones just for the sake of argument. One nomination is enough. More just take time away from making Wikipedia better. -Rocket000 06:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Wikitruth has an article on this very thing: Quintuple Jeopardy. Colonel Warden 06:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep This is the fifth AfD? Is it going to be nominated every week with essentially an 'I don't like it' rationale until it somehow slips through the net? It meets Wikipedia notability guidelines so it should be included and borderline abuse of process like this doesn't make Wikipedia look any better. Nick mallory 07:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Even the nominator seems to admit that it has met WP:WEB there is no "temporary" nature to this. JASpencer 09:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nominator and per Danny. ElinorD (talk) 09:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep notability established. Keeping this site as an article in no way endorses its contents. Quatloo 09:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, not sufficiently notable for an independent article. They are mentioned a few times in Criticism of Wikipedia, and that's good enough. It looks, however, like the outcome is going to be keep, in which case this article should not be nominated again for at least a year. Everyking 11:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I actually don't mind Wikitruth (gasp!) but the sources here are quite poor, (I actually read them) only about 2 or 3 which are from very reputable/paper publications, and even they don't particularly cover wikitruth in depth. Looking at the website, it is not edited/contributed to very often now. I reckon if we give it 6 months, it will hardly be edited at all and we could justify a delete. So I've no particular view on this AfD but just wanted to say that if you read the sources, they're not very convincing, and about half the references are to wikis or blogs or something.Merkinsmum 12:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge into Criticism of Wikipedia. There's no question that they've become notable enough to have been covered in several reputable publications; however, these mentions generally only mention the website as part of the larger whole of Wikipedia criticism, and don't cover Wikitruth itself enough for a full verifiable article to be written on it. Thus, a merge to the main Criticism article would be best. --krimpet⟲ 13:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This is a wate of time, as nothing has changed since the last AfD only a few months ago, and the nominator's rationale is completely refuted by well-established guidelines on notability, namely. WP:N#Notability_is_not_temporary. Tarc 13:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep the site is relativly notable. -Icewedge 15:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as notable and sets a bad impression removing criticism site articles when there are many less notable articles about, SqueakBox 17:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Meets WP:N as the website has received non-trivial coverage from multiple independent sources. Now that I've read their main page I see they reported on the Richardson family murders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article which was deleted out of process [20] for over a month. That really makes me wonder how often things like this go unnoticed. Burntsauce 17:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The above reasons are good, but I want to add something. I don't see what's "wrong" with the article except that it describes a site critical of Wikipedia. It's sourced, the sources are verifiable, the article is neutral, and it's survived several AFDs already. If anything, the repeated attempts to delete this article only helps prove Wikitruth's point. --UsaSatsui 18:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge with Criticism of Wikipedia per Cúchullain. I think people tend to overestimate its importance because of the strong emotions tied to it one way or the other. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 22:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep It's crap, but we have other articles about conspiracy theories and the like, and to deny their existence would be uncivilized. Well, MessedRocker, at least you ended up as an article on WikiTruth, headlined "The Fifth Times the Charm!!". Subheadline is "Wikipedia tries, tries again." All because Wikipedia allowed you to make a nomination, oh the shame! There's untruth, and then there's Wikitruth. Wanna read the article? Neither do I. Mandsford 01:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I know that I will probably be placed with the infamous "spa tag", but I can only assure you that I am a concerned follower of this site. This in mind, I will refrain from making a vote; yet, I must comment. I just want a little editorial balance here. To get right down to it, Wikitruth shouldn't prevent us from recognizing the vast and incomparable achievements, contributions, and discoveries that are the product of our Wikipedian culture. That's just common sense. Of course, the people who appreciate its crotchets are those who eagerly root up common sense, prominently hold it out, and decry it as poison with astonishing alacrity. I have never been in favor of being gratuitously hectoring and have always been a fierce proponent of assuming good faith. But I have also never been in favor of sticking my head in the sand or of refusing to punish Wikitruth for its snippy deeds. In many ways, given a choice of having Wikitruth spread their warped gasbags via this poorly written Encyclopaedia article or having my bicuspids extracted sans Novocaine, I would embrace the pliers, purchase some Polident Partials and call it a day. After having read this, you may think that as distasteful as it might sound, Wikitruth is basically a bad organization. Nevertheless, you should always remember that in a larger context, Wikitruth's sick, abysmal crusades remind us that acts of jingoism continue in our midst. I could write more on the moral depravities of this site, but alas I am a mother and my child needs feeding. Good day, SweetOleander 02:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Yes, "fifteen minutes of fame" that has been recorded in several independent sources is the standard for notability here. This notability, once conferred, remains. Obvious keep per Wikipedia policies and standards. ◄Zahakiel► 02:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Colonel Warden. Ironic that they have such an article! Seriously, though, I am convinced from the above discussion that the site does have notability, even if it does criticize our project and some of our editors. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Big Box Storage[edit]

