< September 6	September 8 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Malcolm (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Entertainment.ie[edit]

No suggestion that this website has been covered in non-trivial detail in reliable published sources. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note I added two sources after the article was nominated. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 03:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, Flowerpotman's sources may be just enough to pass WP:WEB. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 03:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Seems to be just passing? • Lawrence Cohen 05:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:31, 10 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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Team Lotus[edit]

Unsourced, no evidence of notability. Declined speedy. --Finngall ^talk 23:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There no assertion of notability and a quick websearch doesn't turn up anything that indicates that the subject of the article meets WP:CORP, including the company profile. --Ed (Edgar181) 19:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:POV fork from Team Lotus. --Gavin Collins 14:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as been short on WP:CORP and also as part-advertisement.--JForget 22:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability --Ybbor ^Talk 01:29, 11 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 and redirect to University of Coimbra. MastCell ^Talk 20:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Festa das Latas[edit]

This article is an unsourced blurb about a homecoming festival from some Portuguese university. I see nothing to distinguish it from thousands of similar parties across the world. I might as well write an article about the homecoming festival at my own college. VegitaU 23:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps your college is over 700 year old and was the first in your country to establish this tradition. If so, create it right now. You have all my support. Page Up 23:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I never said delete the college, I said delete the party. Oh, it's over 700 years old? Well, I guess that's a free pass to make articles about every festivity and parade and diversion that takes place there. No, not really. And the argument about "my college is better than yours" hardly helps. -- VegitaU 23:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You must be informed that Coimbra is an old university town and Festa das Latas, as well as Queima das Fitas, are major cultural events in Coimbra and are widely known across the entire country. Other colleges and universities started to organise similar events after Coimbra (in some cases using other names for the event), so it is a major cultural icon of the town. Coimbra is not famous for a number of other things, but its student festivals and the university are its distintive features and are noted in Portugal. If you will delete a major cultural and historical event of a town, you can also delete all the other references to its history and culture. For example, you can't go to Rio Carnival article and delete it just because a thousand of other cities, towns and villages organise the same festival in Brazil and around the world. Page Up 00:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: So basically you just made a WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:LOCALFAME argument. What I'm saying is that, as I see it, it grossly fails to be notable. It is unsourced and, therefore, unverifiable. Also, a Google Test, while not a definitive argument in itself, gives a general look as to outside notability. In this case, it gives 216 results, mostly in Portuguese. I still advocate deleting this and maybe mentioning it briefly in the college page under culture. -- VegitaU 01:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree and think you are not right, though your POV is perfectly understandable. Try the Google search with Latada and you will get over 67,000 results, since latada is an event organised today in a number of other universities. Then try Latada Coimbra and you will get 15,700 results. The arguments are antiquity, pioneering and cultural significance for the town which is not historically and culturally famous in Portugal (a country) for, lets say carnival, but precisely for those student festivals. However, I suggest one change: add a paragraph explaining that latada is also an event organized today in other Portuguese university cities like Porto and Covilhã. I have nothing left to say about this. The people will decide, I hope. Page Up 02:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)Reply: This article isn't about "Latada", "Latada Coimbra", or any other Portuguese festivity. This article is about "Festa das Latas", a homecoming parade not unlike many around the world. There is nothing to distinguish it above others. The fact that it may be a big deal in that town doesn't identify it as exceptional. Homecoming parades are big deals in every town where they're held. At Oxford, Harvard, and my own college; people come out to celebrate and welcome alumni back. They go to games, they view parades, they dance, and the have fun. Sorry, but the argument that a local town parade where you tie tin cans to the freshmen's legs is comparable to Mardi Gras or Carnival doesn't wash. -- VegitaU 02:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into University of Coimbra. It's not very distinguishable, but I believe that it deserves a little mention. -Lemonflash_{(do something)} 23:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There's plenty of room on the school page for this subject. MarkBul 02:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge into University of Coimbra. This festival is well known in Portugal, it's probably better to save this info. --Hús ö nd 16:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Another WP:LOCALFAME argument. Got any sources to verify that this "tin-can" festival is notably famous in Portugal? Because our homecoming week here is quite a celebration and I'm wondering what distinguishes it from this. The fact the college is so old is not an argument. Notability is not inherited just because a foundation has been around for years. -- VegitaU 17:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After the changes, the article isn't about Coimbra's Festa das Latas alone. It describes the university student's festival which is yearly organised in several Portuguese university towns in the beginning of the academic year with this same designation, a Latada parade and the tradition of having cans tied to the freshmen's legs. It could be expanded later to show the other cities singularities. Page Up 20:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: User above is the only contributor to the article. And I thought you "had nothing left to say" about this? Furthermore, the article is still about the homecoming festival for your school, in all its unsourced and unnotable glory. The one "travel brochure" you cited doesn't mention anything about this being a nationally-known festival. I recommend that you delete this and merge a little of it into the culture segment of the college page. -- VegitaU 20:31, 11 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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donnie English[edit]

Non-notable autobiography. No WP:RS to indicate satisfying WP:BIO. Leuko 23:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, as he's only a high school coach. - Lemonflash_{(do something)} 23:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of notability Corpx 05:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But he is a famous one who deserves this page i made it in his honor for i go to kell and i think he deserves this. lets just make this the first page dedicated to a high school coach. and he is very notable even Bobby Cox the Atlanta Braves coach knows him personally. also he has former players in the major leagues —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.9.144 (talk • contribs) — 68.217.9.144 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete Apparently popular, but not notable. Accounting4Taste 19:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per notability, as I don't think many high school coaches are notable, or if they are, they need reliable sources, which are missing. Also, in dire need of copy editing among many other things. Not encyclopedic.Ravenmasterq 19:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like the Coach wrote the article about himself, questionable sourcing... Bobby Cox knowing him doesn't make him notable. Spanneraol 21:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. However, I disagree with Spanneraol. It looks like his 8 year old son wrote the article.--Truest blue 17:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Not notable. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 02:17, 12 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 Redirect to Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. She doesn't warrant her own article right now, but should something change, there can certainly be one about her in the future. WODUP 04:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kate McCann[edit]