    Big Box Storage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable business. Only third-party source is a local fluff-piece when the company was starting out, which isn't a reliable indicator of notability. Thomjakobsen 02:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Speedy delete-CSD-G11, . Tiptoety 02:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Doctor Krupov[edit]

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

    Non-notable villain of Our Man Flint. Clarityfiend 02:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I am also nominating the following related pages because they are his equally unnotable cohorts:

    Doctor Wu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Doctor Schneider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


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

    The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Virgil W. Magee[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Virgil W. Magee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Fails WP:BIO - no non-trivial coverage of subject in WP:RS. Leuko 01:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Chick Bowen 22:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Matthew Moretz[edit]

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

    Non-notable biography. Not covered by secondary sources aside from one archive linked article, which requires registration & payment. Main claim for notability is a youtube page, which doesn't have high view or subscription numbers by youtube standards. All other links/references are by publications which appear to be related to or affiliated with the subject. I tagged this article just over a monh ago for lack of references or notability, references provided so far don't support notability. Optigan13 02:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I am also nominating the following related pages because [Redirect page to nominated page] See also two additional pages linked to main article from its what link here:

    Rev. Matthew Moretz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chick Bowen 01:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Good article criteria requires an article to stay focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details. Consensus is that this content fork is an inappropriate spinout whose subject matter could be covered in the National Civilian Community Corps if that article stayed focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details. -- Jreferee t/c 07:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    NCCC accomplishments[edit]

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

    A copy of National Civilian Community Corps, full of personal quotes, as well as advertising for the Corps itself. Unnecessary in the end. Jmlk17 00:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Although the number of quotes listed is extensive, they are informative, authoritative, accurately referenced. They are in almost all cases (or in every case, given the vagueness of the definition of "fair use") excerpts that qualify under "fair use" in relation to the length of the originals. They are from reputable (at a minimum) sources, referenced so their authenticity can be verified. The content of the quotations provide useful information compatible with an encyclopedia entry. The Heading "Accolades" could be deleted and subsections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 (3.1 NCCC Disaster Mitigation, Emergency Preparedness, Disaster Relief and Recovery / 3.2 NCCC Fire Fighting and Fire Mitigation / 3.3 NCCC and Environmental Conservation / 3.4 NCCC and Education) could become Level 2 sections. Given that the editor who moved all this content off the main page also added a new Criticism, the objection may not be purely confined to Wikipedia standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coterminous (talk • contribs) 01:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge. This information is useful but I'd bet money it already appears on the NCCC site. I see part of this is already on the main NCCC site, and think that anything worthwhile can be summarized and merged into that site. Renee 02:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please Note. Below is the comment from the editor who created this page by removing this text from the main National Civilian Community Corps page, followed by a response from me, the editor who added the material. This page does begin with a repeat of some material at the National Civilian Community Corps site, followed by new and non-repetitive sections. The damning Criticisms that are posted at the National Civilian Community Corps website at Wikipedia for all the world to see are the sort of comments that, based on the information I compiled, are unwarranted and are similar to comments which have previously damaged the reputation and ultimately endangered the actual existence of a very valuable organization. I nonetheless exercised restraint in leaving them on the page in an effort not to impose my perspective unilaterally. However, balancing that characterization, and constructing a comprehensive site, requires detail. I may have erred in using typography to make the entry more readable (and to highlight geographic and programmatic scope), but which could be construed as non-objective.

      The material at this page is accurate, documented, and relevant. I agree with the previous comment, "Merge", that it should be edited (with respect and restraint) and merged back into one entry. 'Reworking OK, someone made some spectacular additions, well researched and all spot-on. The problem is, almost all of it is in need of some serious re-writing and starts to make the article too long. See What_wikipedia_is_not. I'm going to start on this- it's going to involve some deletions. Please don't take them personally, however, Wikipedia isn't meant to be a legal brief in defense of NCCC nor an advertisement in favor of it. I'm also going to transfer much of this to a new but separate article on "NCCC Accolades" that will be linked in the main article heading. --LoverOfArt 23:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)' 'Hello, Lover of Art The additions you have moved off the National Civilian Community Corps page are/were mine. Thank you, I guess, for the compliment, but I ask you to carefully consider how to evaluate whether content is germane or extraneous. The "What Wikipedia is not" page you reference starts off: "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia," which links to an internal definition: "a comprehensive written compendium." As I tried to indicate, NCCC is a complex organization. I am not (nor have I ever been) an NCCC employee or contractor, but I know that it works with a wide variety of organizations, has been involved in a wide variety of activities, is responsive to local, state, regional, national priorities, and assumes considerable responsibilities. Pulling together this information in an authoritative and verifiable manner takes space. To "streamline" too much would be like asking a blindfolded person to characterize the proverbial elephant based on a touch or two. I left the Criticisms section alone. Others are free to expand on that if they choose. If more authoritative and documented positive feedback exists, so be it.