This is a classic case of a person being notable for just one event and, in accordance with policy, she should solely be covered in the event article, Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Redirect. TerriersFan 23:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The event is currently a big news story but there is nothing to justify a separate entry on Kate McCann.88.109.182.153 10:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I think that depending on how events turn out she may well become quite notable for all the wrong reasons. For the moment though she is not notable other than because of her missing daughter, and assuming notability at this stage is not a good thing to do. So redirect for the moment. -- Roleplayer 23:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that at this point, she has become not just interesting but extremely interesting for our readers. Information on her past, present and possible future should be offered. I would have supported the AfD until yesterday (balancing pros and cons), but I believe that as off today we clearly crossed the point where Kate McCann should have her stand-alone article. We would do our readers major disservice by not allowing it in our encyclopedia. gidonb 23:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Kate McCann is a very significant aspect of the case, particularly given recent developments, but perhaps not notable enough to warrant an independent article at this time. The situation is still unfolding, however, so these comments may become irrelevant very quickly, in which case they should be discarded. Extraordinary Machine 00:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - at the point when/if either parent is charged is when a separate article may be justified. TerriersFan 00:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per gidonb. Robert Brockway 00:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Disappearance of Madeleine McCann - just like Extraordinary Machine and Roleplayer have said, Kate McCann is significant within the case but probably not notable enough for her own wikipedia entry yet. I don't find reasonings like gidonb's to trump site policy. As it stands Kate McCann does not deserve her own entry--Cailil ^talk 00:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In any case, Wikipedia is not a running news source that should be constantly updated with the latest press stories. Even people in the headlines are not notable by Wikipedia standards. If books are written about her some day, then she would become notable. MarkBul 02:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect, at least for the time being. Cactus Wren 04:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge per WP:NOT#NEWs - no "historic notability" Corpx 05:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Formal suspect in what has to be the biggest missing persons search in recent history. GazMan7 09:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is now, and will be for a long time, a well-known person - a media personality. I wanted some background information about her (yesterday, before this article was created) and was simply redirected - most frustrating. The article about Madeleine's disappearence is not the place for the background information I required; this article is the place. 86.31.158.130 09:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect, her being accorded arguida status hasn't made her any more notable, in encyclopaedic terms, than she was last week. A single article on this topic, which includes this background paragraph about both parents, should be maintained until there are any major developments. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's now & likely will remain extremely (in)famous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.216.36 (talk) 11:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A few people have made the point that Wikipedia is not a running news source. I agree with this statement and policy. However, the article is not about the recent developements. Rather it refers to the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann (which is not up for deletion) for developments with a news value. The article provides some background on a central suspect in the case. Judging by the comments from IPs, this is background our readers are actively looking for. So everyone is invited to read the short article before making op her/his mind. gidonb 12:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Robert Murat has been an official suspect since three weeks into the investigation, and he's still just a redirect. -- Roleplayer 12:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at Gerry McCann before, who is now in a similar situation and also a redirect. I decided against creating more background articles until the outcomes of the AfD are final. In these matters, I value the input of the WP community. gidonb 12:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now but do not delete the article's history whilst the case is still current as the subject may become notable. Timrollpickering 12:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect, or, as second choice, just Redirect, in accordance with BLP and Badlydrawnjeff ArbCom case. Mrs McCann is notable only for a particular event. In a year or two, we may be in a better position to judge whether or not she is really notable, or whether her notability in the summer of 2007 was just from being in the news a lot. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. ElinorD (talk) 13:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per zzuuzz. Lara Love♥ 13:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. I don't see how she's notable unless she is guilty - and we definitely shouldn't be speculating as to whether she is or not: doing so is a huge breach of WP:BLP. There's nothing really worth merging in to the article that isn't already there (and anything that is separate from the topic of the disappearance is unsourced, anyway). AllynJ (talk | contribs) 14:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to disappearance article, per WP:BLP1E. - Crockspot 14:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above (disclaimer: I created the redirect page). Legitimate redirect to an important case. Kate McCann doesn't deserve a separate article at the moment, but the redirect should remain, as she is (and will always be) an important part of the case. PeterSymonds 14:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The arguments for "Keep" seem to assume no information about her will be in Wikipedia if the article goes. All that will happen is that the article will get an automatic redirect to the article about the event, in keeping with WP:BLP1E and therefore nothing will be lost. Nobody cares about her except in relation to the case of the missing child, therefore it is unreasonable to have an article about her when all that we would ever want to know about her would be covered in the missing-child article. Anyone who types her name into the Wikipedia search box should be automatically redirected to the article on the case. Noroton 15:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, this is not the case. As I pointed out above, I wanted some background info about her and one would not expect such information to be in the Madeleine article; things like profession, college attended etc. In fact, all the things that are currently in the standalone article. Wikipedia users will want to know this information, so if this article is deleted from where are they going to get it? 86.31.158.130 16:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that any and all content on Wikipedia must be verifiable and therefore must not original research - meaning the information you seek *must* be available elsewhere in order for it to be on Wikipedia anyway. Removing it from Wikipedia doesn't necessarily mean it won't be available anywhere else, and if it does then it shouldn't be on Wikipedia in the first place. Also note that just because you think something is 'useful' is not a reason to keep it. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 16:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While you are correct to assume that this information is available in newspaper articles, the details are scattered among many items. The advantage of this biography is that a consumer can get a more complete picture of a person at once, instead of needing to search in hundreds of articles. All this without a tabloid style, as this article only gives background, which is not necessary the case for the main article. The significance of Kate and Gerry (other than Murat or McGuinness) is that they are parents of Madeleine, central figures in the public search (with McGuiness), as well as official suspects (along with Murat). The reason to keep the article is the combination of all three factors. gidonb 16:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I should read the article about Madeleine's disappearance then go elsewhere for related background information? 86.31.158.130 16:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is your curiosity reason enough for a Wikipedia article? I'm curious about a lot of things that Wikipedia won't let me write an article about. We have WP:BIO and WP:BLP standards to keep out material that Wikipedia consensus believes is not worthy of inclusion. If there were a compelling reason, we could override that, I suppose. What's the compelling reason? Are we going to crack this case open if only we could put details about her life on this particular page? Please look over WP:BLP. One interesting line there: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." Sounds like a good idea to me. Noroton 17:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, but that is not what the article is about. Otherwise than the main article, it only provides background. gidonb 18:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Even if found guilty she does not become sufficiently notable for her own article, rather a major player in an unusual case: crime, spin, tabloid xenophobia. -- Barliner talk 17:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kate McCann is already internationally famous as a suspect in her daughter's killing, whether or not she is guilty. --Hippo Potamus 17:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Other people involved in this story don't have their own pages, nor should they have until their notoriety can be established beyond the story. Having a page saying eseentially "She is the mother of the missing child and a suspect in the case" merely duplicates what is in the other article and is unneccessary. Harry was a white dog with black spots 20:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the article gives background that is not in the main article, which deals with the disapperance case itself. I am against the creation of additional articles until this AfD is over. By the way, the existence or non-existence of similar articles is not a justification one way or another. gidonb 21:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The question is whether the additional background is needed? If it is it can easily be added to the Biography section of the main article as a new paragraph more conveniently than maintaining a separate article. TerriersFan 22:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It may become too much of side-track for the main article, but I would definately not be against it as matter of principle. I would love to see your solution. Similarly, leaving this article is not a matter of principle to me. I see it more as a matter of weighing the pros and cons. If you can give more background about the couple in the main article, that would be easy to find and would not disctract much, that would be excellent! gidonb 00:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking personally, and it would of course be matter that requires consensus amongst editors, I see no reason why Disappearance of Madeleine McCann#Biography should not have three short sub-sections on each of Madeleiene, Kate and Gerry. I wouldn't see that looking out of place or unbalancing the article. TerriersFan 00:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have just posted an invite on the main article talk page for interested editors to come here and join in the discussion. TerriersFan 00:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And then we can redirect the Kate McCann entry and the other person entries to the relevant section in the main article. Sounds like a good solution to me! gidonb 00:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I left an invite on the Kate McCann talk page, where people keep protesting against the redirect. gidonb 01:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Being a parent and a General Practitioner is absolutely non-notable. Creating a separate bio article about a parent of a child who disappeared and who is notable for nothing else violates WP:COATRACK. I agree with TerriersFan that some brief well sourced bio material about the parents could be include in the article about the disappearance. Edison 01:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Coatrack is an essay. It isn't violated and it cannot be violated as it is not even a guideline... gidonb 00:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We can always recreate the article if and when she is proven to be a famous child-killer. Until then, she isn't notable for anything not already covered in the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann article. Hermitian 02:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Kate McCann is as parent not as a suspect a key player. In this role she has been mentioned throughout the main article, and there is a section about the parents. That she is mentioned in an stream of (popular) media is not enough reason for her own page. There may be suspicious circumstances, but the evidence is undisclosed and speculative, hence the media frenzy. Wvdc 07:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep formal suspect in possibly the biggest news-story of the year (over here in the UK anyway). Infact, Robert Murat or Gary McCann don't have a page (nor does Maddie herself), so why does she? Delete. Davnel03 09:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry MCann will have an article if this article is kept. I would not create it, as long as the destiny of this one is unclear. Murat is only a suspect, not a central figure in the search, and not a parent of the victim, so less central in the affair. As is the spokeswoman, the lawyer, etc. gidonb 18:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is very valid and should be kept it is the biggest news story of the year and will be remembered for a many years to come. This article should be kept or else merge it into a Kate and Jerry McCann article. --Netwhizkid 13:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per the comment above. It seems strange to me that this article would be subject to an AFD on the day she becomes an official suspect. Family members? 90.197.137.123 14:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Highly unlikely, it was only a redirect to Disappearance of Madeleine McCann before the day she became a suspect, meaning there was nothing to delete. There were some changes made before that, but they were vandalism and nothing more. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 15:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs to be improved and lengthened. A person's biography shouldn't be redirected to the most awful thing in their life if there is other information. For example, Mrs. McCann article has information about her career. In the same way, George Bush article is not redirected to Iraq (though this is only an analogy and analogies always have limitations and faults). E343ll 16:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A pretty silly analogy. George Bush was well known before the Iraq War and occupation, but Mrs. McCann was an absolutely non-notable mother and general practitioner. An article about Mrs. McCann or her career before her daughter's disappearance would never have survived AFD. An article about a Texas Governor and United States President would have survived AFD. Edison 21:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect. The Bush analogy doesn't hold, since Bush is notable by himself, being the president of the USA and all. Kate McCann is, currently, only notable because of her missing daughter and only slightly more so since she has been named arguida. If she is guilty, than Gerry could not possibly be uninvolved, and the most logical place for information on the both of them would still be the 'Disappearance' page. Should she not be guilty, than she is not notable enough to have her own page.SQB 18:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per GazMan7. Further, if guilty, notable for obvious reasons. If not guilty, notable for publicity in raising the profile of missing children cases...come to think of it, notable for that even if she is guilty... Ringbark 20:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge everything that she as person is notable is the disappearance of her child. And even this article is about a crime under investigation which the world sees everyday in the high numbers (on several places of this planet) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.187.176.250 (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would say merge to an article called Gerry and Kate McCann. Both have become public figures in the UK, far more than most parents of missing/murdered children, and are now notable enough for own page (especially since the other day). Even if Maddie is found safe and well tomorow they are still notable for the massive media campaign and being declared suspects. --UpDown 07:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect... for now.--Steven X 08:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I was one of the editors that reverted it back to a redirect. I do not think that is directly related to the news story or the subject is particularly noteable. --Pupster21 Talk To Me 11:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hence I informed you about this AfD. gidonb 15:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The article contains virtually nothing of relevance, other than some sketchy background on her very routine private life, and a redirect to Disappearance of Madeleine McCann where the nub of her fame resides. There's no article for her husband Gerry whose fame ranks equally in all respects. Even if he's not quite such a draw for the UK tabloid press. Subsequent events may change things. But then they always will. -- Tigary 14:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no article on Gerry yet, because this one is being AfD'd. It was created when Kate was a suspect and Gerry was not. The Kate McCann article refrains from including tabloid-style content. It is a decent starter. gidonb 15:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - When the investigation is complete there may be sufficient notability for an article but untill then there is no need for this --Childzy ¤ Talk 14:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: two articles on the subject are enough for now. Rothorpe 18:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect as she has been only notable for that event.--JForget 22:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And? Ian Huntley is only notable for one event, he's still notable. Many people are notable for only one event.--UpDown 07:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - She will only become notable if she is found guilty of a crime, as Huntley was. Rothorpe 17:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Right, so you have to be found guilty to be notable? I don't believe that for a moment. There is sufficient media attention, for a long period of time, that a joint article on her & Gerry is warranted. --UpDown 07:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect In this case, the article on the event is sufficient, despite the world-wide publicity. There's really nothing otherwise to write about. DGG (talk) 02:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot to write about. The main article could be cut down, and a Gerry and Kate McCann article could focus on the parents media campaign, as well as them being declared suspects. --UpDown 07:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't disagree more; the fact that the McCanns are presently arguidos is simply one dimension of a bigger picture. They haven't been charged with anything yet, let alone that nothing has been proved. Their involvement is most certainly important but it should remain in the main article where it can be read in context. TerriersFan 11:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said above, the massive media attention they have had since May, coupled with recent developments, means a joint article is the best way forward, in my opinion.--UpDown 07:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When it gets to the stage that readers/researchers/journalists are looking for information on a person, that is the time to have some material on a person. The consensus in the discussion so far appears to be that we should have that material - the main disagreement seems to involve where that material should be placed. If the material were to be in the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann article then it would be limited to the most relevant information to the disappearance with a minimal prospect for growth. If it were a stand alone article then more extensive information could be provided which could be of potential value to a fuller understanding of the case, and the public/media response to the case. Comparisons are already being made between Kate McCann's lack of emotion and the lack of emotion shown by Lindy Chamberlain - a comparison of their background would be a legitimate research target. SilkTork *** SilkyTalk 13:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Kate is more notable then many other articles on wikipedia so why has this article even been nominated? Seems strange--Zingostar 16:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP If John Mark Karr was a suspect of killing Jon Benet Ramsey and he was worhty of a wikipedia article because his own notarity was greater in the public view such as Kate McCann.Bnguyen 22:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.27.57 (talk) 03:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To paraphrase nom, "a classic case" of a Merge proposal being brought unnecessarily to AfD. WP:BLP1E has been cited as requiring a merge due to notability solely for one event. Let's read WP:BLP1E#Articles about living people notable only for one event carefully: The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. - OK does not necessarily imply. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Generally avoid -- if they are of low profile. Surely, we can all agree that Mrs. McCann is no longer low-profile. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Note the use of unlikely. A carefully sourced bio on her seems appropriate. On the other hand, I'm not saying this is a licence to libel. I agree that we must careful to consider: Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canuckle (talk • contribs) 05:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even i'm not 100% sure. The truth is, that if the mother has a bio page the child should have too! Elmao 07:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Frankly, the main should just be at Madeleine McCann, the rest is superflous. --UpDown 11:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's right Elmao 03:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge relevant material. At present, this is clearly a marginal biography. Anything of note that needs to be said about this women relates to her daughter's case. Go to 'Early life' on the disappearance page and change to 'Early life and family'. Add three or four biographical sentences for each parent. Editors have obviously made a decision to work on it as a collective subject (technically, Madeleine McCann herself does not have a page of her own) rather than through a series of bios. If the mother is charged and convicted one day, she may warrant a separate entry; but that's a decision for the future. Marskell 09:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge as above.--Kerotan ^{Leave Me a Message} Have a nice day :) 10:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge as above. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 10:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete and redirect and merge anything appropriate. Not independently notable. Sarah 15:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as with Gazman7. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chump Manbear (talk • contribs) 21:52, 12 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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Network status gathering system[edit]