      So, please consider the broader context of unilateral decision-making. Let the Wikipedia entry for NCCC be comprehensive. Seek advice, or pause, regarding how best to tone down any material you genuinely feel is in need of that, or that you think is superfluous. And I hope you will be receptive to some give and take. And then, in my informed opinion, the pages should be merged into a single, comprehensive entry." -- Coterminous 11:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Footnotes - I realize that the Footnotes (labeled "References") to the NCCC article need work. (At least they are all current, valid links.) The question contributors like this editor ask themselves is whether continued expenditure of time is worthwhile, if the content is immediately and perpetually at risk of becoming ephemeral. But if a reasonably complete article is going to be persistently posted, details to the Footnotes can certainly be added. -- Coterminous 15:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here is What The National Civilian Community Corps Page Looked Like on 7 Sept. 2007. If editors are going to be asked to comment on the material marked for potential deletion, they may want to compare it to the previous version (below). You will notice the absence of any accomplishments and the presence of a Criticisms section. The information is skewed, out of date, there are no footnotes. While it may seem that I added too much, rest assured that I had to select from (leave out) much additional positive information. If an editor wants to discuss any of the specific topics added, that is fine: Program Accomplishments, NCCC Disaster Mitigation, Emergency Preparedness, Disaster Relief and Recovery, NCCC Fire Fighting and Fire Mitigation, NCCC and Environmental Conservation, NCCC and Education, NCCC Work for People With Disabilities, NCCC and Veterans, The NCCC Experience, NCCC Photographs and Videos. Deleting all of the added content would be a disservice to Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Civilian_Community_Corps&oldid=156185378 This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 128.172.143.124 (Talk) at 02:07, 7 September 2007. It may differ significantly from the current revision. (diff) ← Older revision | current version (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Example Of An AmeriCorps*NCCC Team- Aged 18-25 (Source: Team Eagle 2, Perry Point, MD Campus: Service Year 9, 2003) AmeriCorps*NCCC, or National Civilian Community Corps (NCCC), is an AmeriCorps program in which 18 to 24-year-olds dedicate 10 months to address national and community needs. 1,200 members are trained annually at and operate from one of three regional campuses, located in Sacramento, California, Denver, Colorado, and Perry Point, Maryland. They travel with their team throughout a multi-state region to a series of service projects, each typically lasting six to eight weeks. Projects fall in the areas of the environment, education, public safety, unmet human needs, disaster relief, and homeland security. Teams frequently work with non-profit organizations such as Habitat For Humanity and the American Red Cross, tutor students in public schools, and build trails for various national and state parks. While in the program, members receive room and board, a modest living stipend of approximately $13 a day, health coverage, and, upon successful completion of the program, a taxable education award of $4,725. Members are required to complete a minimum of 1,700 hours of service, including 80 independent service hours. As of 2006, NCCC cost $27,859 per member for each 10 month service year. $4,725 of this is accounted for via the taxable education award, with the balance going toward salaries and operating/living expenses across the four campuses and numerous project sites. History The NCCC program was loosely based on the depression era Civilian Conservation Corps, although in practice, the differences between NCCC and CCC projects were quite marked in both practical intent and outcome. The Civilian Conservation Corps focused its efforts on substantial, necessary domestic works projects (Building bridges, paving roads, constructing buildings, etc), whereas the NCCC model trends more heavily towards the "social program" archetype. The program was created in 1993 by Bill Clinton as a demonstration program charged with determining: [1] Whether federally funded residential service programs can significantly increase the support for national and community service Whether such programs can expand the opportunities for young men and women to perform meaningful, direct, and consequential acts of community service in a manner that will enhance their own skills while contributing to their understanding of civic responsibility in the United States Whether retired members of the armed forces can provide guidance and training under such programs that contribute meaningfully to the encouragement of national service Whether domestic national service programs can serve as a substitute for the traditional option of military service. While some of the primary motivations cited in the 1993 inception of AmeriCorps*NCCC changed and evolved over time, the basic focus of the program has remained the same (environment, education, public safety, unmet human needs, disaster relief, and the addition of a "homeland security" heading in 2002/3) In 2005, the Office of Management and Budget issued an assessment citing the NCCC program as being "ineffective", leading to drastic cuts in funding for the program. [2] Much of the Fiscal Year 2006 and 2007 funding issued to NCCC was directly specified as being intended for hurricane relief in the Katrina impacted upper-gulf region. In 2006, The Office of Management and Budget announced the campuses in Charleston, SC and Washington, DC would be closed due to cost inefficiencies inherent to those campuses. 