Non- notable dicdef. The only source listed is this one, which mentions NSGS but does little to clarify what it is: [1]

At least I could find the following dicdef here: [2] "The Network Status Gathering System (NSGS) is the component that queries the network to determine its status. Among the information returned by the NSGS there is a “loss of signal” alarm that indicates that the queried device did not answer a ping (ICMP echo requests) and the latency of the ping when it succeeds. The NSGS can also query SNMP objects." No other sources for this term show up on google other than Wikipedia and mirror sites. Essentially, an NSGS is a "status checker" for a network, and it does not seem to refer to any specifically coded "status checker," but rather seems to be used as a generic term any time a network engineer has put his or her own "status checker" in place. It appears that this subject has not received notable coverage as a topic, and there would never be anything more than a dicdef. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and not a technical manual. OfficeGirl 23:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They're not even definitions, rather just the labels those students have invented for bits of the systems they've designed for a paper. Presumably someone's read it and mistaken it for a widely-used term, but it's just a collection of meaningful words turned into an acronym to save typing. Had they been native English speakers (one paper from Brazil, the other China), they would have called it the less clumsy "network status monitoring system", which throws up tons of hits and just means what you'd expect rather than being a technical term with special meaning. Thomjakobsen 03:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. I agree that it looks like somebody made it up. There is nothing to differentiate it from an SNMP server. If it needs to be on Wikipedia at all it should be in that article, and I don't think it should be on Wikipedia at all. Isaac Pankonin 11:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not demonstrate it's notability. • Lawrence Cohen 16:24, 10 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, notability concerns seem to have been addressed, consensus seems satisfied by the sources added. Wily D 20:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Life cast[edit]

Non-notable neologism. Article is totally unsourced. Could possibly be redirected to web log but seems too nebulous even for that. —ptk✰fgs 22:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable - "life cast" + cyborglog turns up one Ghit, this article. Hal peridol 23:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Abundance of sources and references have been added. Pepso2 20:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable concept, movies such as The Truman Show and EDtv are perfect examples of it being a popular cultural concept. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per WP:HEY. Skomorokh ^incite 13:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article seems well sourced with many further sourced examples. Further though, it seems to be written "lifecast" more often than not that I've seen. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This neologism has not caught on yet, and the article is hopelessly promotional and spammy. Edison 16:34, 14 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 to Triathlon. — Malcolm (talk) 00:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triathlon Distance[edit]

Content already exists on the Triathlon page. Rahzel 22:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No need for seperate page (this should be merge tagged instead) --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - the redirect could be useful. Johntex\^talk 22:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As Johntex, redirects are cheap and could be useful. Severo^TC 04:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Yep, I agree with above posters. Should have thought about merging before I proposed deletion. Rahzel 04:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:47, 10 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. — TKD::Talk 08:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Angolan films[edit]

Out of all of the films listed, as few as there are, only two have articles. All the others are dead links. There is no discussion of the film industry in Angola. This is essentially an empty page, copied from Imdb and given Wiki formatting. There are not enough articles to justify making a category either. Perspicacite 22:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme keep. To avoid bias, we must allow articles like this time to grow. Just because there are only two today doesn't mean there won't be more tomorrow. This is one of a large set, as can be seen by the template at the bottom of the page. Corvus cornix 22:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Extreme Keep"? Do you honestly think your opinion is given some kind of additional gravitas by sticking a superfluous adjective on it? If so, keep dreaming. --Agamemnon2 07:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- WP:CIVIL. Corvus cornix 17:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Corvus cornix. The article identifies articles that need to be written. (Not every listed film will qualify, but many more than the present two certainly will.) What we need is a few good editors who are bilingual in English and Portuguese. See Cinema em Angola in the PT Wikipedia. They're still working on the directors' bios, to say nothing of specific films, but the notability of several more films is indicated. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 23:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have no problem with another editor taking the time to write an article. I just don't see the point of having a placeholder in the meantime. Perspicacite 23:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:NOEFFORT Sometimes an article is proposed for deletion that is not being worked on very much, or has not been edited by a person for a long time, and thus might not be in very good shape. This does not necessarily mean that the topic is unsuitable for Wikipedia, it may be that the topic is obscure or difficult to write about. An article should be assessed based on whether it has potential for expansion, not how frequently it has been edited to date, though such assessment should be realistic. WP:RUBBISH because the current article is poor does not necessarily mean that the subject is not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Instead, try to consider the article's potential for improvement. In the Wiki model, an article that is poor now can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws. MarkBul 02:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's an essay, not a policy or a guideline. I disagree. Perspicacite 02:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/List of films without article/List of missing Angolan Films and remove the two blue links. We don't need a list for two blue links, and we already have a category (Category:Angolan films). There is no content here other than film titles and years, and per WP:LIST, "any lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list of red link articles needed) should be in project or user space not the main space". PC78 12:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A placeholding article lets readers and editors know that an article is needed, even with an article consisting of redlinks the article will recieve both a traffic of curious passers by and those interested in the topic, anf from that traffic someone might take an interest in creating content.KTo288 15:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not all of these films should be articles, as a number include shorts, but here we can offer a full list of all Angolan films produced, obviously reorgarnizing the list in a way to provide a fast overview of all films produced.--Aldux 16:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the topic is as approprizately encyclopedic as for other countries.DGG (talk) 02:53, 11 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. Maxim_(talk) 13:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jayne Mansfield in popular culture[edit]