50% of the remaining NCCC will be deployed to the Gulf Coast to aid with Hurricane Katrina relief until at least 2010. Criticisms The NCCC program has met with sharp criticisms from some fiscal conservatives who accused it of being a "boondoggle". [1] Most notably, Libertarian pundit and commentator James Bovard has been one of the most vocal Americorps NCCC opponents, calling it a "waste and fraud" [2], in addition to dedicating an entire chapter of criticisms of the program in his book "Feeling Your Pain: The Explosion and Abuse of Government Power in the Clinton-Gore Years" External links Official Website This article about an organization in the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. Categories: United States organization stubs | AmeriCorps organizations. -- Coterminous (talk · contribs · logs) 17:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep but it does need a lot of work. Merging it back into the main article is probably not the best choice due the its length. The quotes should in many cases be edited to only include the most important points with a link back to the original source for those wishing to read the entire statement. There may be some question as to the inclusion of this type of data in Wikipedia, but that is over my head and needs to be discussed and explained by those who fell it does not belong. One more point to keep in mind is that this article and its parent are the work of a very new editor. It would be wrong to delete it with out first providing guidance on how it can be improved. -- Dbiel (Talk) 20:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - I'm the one who originally culled this from the main article and put it into an article of its own (you can see my own thoughts on this on the Americorps NCCC talk page. I vote to keep the new NCCC Accomplishments article once wikified and cleaned up, however, I wouldn't exactly cry if it were deleted. That particular entry certainly isn't appropriate for the original article. If it is appropriate at all, then it must be in the context of its own independent entry. If not, c'est la vie. I can certainly understand how huge swaths of opinion quotes could be perceived to be self-promotion and unencyclopedic. The original editor is complaining that it is "unfair" since the original article had a criticisms section, but not an accomplishments section. I really fail to see how this pertains to this discussion, as the article now has such a section. I guess the issue is "how long can we make it". If we can make the "accomplishments" section enormous (with nothing more than quotes, which tend to be "fluff" in terms of relevant fact) then wouldn't that empower someone to come along and post hundreds of quotes critical of NCCC? It's just dangerous ground, and frankly, not what wikipedia is about. As far as my adding a criticism (a single sentence) I would have it known that I am a NCCC alum, while the original editor, by their own admission, is not. If we are going to get into the whole "who is more qualified to edit" debate, I think I win that one too. -- LoverOfArt 21:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete - (and merge back the small amount of properly sourceable material) as a classic POV fork. To make a separate article for the accomplishments, in order to remove it from the contamination of an article with the criticisms, is as improper a use of wikipedia as can easily be imagined, and a complete violation of the letter and spirit of NPOV. This is made even less defensible because the criticisms section in the main article is a mere paragraph, and the material in the new article is an extensive and uncritical accumulation of human interest testimonials mostly from the organizations own website. The editor responsible for most of this material is a SPA ip, 71.166.147.45, which resolves to Reston Virginia. The editor responsible for splitting it also has admitted COI, and an apparent atitude of WP:OWN. There have been previous edit warring over the existence and extent of material on the attempt of the present Administration to destroy this admirable program, (yes, I do have some feelings on the subject myself--but I express them by advocating a single NPOV article with content from RSs). -- DGG (talk) 05:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I completely disagree that my status as an NCCC alumni suggests COI and your assertion that I'm taking a WP:OWN position is absolutely, 100% wrong. This article is particularly susceptible to NPOV issues for a number of reasons. Given the "social program" dynamic to NCCC, there is an undeniable political component to the programs existence- ones own political philosophies will usually dictate how they feel about the program, which in turn can lead to NPOV editing on both sides of opinion. The programs existence is presently in some turbulent waters, which provides motivations for NCCC employees/partisans/interested parties to use the wikipedia article as a soapbox, which is what I believe we are seeing here (I'm sure none of us were really surprised that the domain of this particular editor resolved to the beltway)- and lastly, the sort and type of individual who tends to join NCCC as a corps member definitely trends towards the "idealist" archetype; getting NPOV additions of fact from alumni can be a bit tough, even though many of them show a lot interest in the article. I take a great deal of pride in my NPOV stance on this article and NCCC in general. I am absolutely receptive to the comments and arguments of people who say it's a waste and a boondoggle (after all- I saw plenty of NCCC waste and offensively disingenuous "environmental efforts" while I was a member) just as I'm equally receptive to the people who say it's a fantastic program that should continue (which I happen to agree with). I take a very active interest in this article, however, I absolutely don't claim some sort of dominion over it. What I do claim is direct, first hand understanding of the program, and my own individual POV is probably a helluva lot more neutral than 90% of my fellow alumni and my own understanding and concept of the program is a lot more valid than someone who has never participated --LoverOfArt 22:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re: "RSs - This presumably refers to Reliable Sources. Quotes with verifiable links may present difficulties for the Wikipedia guidelines, but they at least have this advantage: they can be used to evaluate the source of that information -- not the editor who posted it; rather, the qualifications of the original source -- and whether or not material should be accorded weight. You write that "the material in the new article is an extensive and uncritical accumulation of human interest testimonials mostly from the organizations own website." I want to provide one example to show just how incorrect that description is. One of the newly added quotes is: In Sept. 2007, an editorial about NCCC by the Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper, the Sun Herald, stated: "Among the many who wear the name "hero" in our book of golden deeds performed here, the Americorps volunteers will forever have a place of honor in our memory - idealistic young people, and seniors also, who came here and lived in Spartan conditions for month after month, in military tents, going out day after day to help the people of South Mississippi pull themselves out of the debris and rebuild."