Strong delete - directory of non-associated topics. The items have absolutely no relationship to one another past happening to all mention the name "Jayne Mansfield." Otto4711 22:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Such as the two films mentioned, in which she & her death are a major theme? DGG (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually seen either film? Her death is not a theme, major or otherwise, in either film. In Crash, her death is one of several which are re-created and which consumes IIRC about two minutes of screen time. To Wong Foo contains a single throwaway joke. Your apparent assumption from this article that these two films include Mansfield or her death as major themes strikes me as another argument against the article, if it's leading people to believe things that aren't true. Otto4711 13:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never claimed to be an expert. :) You have given a good example of why material should be dealt with by discussing editing on the article talk page, not here. DGG (talk) 04:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If all of the references at this level of triviality were edited out of the article the article would be empty. Otto4711 12:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nutty grab-bag of name-checking - not enycylopedic. MarkBul 23:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because a) sources exist on Jayne Mansfield in popular culture and so these and other sources could and should be used to revise the article, but b) even having the list stills fall in line with guidelines. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That Jayne Mansfield existed, and that she was noted in entertainment media is not at issue. A citation to a trivial reference is not in itself notable. MarkBul 02:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Touche, MarkBul. That's the usual empty, pathetic argument that Le Grand has to keep this "in popular culture" crap, it should be fully discounted. Dannycali 22:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please read Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sad little list of jokes about big boobs and decapitation. Mentioned in the 3rd sketch of the 48th show of the 2nd season? That's weird...Mandsford 23:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as most of these are trivial mentions. Merge the significant ones to main article Corpx 05:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another part of trivia that thinks it's an article. Total junk, don't put any back in the main article. Dannycali 02:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danny, I suppose you are prepared to defend that for every single item? DGG (talk) 03:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep While I guess I can understand the desire of some editors to eliminate what they consider to be trivia or WP:IPC, this article in particular should not be deleted, as it will be a loss to the reading public. This is not trivia. Jayne Mansfield was probably the second most important popular cultural icon in the 1950s, next to Marilyn Monroe, in her category. There was so much press attention to her iconic status that I wouldn't be surprised if one or more academic articles were written about her impact on pop culture. Google Scholar shows 234 hits on her name and "popular culture" for example. The St. James Encyclopedia of Pop Culture (Gale 1999) has a signed 1400+ word article on her, and that's in a serious reference book from a major publisher in the business of providing reference books for libraries and schools. The first sentence from that article says: Although many people have never seen her movies, Jayne Mansfield remains, long after her death, one of the most recognizable icons of 1950s celebrity culture. To me, that provides sufficient notability for this article. And there are most likely more out there. The usual charges made against trivia & IPC articles/sections is that it's a disorganized and indiscriminate collection of information. I think this article is well organized and structured (in fact much better organized compared to when it was a section in the main article) and it is not an indiscriminate collection. Granted there are some items that could be pruned, but Mansfield was the essence of popular culture and that is encyclopedic. Besides the items being associated by her name, they are also associated in their depiction of her impact on popular culture. She became a cult icon due to her popularity. To delete this article diminishes Wikipedia and would be a mistake. However, it would be preferable to merge a pruned and better referenced version back into the main article. I urge those !voting to delete to reconsider. — Becksguy 09:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of Jayne Mansfield is not inherited by every mention of her name in any context. Otto4711 15:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These references are not here because they inherit her notability or ride on her coattails. Rather they are here because they offer notable evidence of Mansfield's impact on and penetration into popular culture in a way that's hard to portray in prose form. And this format is perfectly acceptable in WP, even recommended. See WP:TRIVIA where it says: A selectively populated list with a narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information. Furthermore, they are each notable examples in their own right. This article adds to the understanding of Janye Mansfield. — Becksguy 05:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really. How exactly is our understanding of Mansfield increased by In the Seinfeld episode "The Implant" Jerry quips "you know that Jayne Mansfield had some big breasts!" to girlfriend Teri Hatcher as he tries to figure out if her breasts are in fact real.? What does the knowledge that Jerry Seinfeld's fictional persona was aware that Mansfield's breasts were large contribute to our understanding of Mansfield or of anything else? Nothing. Otto4711 12:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it is relevant that they are the commonly understand standard for having big breasts, or they wouldnt be used that way. this illuminates the way the world thinks of her. DGG (talk) 04:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. There is nothing any more significant about having picked Jayne Mansfield than had he picked Chesty Morgan or Morganna the Kissing Bandit or any of the women from the List of big-bust models and performers. This is just another example of your bizarre insistence that the mere mention of something in a work of fiction means that it's a theme of that work of fiction. Otto4711 12:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's relevant because a very notable pop cultural icon from the 1950s was included as a reference in a very notable pop cultural icon TV show in the 1990s. The association is notable and significant and referenced. It shows that Jayne Mansfield had such a major impact on popular culture in her time that some 35+ years later the symbolic reference would be recognized. And I don't think many of the intended target market viewers of Seinfeld had first hand experience seeing her on TV or in the press. Mansfield was the essence of the celebrity-as-celebrity domain in pop culture. This article wouldn't be necessary for an actress of the caliber of Meryl Streep, for example, because that kind of actress is not notable in the same domain, rather they are notable for their acting ability, awards, and work corpus. People like Mansfield are famous for being famous. That is how these references help us understand her. And I agree with DGG's comment about her breasts. It's right on the money. — Becksguy 07:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are there reliable sources that attest specifically to the notability and significance of this one-liner from Seinfeld? Please post links. Otto4711 12:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source is the Seinfeld episode. The significance is that Seinfeld would not have included a cultural reference from two generations earlier if the audience wouldn't be expected to get it. That observation is based, as they say in the courtroom, on life experience. It does not require a scholarly article in a peer reviewed journal to establish it's significance. And I'm sorry I got bogged down in a discussion on one reference when this is an AfD on the article. The individual references should have been, or will be, discussed within the editing process. — Becksguy 12:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of a reliable source as to the intention of the writer of the episode, your speculation as to why the words "Jayne Mansfield" were included in the script is original research. Otto4711 17:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it original research to say that when someone accidentally touches a hot stove, they pull back because of the pain experienced? Some things don't rise to the level requiring expert interpretation, as I said above. — Becksguy 20:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I don't think that writing a script is the equivalent of having an instinctive reaction to pain. Otto4711 00:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteas per more trivia-cruft without any verification--JForget 22:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notability of the topic as a whole has been addressed by at least two specific major unimpeachable references. Most of the individual items mentioned are highly significant works by notable artists, and their use of this particular symbol is because it is generally culturally recognized as important. The episode specification are for the sake or giving a specific reference, and are laudable, not risible. "The notability of Jayne Mansfield is not inherited by every mention of her name in any context. " -- I presume then it is relevant to some discussions of her name in some contexts. The rest can be dealt with by editing. As usual. DGG (talk) 02:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I read the AfD defences first and frankly was disappointed by the article. Merge sounds like the best option, mostly the songs, although without sources....Canuckle 05:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually this was a section in the main article for at least two years, although originally smaller. It was split out on September 5th, and then nominated for AfD only two days later on September 7th. — Becksguy 12:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The defenders of this article would be perfectly happy with a merge--if the merge included the material. But the sequence has showed, and the debate above confirmed, that those wishing to delete this article are objected to the very presence of the material itself, which they think not worth the inclusion, and have tried and will try every possible means of removing it, in order to conform WP to their own narrow conception of it. If enough people agree, then it will be time to fork the project--the inevitable result if we can not learn to tolerate each of us what other people consider important. This is not intended to be an academic scholarly work. there already is a good one under way at citizendium, and perhaps some of those who dislike this material would be happier there. They will need to use real names, and if they want to edit as distinct from contribute for others to edit, to demonstrate academic credentials at a graduate level in the subject concerned. DGG (talk) 08:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think, in the absence of histrionics and garment-rending about the need for advanced academic degrees, that a Wikitrivia site is an excellent idea. That way those who want to pass their days playing spot-the-reference would have a place to play and those who understand that such reference-spotting adds nothing to an encyclopedic understanding of a topic would also be satisfied. Otto4711 17:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I have been misinterpreted--I do not support forking--I support comprehensiveness, the continuation of our present and longstanding policy. Nor do I support requirements for advanced degrees--I think our present comprehensive policy is correct here too. DGG (talk) 05:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DGG. — Becksguy 20:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no RSes show that Jayne Mansield's role in popular culture is notable apart from what could, should, and is said in her biography anyway. Carlossuarez46 21:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No reliable sources? What about the St. James Encyclopedia of Pop Culture as referenced in this article. This information existed for at least two years as an IPC/trivia section in the main article, and that implied long time consensus that it belongs. Then it was split off by an editor without any discussion on article talk page. This belongs back in the main article, properly referenced, organized, selected, and pruned, from whence it was wrongly removed. — Becksguy 05:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's obvious that there is no consensus here, and based on the way the discussion is moving, very unlikely to get to that state. I choose to believe that all those participating, especially those of us actively debating, have a good faith desire and intent to improve Wikipedia and this article, even if we have differing views on how to best do that. I think there are two major reasons consensus is difficult. First is the problem of the The Two Cultures, which in Wikipedia are the differing views on what Wikipedia should be. I hate to use the terms Deletionism and Inclusionism because they seem extreme and may act as polarizing forces. But they seem to be a reality. The second reason are the filters, experiences, and understandings we all bring to the debate. The words and phrases used to justify doing, or not doing something are very subjective and have different contexts to everyone, including well meaning editors. One editor's indiscriminate is another's carefully selected, and so on. And the terms trivia or trivial has become corrupted beyond any meaningful use. The term cruft is pejorative. And the application of the terms and phrases are inconsistent from discussion to discussion, at least partially because different editors participate, each with their own view points and experience. But also because the articles are different and have different contexts and justifications. DGG and I believe that these references belong in the main article where they will be subject to the normal editing process and hashed out there. It looked to me like the split off/nomination of this list is an abuse of process, which may be unintentional, as there was no apparent discussion in the article talk page before the split, and then only two days latter, the AfD nomination. I have said that the list could use pruning and some rewrite (in addition to the excellent work by Le Grand), as this article is a bit too long in comparison to the main article. I have also said that this article was in poor shape when it was a section in the main article. So where is some concession from those that want deletion. I might also point out that IPC lists are not disallowed under policy, and in fact, lists are recommended in some cases. Deletion should be the last resort, not the first resort, as is being attempted here. — Becksguy 21:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious that there is consensus here, despite this effort to obfuscate it. There is clear numerical superiority for the deletion argument and the keepers have not addressed the policy and guideline issues surrounding the page. The veiled accusation of collusion between whatever editor it was who split it off and me as the nominator is without foundation and borders on a failure to assume good faith on your part. Otto4711 22:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no reason to believe that there was collusion. The editor that split off the section was acting in good faith, and you as nominator was acting in good faith, even though I disagree with the actions taken. I even said at the beginning of my comment above that: I choose to believe that all those participating, especially those of us actively debating, have a good faith desire and intent to improve Wikipedia and this article, even if we have differing views on how to best do that.' — Becksguy 00:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I agree with the arguments presented above by DGG and Becksguy, especially the reminder that deletion should be the last resort, not an action taken two days after a section forked off into an article. I haven't looked deeply into the history of this specific article regarding merging and forking yet, but I do know some of your history, Otto4711, and this seems to be yet another time that you want to chip away at Wikipedia's diversity and breadth by ridding it of what you think is a waste of time. Your statement above: those who want to pass their days playing spot-the-reference would have a place to play and those who understand that such reference-spotting adds nothing to an encyclopedic understanding of a topic is dismissive and rude, and reveals your lack of knowledge about the academic field of popular culture studies. I've tried to educate you about it elsewhere, but you don't seem to want to learn, and continue to push for removal of articles that are notable and valuable to scholars. You don't find this area of investigation to be valid, apparently, and that is your right, but to try to whittle down Wikipedia and rid it of what clearly disturbs your sensibilities is wrong-minded and incredibly POV. Also, "numerical superiority" - is that a fancy way of saying this is a vote? I hope not. And if you are now counting heads, how do you calculate the numerical value of "strong"? Tvoz |talk 23:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duh well gee, I guess I just ain't bright enough to be edjumacated. At least, not if that "education" is intended to get me to agree that collections of this kinds of garbage have the slightest encyclopedic worth. It does not in any way increase the encyclopedic understanding of Jayne Mansfield to have a list of every time someone happened to say her name and if you think that your "education" is going to make me think any differently you might as well save yourself the time and trouble because I will never agree with you. It is you who does not understand popular culture studies if you believe that an actual serious study of a pop culture phenomenon consists of "look, someone said 'Jayne Mansfield'!"
I did not say that AFD is a vote. If you had bothered to read all the way to the end of the sentence you would have seen that it said "There is clear numerical superiority for the deletion argument and the keepers have not addressed the policy and guideline issues surrounding the page. Nor have you addressed or refuted them. All you've done is express your disapproval of me and your desire to keep unencyclopedic material in an encyclopedia, and I can only hope that the closing admin is able to look past your non-arguments and borderline personal attacks. Otto4711 03:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually we did address the issues. Notability and verifiability are satisfied as indicated by DGG with two unimpeachable and serious references. In addition, in one year 1956/1957, there were 2500+ newspaper photos, and 122,000+ newspaper lines of coverage published. There are also other references to her status in popular culture. I guess Neutral POV could be addressed by adding an equal number of pop culture items that don't refer to Jayne Mansfield for balance (that's a joke, I think we need a bit of humor). The article is referenced, organized, and generally selective, although it could use pruning. Pop culture has an overwhelming power to shape and form our culture, so it is a very suitable and important encyclopedic subject. There is a scholarly peer reviewed journal entitled: Journal of Popular Culture. From their site: The Journal of Popular Culture continues to break down the barriers between so-called “low” and “high” culture and focuses on filling in the gaps a neglect of popular culture has left in our understanding of the workings of society.[3] I say again, there is no consensus for deletion here, and the article is encyclopedic. And finally, there is no general consensus for the deletion of WP:IPC articles in WP, nor is there a policy forbidding them (even if they are discouraged). — Becksguy 06:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And here is a specific reference to the movie Crash. Botting, Fred & Wilson, Scott. Automatic lover. Screen, Vol 39, 1998. This is published by Oxford University Press. Short fair use excerpt: Hollywood, of course, has a tradition of disaster films and of film careers arrested, destroyed or immortalized in one kind of crash or another, and they provide the conventional means by which the crash and its victim may be romanticized by the image: with its photographs and photographed reenactments of the celebrated deaths of James Dean and Jayne Mansfield, Crash makes explicit reference to this tradition. I believe that establishes that item's notability. Added to the article. — Becksguy 06:46, 15 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. MastCell ^Talk 20:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Pulsford[edit]

Non notable musician/composer/programmer/producer. Entire text of article asserts that "Jan Pulsford is a behind the scenes musician/composer/programmer and producer, toured as keyboard player with Thompson Twins and Cyndi Lauper, produced and co-wrote Cyndi Lauper's Sisters of Avalon Merry Christmas . . have a Nice Life." Co-writing and touring with notable artists does not confer notability, see WP:NOTINHERITED. A page on this musician/composer/programmer and producer was created on Sept 6 by someone with the username "Promokitz", and it was speedily deleted for copyvio, as it was a reprinting of the bio on the artist's MySpace page. The username "Promokitz" was reported as a possible promotional business name and subsequently blocked. Shortly thereafter P strayhorn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made his or her first edit to re-create this page without the copyvio. It was tagged for speedy deletion, but speedy deletion was denied. Bringing it here for discussion and consensus. OfficeGirl 22:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; notability is indeed not transitive, and I can find no indication that this musician has notability of his own, so he falls much short of WP:BAND. — Coren ^(talk) 00:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google News Archives provides sources for these claims which are enough to establish notability for mine. [4]

Capitalistroadster 01:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Capitalroadster. The sources you reference are all about Cyndi Lauper and/or some other artists that the subject of this article has assisted, and the subject of this article is mentioned in passing only. Those sources only serve to confirm that she is "behind the scenes." She is not notable in her own right, and performing services for notable people does not confer notability. This AfD does not question whether Pulsford ever worked with Lauper or the Thompson Twins. It is just that her work with them and her own independent work have never caused her to be the subject of media coverage that was about her as the main subject. WP:NOTINHERITED OfficeGirl 00:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom--NAHID 17:14, 13 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. DGG says, "Howard Hughes is a legendary figure..." That's true, and it is why Wikipedia has an article on the man. There is a difference, though, between being famous (which causes one to appear in popular culture) and being "significant to popular culture." This subtle difference is best perceived through sources: are there any books discussing "Howard Hughes' transforming influence on popular culture"? There are none cited. (In contrast, see Elvis Presley, where at least five such books are referenced, and I have another three on my shelf that are not.) This is not to denigrate Hughes' influence, but only to suggest that one cannot discuss his influence in appropriate encyclopedic tone without such sources. Sources are what distinguishes genuine "in popular culture" articles from mere "trivia collections", and the consensus is that they are absent here. What content is here should be easily merged to Howard Hughes, if it isn't already, and I will gladly restore with that purpose in mind on request. An independent article is unwarranted until sources come to light.

Howard Hughes in Popular Culture[edit]

Delete - similar to the deleted list for Bill Gates. The entire second section on fictional characters who supposedly may have been in some way fashioned on Hughes is original research and the third section on references in songs is trivia. The only worthwhile portion is the section on portrayals of Hughes on film and I have added that information to Howard Hughes. This is unsupportable as a separate article and should be deleted. Otto4711 22:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that another article was deleted doesnt justify deleting this one. Its the reverse ofothercrapexists, and just as irrelevant an argument. DGG (talk) 03:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well seeing how you have merged the relevant parts, just redirect --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am tempted to say keep right off the bat, because the article is incredibly well-referenced, perhaps the best I've seen in terms of quantity of references for one of these kinds of articles brought up here lately. With that said, I also would not oppose a merge and redirect without deleting to Howard_Hughes#Popular_culture. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Aren't you a bit skeptical that this list of books about Howard Hughes the person actually serve as sources for punk-rock songs about him? Canuckle 06:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see original research in all these articles. How do I know Howard Hughes was really mentioned in the Banana Splits, or some other foolishness? Unless every entry has a citation to a secondary source, I can't check many of these. MarkBul 23:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Roi notes, it is well-referenced, and Hughes remains a legendary figure, more than 30 years after his death and more than 50 after his last public appearance. Maybe it's that he was a billionaire imprisoned in his own germ-free world, but The Aviator is only the most recent treatment of this unusual historical icon. Mandsford 00:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And The Aviator, along with the other filmed representations of Hughes, are in his article. The legendariness of Hughes is irrelevant, since his legendariness (or in Wiki-speak, notability) is not inherited by every song that mentions his name and every fictional character that, without anything even approaching a source (so where you're getting the idea this is well-referenced is a mystery), some editor has decided bears some resemblance to Hughes. Otto4711 01:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Roi. Artw 04:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as most of these are trivial/one line mentions. Merge the major ones with the main article Corpx 05:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another junky IPC article full of trivia. Otto did the right thing and merged the film info. It isn't even truly referenced, it just has a list of books about him, which can easily be put on the main article. Not to mention the usual inclusionist IPC fanbois in Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles and Mandsford cluttering with their mindless chatter to stalemate a bad article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannycali (talk • contribs) 22:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks and also remember that you need to sign all posts. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't mind being called a cluttering mindless chattering stalemater-- other then being compared to a stale tomato-- but... an inclusionist IPC fanboi? That hurts. Remember the deleted scene in Back to the Future Part II where he was in the 21st Century and someone said, "What are you, an inclusionist IPC fanboi?". And Michael J. Fox, as Marty McFly, turned around and said, "Nobody...calls me...whatever it was that guy said." Nor did I like it when Don Rickles called someone an incl... never mind. Mandsford 16:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per more trivia-cruft without verification.--JForget 22:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are occurrences in popular culture "trivia"? Melsaran (talk) 06:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because simple mentions of a famous person's name do not contribute to the encyclopedic knowledge of the person. It does not add anything to our understanding of Hughes to have a list of every time he's mentioned in a book or a TV show or a song. I think it can be safely assumed that any famous person is going to have his name mentioned on TV a few times; we don't need a list of every single instance of it. Otto4711 12:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and prune. Howard Hughes is an iconic figure that has appeared as a character in many films and books. I think that this information is suitable for Wikipedia, and should be kept separate from his biographical article. Sources like this one can be used for verification. Bláthnaid 23:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a legendary figure in popular culture, as the article demonstrates. Calling something "trivia-cruft' is a pretty meaningless term that could be applied to almost any article whatsoever. To say the notability "is not inherited by every song..." is true--it means that a song mentioning Hughes is not by that fact alone notable enough for an article, which is undeniable. But it does not mean that when a song by a notable artist is based on Hughes, that fact is not worth mentioning. items in an article just have to be relevant to the topic, not notable themselves. DGG (talk) 03:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To the above two comments, this is not a discussion on how notable Howard Hughes is, that's been proven, this is to find out if a trivia based article belongs on this site. And it doesn't, as plenty of other iconic figures with similar pages have been deleted, and will continue to be deleted. Dannycali 20:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and remove the OR bits (mostly the second section). Nothing wrong with this list, and the "it's trivial cruft" argument isn't very compelling. The list is very well-referenced. Melsaran (talk) 06:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Look at the page more closely, there are no references on it, it's just a listing of books about him, which can easily go at the end of his main article. No item on this list has a reference on it. Dannycali 20:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no RSes tell us that Howard Hughes is notable in popular culture apart from what could, should, and is said in his bio. Carlossuarez46 21:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (merge a tiny bit). Notable film/TV portrayals should be covered in the main article, but random mentions do not contribute to an understanding of Hughes. As was noted above, every famous person is mentioned in the media. Nothing about the way in which Hughes is mentioned is notable. Calliopejen1 22:02, 14 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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of three-named celebrities[edit]