[8] http://www.sunherald.com/editorials/story/141099.html I could have -- perhaps should have, except for concerns about violating "fair use" -- included this quote from that Sun Herald editorial: " .... the thousands of Americorps volunteers who quickly came to the aid of South Mississippi following Katrina were among the very best representatives of our federal government, living proof of tax dollars that were effectively and efficiently expended in the behalf of a shattered region." http://www.sunherald.com/editorials/story/141099.html The Sun Herald, in Biloxi, Mississippi, shared the Pulitzer Prize (for public service) in 2006, ""For its valorous and comprehensive coverage of Hurricane Katrina, providing a lifeline for devastated readers, in print and online, during their time of greatest need." Now, if this paper and its editorial board, who must know more about this than any Wikipedia editor, would print that editorial, Wikipedia editors might then consider whether obliterating references on the NCCC page to accounts of NCCC's effectiveness, while retaining statements that NCCC is "ineffective" represents objective editing or something entirely different. It doesn't seem to make much sense to conclude that the Sun Herald would write that editorial if it saw evidence that NCCC was a "boondoggle" or a "waste and a fraud," as quoted at the main Wikipedia NCCC site for years. So perhaps this discussion can try to focus less on the suspected or apparent motivations of contributing editors and more on how to facilitate a responsible and comprehensively revised and balanced entry for this organization, and thereby remedy the evident ill-advised skewed POV of the existing content.Coterminous 15:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • From an "SPA" but nonetheless a "RS" The quotes I have added have been called fluff. Editors may want to note that as Commanders of their State National Guard (which have been stretched thin by overseas deployments), state Governors have been concerned about capacity to meet domestic crises. I included a quote from the Governor of California -- a letter to the House Subcommittee on Homeland Security -- attesting to NCCC's outstanding disaster relief work. (SEE: http://www.voicesforservice.org/articles/SchwarzeneggerFY07.pdf) Not fluff. To avoid partisanship, I included a letter from a California Congressperson of a different political party (and from Senators of both parties). Here is some more NOT FLUFF: An excerpt from a document newly posted on the web, a letter to Congress from the Director of Recovery, St. Bernard's Parish (New Orleans). The author is a former Marine Colonel who writes to "acknowledge the monumental accomplishments of the AmeriCorps NCCC team members which have supported our recovery efforts." This is documented evidence of extremely effective work in response to one of the worst national disasters in U.S. history. If Wikipedia can find room to broadcast the opinion that NCCC is a "fraud," it should be able to make room for a reference to this: April 26, 2006 The Honorable Tom Harkin, Ranking Member Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, And Related Agencies Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington DC 20510 Dear Senator Harkin: As the Director of Recovery for St. Bernard Parish, I wish to acknowledge the monumental accomplishments of the AmeriCorps NCCC team members which have supported our recovery efforts. Let me preface my comments with the fact that I have no previous affiliations with the organization prior to their assignment to the Parish. ... AmeriCorps NCCC rapidly identified, developed and implemented an Operations Command Center that coordinated all aspects of the mission. They developed tracking boards which identified all of the Rights of Entry available for use within the 33 debris zones of the Parish. They assigned specific volunteer teams to each structure. They coordinated the movement of personnel to the different zones of operation, as well as the placement of essential tools required for the accomplishment of the tasks.... They provided the necessary safety staff to oversee the operations and ensure not only the safety of the volunteers within the Parish, but the continuity of the services provided to the citizens. They implemented a training program which resulted in identifiable and measurable reduction of hazardous material in our debris stream as well as a reduction in physical accidents resulting in treatment by a physician. In addition, they implemented a process by which each of the residents received advance notification to facilitate operations and encourage local participation in the processes. For the record, over 1200 homes have benefited from this process which is being commanded and controlled nearly exclusively by AmeriCorps NCCC team members. Their leadership enabled us to effectively engage thousands of volunteers. The Parish would not have been able to accomplish this task but for the efforts of these personnel. They have been a force multiplier of expediential proportions. As a Colonel (sel) in the United States Marine Corps, I have recently served on both a Marine Expeditionary Force and Division Staff in Iraq. The competence, dedication, and capabilities of these young American citizens compares to that of the Marines I have had the distinct honor of serving with. The command and control processes, procedures implemented in the ever-changing environment in which AmeriCorps NCCC has operated, has been exemplary. ... Respectfully, David Dysart Director of Recovery St. Bernard Parish / Online at http://www.americorpsalums.org/?page=TANCCC Accessed October 1, 2007 (emphasis added) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coterminous (talk • contribs) 15:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Criticisms Section of National Civilian Community Corps entry Not Substantiated by the Footnotes Provided The Criticisms Section reads: Criticisms The NCCC program has met with sharp criticisms from some fiscal conservatives who accused it of being a "boondoggle".