Article seems to he a pointless list of celebrities who include their middle names in credits etc. I see no purpose for this article and believe it should be deleted. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. These are loosely associated people and the list is potentially gigantic and inherently POV to the extent contributors decide which three-named people have "celebrity" status and thus can be included.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What a stupid waste of space, per WP:LISTCRUFT --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely pointless. -- Roleplayer 23:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Andy Scriminett Liszt... Delete Not even worth doing as a category. Some people just prefer to go by three names. The three kids with nine names on Home Improvement was the height of this phenomenon. Mandsford 00:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is pretty much what "indiscriminate" was made for. Artw 04:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very indiscriminate list. Using one's middle name doesn't make one notable. JIP | Talk 12:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate information. No attempt is made to explain why using three names is significant, probably because it isn't. Iain99 18:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, although the title on its own is rather amusing. •97198 talk 07:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolutely useless and unmaintanble and also mainly restricted to the US. --JForget 22:43, 10 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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reenactor Entertainment[edit]

Something odd about this. "Reenactor Entertainment" only gets 136 Google hits, mighty low for a supposed award-winning video game manufacturer, and "Metroid Prime 3 Corruption" was made by another company altogether. Corvus cornix 21:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax, and lock down page. This is the fifth time the article has been created. Burzmali 21:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX, WP:NOTABILITY --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Company is not a hoax, however--I own their Starcraft: Renegade expansion pack. They may still barely exist, but there's not enough sources out there for an article unless they do something new. --Finngall ^talk 00:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bull. "Reenactor has released several award winning games". Sure they have. Considering they have 11 forums through free providers, with maybe 5 posts total, its a hoax, or at the very best wishful thinking. Burzmali 17:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - either a hoax or something out of somebody's basement with no cites and miserable grammar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs) 23:47, 9 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 Withdrawn as dumb by nominator to nominate. • Lawrence Cohen 22:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Agba-Otikpo[edit]

Withdrawing silly nomination. Keep. • Lawrence Cohen 22:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A member of the African Parliament. Epbr123 21:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does that automatically convey notability? I'm wondering, does African Parliament or Europeon Union representative status automatically make one notable? • Lawrence Cohen 21:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely she has had media coverage in Africa. Epbr123 21:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point... • Lawrence Cohen 22:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:BIO: Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office. The answer to your question, Lawrence Cohen, is yes. --Dhartung | Talk 21:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, I'll cancel this. Sorry. • Lawrence Cohen 22:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep A member of the Pan-African Parliament is almost certainly notable. Finding sources (and editors) may be more difficult than for, say Members of the European Parliament because of the problems of systemic bias (e.g. fewer african media are online). AndrewRT(Talk) 22:01, 7 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. MastCell ^Talk 20:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Javelin (bike)[edit]

Appears to be a non-notable corporation selling a line of bicycle. Searched around for sourcing on them, but when several Google searches all turn to advertisements on EBay and Craigslist selling their personal Javelins on the first page of results, it's not that notable. Delete, please. • Lawrence Cohen 21:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-Notable local business --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability established Corpx 05:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:01, 10 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. MastCell ^Talk 21:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reniya[edit]

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 21:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nomination, also no assertion of notability for doing anything other than porn --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That latter bit is redundant, is it not? If the article asserted notability (which it doesn't), it wouldn't matter whether she had done anything else of note in her life - notable is notable, no matter the subject. Since the article doesn't assert notability, it's somewhat redundant to suggest it be deleted per nom (the nominator's concern being notability in accordance with the subject specific guideline, which itself mentions notablity for anything else as criterion 6), and then state that she isn't notable for anything else either. Picaroon (t) 23:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet any of the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors). Picaroon (t) 23:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 16:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Tabercil 16:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:PORNBIO. UnknownMan 22:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Vote recovered from unwarranted deletion by User:Picaroon. It is no one's place to remove other people's comments; the closing admin must take into consideration all votes. Higher quality votes with substance, of course, have more weight then non-quality votes, since AfD is not a vote. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 15:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm so embarassed making these comments on several of these types of actresses hence the new user name. I am embarassed to admit that I have watched some of these videos. I don't know this actress; that's my fault. Blushing 19:25, 10 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. MastCell ^Talk 22:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guayaquil Marathon[edit]

Tagged as A1, but has plenty of context. Is this worth keeping? Feels like it to me. Daniel Case 01:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete; keep if independent sources are added. This looks like an event that is probably notable, but needs independent sources. I'm troubled by the fact that the only link is to the web site of the race promoters, which smells of spam. Someone might rescue this with a little work. Realkyhick 02:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a perfectly legitimate city marathon with over a thousand runners competing. Here are the 2005 results [5]. Nick mallory 06:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. A moderately large marathon in a moderately large city likely has enough notability. Hard to track down sources due to its location, but a Google search turns up several, many in Spanish. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Spanish sources are OK. Link some and we'll probably be fully in the clear here. Realkyhick 16:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 02:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC) —Crazytales talk/desk 21:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems legitimate after checking out the AIMS links. Per earlier posts, a city marathon is likely to have no problem meeting notability. Perhaps someone at Wikiproject Ecuador can help finding suitable sources. Thomjakobsen 21:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:16, 7 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. Could be recreated after the album comes out and is supported by independent, reliable sources - assuming this is in fact the album title. MastCell ^Talk 22:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow Comes Fast[edit]

Google results show nothing for this. Completely unsourced. Metros 20:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also per results of Google search. Even the American Idol message boards on the search haven't heard of this album. Smashville 21:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Rename to Jordin Sparks album or something. Everything but the name is referenced. DCEdwards1966 21:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can live with that. What about Jordin Sparks Debut Album and remove the unsourced info? Smashville 21:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 02:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC) —Crazytales talk/desk 21:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unreferenced and uncertain. I might have suggested merging with Jordin Sparks, but all the known info is already there.--Kubigula (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Untill the album is officially named, there are no sources for this name --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:09, 7 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. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Russo[edit]

There seems to be a difficulty finding consensus on whether play in an American minor league team constitutes notability. The present proposal seems to suggest AAA is but this player is in A league. Further, there is a problem with any verification or reliable sources. JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 20:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notabilty also per nomination --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there does not appear to be notability. I had requested speedy on this article which I think was appropriate. --Stormbay 03:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect per not playing at the highest level per WP:BASEBALL Corpx 05:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Metao 07:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Truest blue 16:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only a single-A player, doing poorly as well. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 02:17, 12 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. Carioca 03:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fzq[edit]

Article was created months ago by single-purpose account 1313wang (talk · contribs) and probably should have been deleted long ago. It does not cite references, is disorganized, is written in an inappropriate tone, and fails WP:BAND. Shalom ^Hello 20:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable or at least no assertion of notability per WP:MUSIC --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Shalom/Childzy. Accounting4Taste 19:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an salvageable orphan with no reliable sources or notability. John Vandenberg 16:07, 10 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 01:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pittsburgh colors[edit]

Rather unencyclopedic and unverifiable. At least a merge with Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Pats1 20:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Slightly interesting observation, but "interesting observations" are original research without reliable sourcing to back it up. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 21:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Black and gold. Slightly interesting, but not interesting enough to write an article about it. Mandsford 21:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A paragraph in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 22:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some people will write an article on anything, merge appropriates --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we definitely don't need an article about some city's colours. JIP | Talk 12:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Sports in Pittsburgh. While it is certainly significant that black and gold are Pittsburgh's sporting colors, only one other North American city I can think of right off has a color associated with its sports teams--Toronto. Not unique enough for an article. Blueboy 96 19:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that it is relatively useless to have a separate article for that so I opt for the merger per above as it seems it is more commonly used for the pro sports like the Penguins and Steelers.--JForget 22:45, 10 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. MastCell ^Talk 21:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Cat Linux[edit]