[4] Most notably, Libertarian pundit and commentator James Bovard has been one of the most vocal Americorps NCCC opponents, calling it a "waste and fraud"[5], in addition to dedicating an entire chapter of criticisms of the program in his book "Feeling Your Pain: The Explosion and Abuse of Government Power in the Clinton-Gore Years." Robert Sweet, the former director of the National Institute of Education, labeled it "a fraud". 4) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188385,00.html 5) http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1000americorps.htm Footnote 5, the supposed source of comments that label NCCC a waste and fraud, nowhere mentions NCCC or the National Civilian Community Corps or AmeriCorps NCCC. The article is about AmeriCorps in general - not the same thing. NCCC consists of about 1200 corps members per year. AmeriCorps is a large umbrella covering the following: (See http://www.americorps.org/about/ac/index.asp ) "AmeriCorps is a network of local, state, and national service programs that connects more than 70,000 Americans each year in intensive service to meet our country’s critical needs in education, public safety, health, and the environment. AmeriCorps is made up of three programs: AmeriCorps*State and National, AmeriCorps*VISTA, and AmeriCorps*NCCC (National Civilian Community Corps). AmeriCorps*State and National: AmeriCorps*State and National supports a broad range of local service programs that engage thousands of Americans in intensive service to meet critical community needs. Learn more about AmeriCorps*State Learn more about AmeriCorps*National AmeriCorps*VISTA: AmeriCorps*VISTA provides full-time members to community organizations and public agencies to create and expand programs that build capacity and ultimately bring low-income individuals and communities out of poverty. Learn more about AmeriCorps*VISTA. AmeriCorps*NCCC: The AmeriCorps*National Civilian Community Corps is a full-time residential program for men and women, ages 18-24, that strengthens communities while developing leaders through direct, team-based national and community service. Learn more about AmeriCorps*NCCC." In addition, the comment of NCCC that "Robert Sweet, the former director of the National Institute of Education, labeled it 'a fraud'." is unsupported by any footnote at all. These are flimsy reeds to support this level of comment about the National Civilian Community Corps, a highly regarded organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coterminous (talk • contribs) 02:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, the quotes could be concentrated and worked into a more-encyclopedic narrative. They started out as a separate section, ""Accolades,"" meant to balance the Criticism section. A collegial effort to rework this would be fine. Instead, the positive material was removed and marked for deletion. A number of comments have been made during this process to the effect that the quotes added are "fluff," or superfluous, etc. Until this month, NCCC was characterized at Wikipedia - a guaranteed quick hit on Google - by quotes calling it "ineffective," a "boondoggle," a "waste and a fraud." Accomplishments, praise: nonexistent. This sort of incomplete and misleading information can have serious and destructive consequences. There is a great deal of meat on the quotes newly posted, from a variety of senior officials and elected officials, which runs directly counter to the image portrayed by the pre-existing Wikipedia entry. A few quick examples: The highly respected former director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, James Lee Witt, wrote that "members of AmeriCorps (part of the National Civilian Community Corps, or NCCC) have responded to every national disaster since its inception in 1994. As director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) from 1993 to 2001, I saw firsthand how the young men and women of the NCCC helped to rebuild communities and lives. What made the NCCC critical to our disaster response is that it provided us with disastertrained and certified volunteers who could be mobilized at a moment’s notice." A 2006 letter to the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, signed by fifty-two U.S. Representatives, stated in part: ..."Americorps*NCCC members are 100% disaster trained and available for immediate deployment in the event of a natural disaster anywhere within the United States. Trained in CPR, first aid, disaster response, and firefighting, NCCC teams have responded to every national disaster since the program was established." In Sept. 2007, an editorial about NCCC by the Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper, the Sun Herald, stated: "Among the many who wear the name "hero" in our book of golden deeds performed here, the Americorps volunteers will forever have a place of honor in our memory - idealistic young people, and seniors also, who came here and lived in Spartan conditions for month after month, in military tents, going out day after day to help the people of South Mississippi pull themselves out of the debris and rebuild." "Habitat for Humanity has participated in the NCCC since 1994, and the members of the NCCC have been instrumental in working towards Habitat for Humanity’s goal of eliminating poverty housing across the United States. Over 5,100 NCCC members have participated in more than 500 individual Habitat for Humanity service projects, and they have served with 142 Habitat chapters in 43 states." I welcome good-faith efforts to update the content and incorporate historically valid sources of information about topics like NCCC disaster relief work, etc. in search of a fair, comprehensive entry that, frankly, is long overdue.Coterminous 17:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - the NCCC is, of course, highly notable, but then partly because of their accomplishments. It makes no sense to make a separate article on this. Merge back "an encyclopedic part" of it. Greswik 20:38, 3 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 00:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    List Of North Carolina Gay Bars[edit]

    List Of North Carolina Gay Bars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. I don't see any way a list like this can be either complete, or kept up to date (bars change ownership/target market all the time). It also sets a precedent for some truly sprawling indiscriminate collections of information — List of California gay bars, anyone? — iridescent (talk to me!) 00:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment The number of gay bars in a Southern state is hardly a volatile thing and easily could be complete. Updating is as simple as noting when one new one opens or an old one changes hands and ceases to be operated as a gay venue. Benjiboi 00:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment per the spirit of don't bite the newbies I've left a welcome message and a brief note about why the article doesn't seem to be encyclopedic on the authors talk page. Benjiboi 13:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn with unanimous keep votes. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Les Munro[edit]

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

    Does not meet WP:BIO, speedy tag has been removed so i thought it would be a better idea to discuss it here.Has no sources, and talks very little about the person, yet more about the air squadron he was in. Tiptoety 00:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see amended POV --Rodhullandemu 00:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. If there's somewhere specific to merge this, I will make the content available. W.marsh 19:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Revo Arka Giri Soekatno[edit]

    Revo Arka Giri Soekatno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Founder of Indonesian Wikipedia. Article has two refs, one of which is his Indonesian wiki-userpage. The other is a deadlink. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep - on the basis of the first sentence of the nominator - it would be relevant to the History of Wikipedia project that such a character exists and is quantifiable/identifiable and has information available. If there is a need for cleanup or expansion - then that issue could be attended to - perhaps the starter of wikpedia in any country is sufficiently notable - maybe another forum this issue needs to be addressed. Sitting with notability as the only criteria and the preceding issues ignored - it is worthy of delete - theres the rub SatuSuro 07:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - The article asserts little notability and he certainly does not pass WP:BIO - Peripitus (Talk) 12:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Delete - Does not meet the general notability guidelines. Archaeologist Endang Sri Hardiati Soekatno seems notable. Indonesia death-row political prisoner Soekatno might be notable. Although Revo Arka Giri Soekatno might be important/significant, no WP:RS appears to be writing about Revo Arka Giri Soekatno. -- Jreferee t/c 06:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Comment I will gladly accept general vote if it keeps running that way - however if that is the case the suggestion is that some of the details be appropriated for a merge of an article to be created - on either the internet in Indonesia or wikipedia in indonesia SatuSuro 07:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Grunk[edit]

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

    Original Research. "The first grunk track (In Da Buildin) was produced by G-Red and Deca." An article "G red" by the same main author was speedily deleted on notability grounds (User_talk:Shotmillions#Notability of G red). a.bit 09:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Bob Innes[edit]