Notability to come Chealer 20:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N and considering the creators WP:NOTINHERITED. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 02:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found these sources, but unsure about reliability. [6] [7] Carlosguitar 06:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an empty article with no sources. No notability established and at current (depending on the reliability of the sources found above), no reliable sources. Seraphim ^Whipp 10:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article provides no evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins 14:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:21, 10 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. MastCell ^Talk 21:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopia adoption[edit]

This reads like it was copied from somewhere, though I couldn't find the source. Regardless, this is a how-to, not an encyclopedia article. Corvus cornix 20:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything truly useful into International adoption Wl219 20:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per others —Preceding unsigned comment added by Childzy (talk • contribs) 22:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing to be merged. Pavel Vozenilek 01:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Aldux 17:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. --Aldux 17:04, 11 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 previous AfD's of such lists provide a general precedent, though not a binding one. Arguments for deletion were convincing. If there is irreplaceable material lost with this deletion that an editor wishes to merge into other Harry Potter articles, let me know and I can see about providing it. MastCell ^Talk 21:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Harry Potter beasts[edit]

The article is a recitation of plot summary from the Harry Potter books and has no other information. The article basically says nothing that isn't plot summary, has no notability, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 20:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Magical beasts (Harry Potter) Wl219 20:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge With a small number of exception this article deals with creatures created by Rowling that have NOT appeared in any of the books except minor mentions or only in Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them.. The majority of creatures that have been mentioned Frequently e.g. Norbert, played major parts Fluffy, or are not creations of Rowling's have been kept out of the article. --Kevmin 22:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I count as a harry potter book "Fantastic Beasts", and we don't need plot summary of that book either. Judgesurreal777 22:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Harry Potter pedia because there is no notability established Corpx 05:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For much the same reasons as the Mythical creatures in Harry Potter AfD, (cruftiness etc), but having said that, this is even less notable than that article due to its "minor" subjects. I Oppose Merging to Magical beasts (Harry Potter) seeing as that article's prodded as well, and could very well be deleted too. Spawn Man 06:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spawn Man (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Acromantula to HP2, merge the four relevant dragons to HP4 and make sure the information on thestral here is also at the main article. Axe everything else. i ^said 23:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:FICT. Also, unsuitable inclusion criteria (what constitutes "minor"?). Axem Titanium 04:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note - This article should definitely be deleted seeing the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mythical creatures in Harry Potter... Spawn Man 10:24, 14 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 - there really does not appear to be any degree of consensus here. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Little Giant Ladder System[edit]

Fails WP:CORP. No independent references are cited for this product; and Google returns mainly ads and shopping sites (who would have thought). A comment on the talk page suggests that the topic had been on the Requested Articles list, however, so I think this should receive a thorough discussion. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 19:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but clean up & possibly rename spammy article. Reasonably well covered as an infomercial success story (and now a much-imitated design). --Dhartung | Talk 22:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, just needs a rewrite with some inline citations and it will be fine --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of notability shown in article. --Gavin Collins 15:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in its present state, it should have been speedied as an advertisement. Deb 11:59, 12 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. Maxim_(talk) 01:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ParetoLogic[edit]

Non-notable company that uses Wikipedia as a way to advertise. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/RegCure Bahustard 19:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What proof do you have that the "as advertised at Wikipedia" page is owned by ParetoLogic? As far as I can see, that page is at getview.net, and could be a scam with nothing to do with this company, but using one of their products as bait. Note the amateurish style of the page, then read the business awards given to ParetoLogic on their article. You could very easily be making libellous claims here - the claims on the RegCure article are also unsourced other than a single page at getview.net. Thomjakobsen 21:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This appears to be the official RegCure page, not the getview.net one. Notice the differences in quality. Thomjakobsen 21:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't add that claim, and thanks to the firewall at work, can't check either site until I get home. I found it amusing to have spotted the addition, but it wasn't the basis for adding AfDs to the rest of the company's legacy. -Bahustard 22:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The vast majority of google references to their products appear to be bogus downloads, scam "warning" articles and obscure forum posts. They appear to be very active targets of the malware industry - not surprising given the nature of their products - so it would be best to keep the discussion here and on the other AfDs to questions of notability. From what I can gather, they are legitimate (i.e. not malware) but their product names are spoofed actively all over the internet, so let's keep claims of "malware" and "dubious bonafides" out of it. Legal matters being what they are. Thomjakobsen 23:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've tried to keep my AfDs on here on the basis of notability and use of Wikipedia for advertising. While I do think they're gray at best, I don't have anything but my experiences to show for it. The near-impossibility of getting credible articles, along with the sheer advertising nature of the articles, provides enough reason as it is. -Bahustard 23:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't doubt that someone at the company probably started this article, but that doesn't mean it's not a notable subject. I removed some marketroid phrasing. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 22:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just an FYI they are a member of an affiliate directory meaning anyone can get paid for traffic/conversions. This probably makes them a very popular target for spyware and malware as their authors are able to make commissions if they can drive their victims to sign up for the "cure" to the problem that they are causing. It does not necessarily mean the company is non-notable however. RegCure is probably the best selling registry cleaner on-line right now. Or at least the most advertised. On the other hand, it is most likely someone advertising the product that has created this page. Many people will probably try to use wikipedia as a reference for the claims of awards being won being true. It could have easily been written by promoters of the product in order to create sales. We are talking about people who put up websites that advertise the product. Their own advertisement serves as a reference for the article in accordance with wikipedia's policy. It will be hard to decide how to deal with problems such as this because there is a genuine need for an article on this company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.64.159.141 (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In that case, documenting these issues in the Wikipedia article would be a useful response to any attempt to exploit Wikipedia for marketing purposes. If ParetoLogic is among those who have distributed malware disguised as anti-malware utilities, I would think this would be well documented by their legitimate competitors, or better, in the IT press. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 03:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, we don't really have any concrete proof that ParetoLogic themselves are distributing rogue software. Some of us are convinced of it, but that's not the same thing. Presumably, they've got a system in place that has made it painfully easy to exploit for gain, but that's still not quite the same thing. Especially if we can't get anything citable. The basis for the AfDs lies in notability and the marketeering nature of the company and its products' articles. Bahustard 03:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since my last edit here, I've gone and whacked away more marketing language in the article, including two entire sections. Maybe that will help. The company is notable, sure, but there were too many inflated claims, links to product reviews, and a list of awards that are of no significance outside British Columbia. I'll keep watching the article. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 03:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. —Rob C. alias Alarob 04:17, 14 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. This article needs references, some of which have been cited in the AfD. Tyrenius 19:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Neely[edit]

Prod removed by IP. Article is about a very non-notable subject. An abstract artist is not necessarily notable, even if she has some gallery showings. The article says nothing about her minor awards, and it is unsourced other than the links to her paintings. No pages link to this article, and her g-hits are rather low. Reywas92^Talk 19:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google hits are pretty thin - artsy blogs and gallery mentions. Milton Academy is a private secondary school - seems like she's a school teacher who wanted to be an artist. MarkBul 20:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 00:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need to be rude, most working artists teach for much of their career. But NN. Johnbod 01:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no real notability is established Corpx 05:19, 8 September 2007

(UTC)

Keep If you look at her bio she has work in the Whitney, the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, the National Gallery, The National Museum of American Art, Washington, D.C. and several other good permanent collections, and more than twenty solo exhibitions, seems ok to me. Clearly though the article needs improvement. Modernist 14:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Modernist. In the permanent collections of several major museums. In addition, the bibliography section of her resume lists dozens of reviews of her art, independent published sources about her and her art that if added to the article should make it easily pass WP:BIO. —David Eppstein 15:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Her bio [8] shows notability but I found no works listed when I searched the online catalogues of MoMa, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston and the Whitney. Overall though the resume looks convincing: it would only take a few of the press articles to establish notability.--Ethicoaestheticist 23:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment many online museum catalogs are incomplete, with artists in the collection omitted from the online search engines, in many cases. Modernist 13:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above 24.11.202.83 04:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think she might be notable although at present though there is nothing to prove that. If sources and coverage can be found then I think this could be improved. But if there is nothing to be found, no sources, then I wouldn't see a reason to keep this. Seraphim ^Whipp 10:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The Boston Globe has a number of reviews of her work [9], and there's one in ARTNews [10]. Unfortunately the full texts cannot be accessed online.--Ethicoaestheticist 18:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep several awards, also some reviews of known media, just passes notability - although sources and some expansion would be needed to assure and assert the notability.--JForget 22:50, 10 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. Maxim_(talk) 01:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XoftSpySE[edit]

Non-notable software from a company that uses Wikipedia as an advertising avenue. See RegCure Bahustard 19:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable and the references are not from independent sources (nor are they reliable) --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As stated in another discussion... this "new" user with no past edit history has come out of the woodwork to plaster Wikipedia with deletion requests for all the products of a single company. This should raise a few red flags as to the motive of the AfD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.119.134 (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Meanwhile, the chief defense has come from an anon IP who does nothing but work on Paretologic articles. So I think it cancels out. Bahustard 19:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep despite the original author's clear intention to plug the product. There is an attempt to address a controversy over the product being suspected as a kind of trojan. The article would benefit from a fuller treatment of this, and greater impartiality overall. I also wonder why a related product also has a Wikipedia article but with the spelling "XOFTspy." See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XOFTspy Portable Anti-Spyware, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ParetoLogic Privacy Controls, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RegCure, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ParetoLogic. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 04:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This software is MALWARE. It destroys computers. This is not a safe article, and is undermining Wikipedia's credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.78.150.119 (talk) 01:26, 15 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. MastCell ^Talk 21:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Post-rave[edit]