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


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is that the topic does not meet the general notability guidelines. -- Jreferee t/c 06:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Chris Yandek[edit]

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

    The only claim to notability appears to be that he has interviewed some notable people, but an interviewer does not become notable by association. In the criteria at WP:BIO, the most relevant category seems to be "creative professionals", and I don't see any evidence that he meets the criteria listed there - he does not appear to be regarded as an "important figure" as far as I can tell. Additionally, it appears that this may be a vanity entry - the only contributions have come from User:Miami18, who has no other edits, and three anonymous addresses. Dsreyn 16:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • He has created a platform that is diverse online. There aren't many online outlets that feature the list of interview subjects he has. He definitely should be listed under creative professionals. He is relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.231.129.115 (talk) 21:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. From WP:AFD: Please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article. Your (66.231.129.115) only edits are either edits to the Chris Yandek article, or adding links to his interviews to other articles, which might suggest that you have a vested interest in the subject. Dsreyn 02:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am just a primary author of this article. This journalist has a collection of stories and has made mainstream headlines with his own website and platform. It is worth putting into Wikipedia. The website is original and independent. That's what makes it interesting. That website is an archive and good source for many famous people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.231.129.115 (talk) 04:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The journalist has been profiled on national radio. You can hear that segment on his biography page on his website. He is note frequently for his interviews in the mainstream that have made news. He has noteriety. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.231.129.115 (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    Non-admin closure. Page has been Speedy deleted due to author blanking page. Woodym555 22:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sebastian Nieć[edit]

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

    This footballer seems to be a fake one.He doesn't appear in his team roster [21], has no references, no matches in google... The article is also about future events which doesn't meet WP:Crystal.--Latouffedisco 18:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was No consensus. The topic obviously is one which could have a Wikipedia article. There was no consensus that the topic could not meet WP:N. The original research concerns raised were legitimate, but there were sufficient efforts during this AfD to at least move the consensus into a no consensus position. This seems a legitimate spinout article from Star_Wars#Legacy. There was no consensus that this article should be merged back into Star Wars. Jreferee t/c 06:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Cultural impact of Star Wars[edit]

    Cultural impact of Star Wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Stub, unsourced, US bias, and more than adequately covered in the main article. Just put it out of its misery. - Sikon 18:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If you mean this personally, on this day's page I have 4 deletes and 6 keeps; If you look at my log, I delete about a dozen speedies a day. DGG (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well gee, I'm no expert but it seems to assert that without Star Wars saving it from bankruptcy Fox wouldn't have become a media conglomerate thus greatly impacting pop culture (hello. Homer Simpson? D'oh!). That's just a guess since I'm only reading it. Benjiboi 08:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That is also my view Benjiboi. It shows that Star Wars had a huge influence on business culture as well as popular culture. How would today's media conglomerates have conglomerated (is that a real word?!) without Fox? What would Rupert Murdoch be doing? The article also has huge scope for expansion. Bláthnaid 13:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, in all honestly, every movie has had a "cultural impact" of sorts, but are they notable topics for an encyclopedia, no. I don't care how many cites there are, it is not a notable subject for its own page, plain and simple. It can easily be put on the main page. Dannycali 22:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Star Wars is in a league of its own, though. I think we will have to agree to disagree and let the closing admin decide. Bláthnaid 22:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep. Article certainly should be expanded and if I were the betting type I'd make money betting that dissertations on the subject exist. As is the article is too generalized so "drilling down" to provide some more examples of impact would be helpful. Benjiboi 08:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment There is no shame in changing an opinion on the basis of evidence shown in an Afd. I do it--in both directions -- when someone shows I've misjudged or finds something new. DGG (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • strong keep - Perfectly good subject, article appears sound, afd seems to be completly based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artw (talk • contribs) 22:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I can't even conceive why people think this article should be deleted. Looking at the pre-afd diff, sure, it was unsourced and only covered a few non-representative examples, but I can't think of a single film made in the last half century that has had a greater cultural impact. Star Wars changed the movie industry, entrenched itself into Western pop culture, and has influenced hundreds, maybe thousands of subsequent works. What's wrong with the article is that it would have to be about 10 times longer before it could properly document the subject.--Father Goose 05:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's odd, because the reasons have been repeatedly given... does it have a place in its new form? Yes. Is that place an article of its own? Of course not. Is most of the article relevant or notable beyond fanboy gossip? Not a chance.JJJ999 05:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was merge/redirect. W.marsh 19:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    ActionAid Recycling[edit]

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

    Reads like an advert. Unsourced. Computerjoe's talk 21:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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