Tagged for speedy deletion as "pure vandalism" which is probably a pretty solid overstatement. Nevertheless, seems poorly researched, if researched at all and there's a distinct possibility that this is a hoax of sorts. Pascal.Tesson 19:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this for speedy deletion and as pure vandalism and I really can't see how this isn't pure vandalism. I think this has more to do with an internet fad followed by a very very few than as a bonafide genre of music. Moforex 20:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing though: if it's truly an Internet fad (and not, as one may suspect, completely made up) then the article was written in good faith and cannot be considered as pure vandalism. Pascal.Tesson 20:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But, If it is an internet meme or fad, shouldn't it be listed as one? Not as a genre of music? I see listing this as a genre of music very objectionable, and especially problematic for those that study 20th Century music. Pascal, I really can't see this as anything more than vandalism because there are barely any references and I can't find much to substantiate this. Furthermore, I sincerely doubt this 'music' (which I think Cage, Ives, Schoenberg and Varese would even find objectionable to call it) comes from Uzebekistan. We only have references to two performers of this supposed genre, neither of which are documented by others- just themselves. I am a musician, I'd like to think that if a friend and I came up with "Omega Funk Octopus Rock" it wouldn't be considered on wikipedia if there were just two of us! :) Moforex 00:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Post-rave is definitely real. It's not popular, but it does warrant an article. And as a fellow musician, I completely disagree that the composers you namedropped would not want to call this music. Especially Cage! Did you even think about what you were typing?

Delete per nom. --Agamemnon2 07:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I knew what I was typing-- But, OK-- Maybe I was in the wrong for referencing Cage, considering his quote about trucks and music schools. Nonetheless, I want to see some sources, Agamemnon2. All I've seen of Post-Rave is three myspace pages, two of which are more than likely by the same person. Everything else I've seen on google is relating to 'Post-Rave Era', 'Post-Rave Guitar Rock.' There are no attributes to this style of music that give it right to be considered it's own genre. This is a meme, not a legitimate genre. If Post-Rave wishes to exist on wikipedia I firmly believe it needs to be listed as a meme. This bit about Uzbekistan is ridiculous. If this isn't a meme and it is indeed a genre, let's see some sources, 'Cause I'd love to find some and can't. Moforex 11:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:V. I've checked on Google, Google Books, and Google Scholar. All of the solid references to the words "post-rave" do not refer to a particular genre of music, but only use the term as a an adjective to describe a time period, or a culture, or a wide variety of genres that evolved after the Rave scene wound down. Also, the article itself has not valid references, just myspace pages and Russian language blogs. There is one English newspaper article but it only mentions " post-rave genre mash-up", which is not a reference to a particular genre. There certainly is music that can be called "post-rave music", but not as a particular genre - many modern electronic music genres were affected by raves and rave-related music. The articles for those genres do mention post-rave influences, but that does not make post-rave a genre. If the article were kept, it would need to be completely re-written from scratch, on the topic of how rave-related music genres and rave-related culture has changed following the passing of the peak of rave culture. That would be an interesting article, but it would not be the same article, so this one should be deleted, but with allowance for re-creation if someone wants to write a new article with the same name, on that larger topic. --Parsifal _Hello 19:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for the above reason. If this is going to be reworked to include less self-published sources, fine, but why delete the page history? —BlackTerror 14:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article does not cite any references for an audience of "post rave". If it is really a genre, shouldn't it have some kind of a fan base? Speciesofone 15:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a joke, and even if you chose to listen to arguments to the contrary, it's NN. - BalthCat 02:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete this article* This is an actual genre of music that exists as a legitimate branch of rave music lifestyle. It's distinctive in that it uses specific types of samples and instruments and enjoys a muted fan base. It is difficult to pinpoint a genre that originated in Central Asia, naturally, but BalthCat's comment is a logical fallacy; he doesn't like this particular type of music so any arguments to prove it is music are useless.--20.4.0.18 13:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Luckily I also pointed out it's NN, so the fact it's all a giant (crappy) joke isn't even necessary to delete the article. - BalthCat 16:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentLuckily we have you to spew your hate across the Internet (that was sarcasm, no one actually cares that you don't like the music). It is notable, it is a distinct genre, and it is identifiable through certain inalienable features not found in other rave-style music. If I splice dog DNA with dolphin DNA and create a new organism I no longer a dog nor do I have a dolphin. This is a distinctly new and unique organism. The same analogy applies to music; when genres branch out to a degree they are uniquely different they can no longer be identified with the original genre name. The fact that you are not a fan of the music is irrelevent.--Pitchurge 17:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but if i write an article about 'Dog the Bounty Hunter' and cite it with only references to Canis lupus familiaris, the article doesn't hold any water or any evidence. This is a very similar case. BTW i'm also giving you very very much credit as I aliken a genre with barely any listeners to a nationally aired reality television star.Moforex 18:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, 'genre' 18:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moforex (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 06:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Baseball players with four different teams in the same season[edit]

Unneeded trivial info, wikipedia isn't a sports alamac, see WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOT, prod removed, Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 19:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Purely a collection of indiscriminate information. Why 4 teams/season? And are these players mainly notable for this fact, or for their skills? Bfigura ^(talk) 19:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of them are notable for that fact I guess, others like Dave Kingman are clearly not, but they were Major League Baseball players and gets articles because of that, not because they played four teams in a season. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 19:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The inclusion criteria here are fairly arbitrary - why four and not three or five? This does seem to be fairly stereotypical of sports trivia type stuff. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 21:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Four is the record, so five isn't possible but still trivial Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 21:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In sports lore, talent and mediocrity are both celebrated, and the players on the list appear to have a little bit of both. Although baseball players are chattel, it is unusual for a person to be traded three or four times in the space of six months. This list wisely sets parameters in that it doesn't include those players who stay within the corporate structure but move up in the ranks from the minors to the parent team. Though I've not seen a table of this nature before, the information is easily verifiable from the Baseball Encylopedia or one of the many baseball reference websites, so sourcing is not a problem. Mandsford 21:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I never gave an issue with sourcing though, of course it's unusual, but we don't have articles on everything that is considered rare, it reaches WP:NOT though. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 21:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - None of the WP:NOT items says "Wikipedia not a sports almanac".. Why can't it be? Sports almanacs are encyclopedias of a sort. Spanneraol 16:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per this is trivia. What about MLB players who were traded 5x in the course of a season? This is just trivial information Corpx 05:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Four times is the record. Spanneraol 18:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary trivia.--JForget 22:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Truest blue 16:53, 11 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 21:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AIHT[edit]

Non notable school. Minor trade school in India. No references found on google other than the schools own website. OfficeGirl 19:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. not notable.74.171.5.194 03:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Twenty Years 08:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable school. Keb25 08:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a single reliable source used to demonstrate notability. Aboutmovies 06:22, 13 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 21:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bitterne United Reformed Church[edit]

This convo has been copied from the talk page:

WP:N states that "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This church is referred to in a wide range of local history books and other resources. The article just happens to be a stub, and no editor has yet been able to expand the content and add the references in question - but, after all, that's what stubs are all about! Waggers 08:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't assert this notability. It just says it is a church. To at least get by the Speedy Delete criteria, the stub has to at least say why it's notable. --UsaSatsui 15:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Montchav 18:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination was incomplete. I completed it. --UsaSatsui 19:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep for now...don't you feel you're jumping the gun? Yes, I posted that, I speedy-tagged it, but his comment implies he can assert notability. Give the guy a chance to get some notability into it. --UsaSatsui 19:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping the gun? The article was created in March. Corvus cornix 17:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete current version. If the editor comes back with something to show that this church is notable, then I will revisit this discussion, but as it now stands, there's no there there. BTW, there are only 21 Google hits if you remove wikipedia and its mirrors. Corvus cornix 20:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability. I'm not really a fan of wait till notability is established approach Corpx 05:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He had his chance. --UsaSatsui 16:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, churches are not above the requirement to establish notability beyond a local interest through reliable sources. Nuttah68 19:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:N doesn't require a claim to fame, it only requires that "it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This is one such source - I just need to find the book in the library again and add the necessary references. The fact that I have yet to do this does not mean the subject is not notable - WP:N says notability is not temporary, and there's no mention of time restrictions in Wikipedia policy. The references will be added in due course; the fact that they're not there yet bears no relevance to the subject's notability. Waggers 12:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, the article doesn't assert notability. Yes, it is presumed to be notable if it's been written about. However, things still have to be notable for a reason, and you need to state that. For example, George W. Bush has had many, many articles about him...but if the article just says "George W. Bush is a man who is the son of George H. W. Bush", it should be deleted, because it's not claiming why the man is notable. To get past the basic criteria, the article needs to state why this church deserves mention. --UsaSatsui 19:45, 13 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 Mr.Z-man 03:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ParetoLogic Anti-Spyware[edit]

Non-notable software from a company of questionable quality; has several pages in this vein, all obviously used for advertising. See RegCure. Bahustard 19:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bfigura ^(talk) 19:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just delete all Pareto style article on whatever they are about per everything else i've said --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As stated in another discussion... this "new" user with no past edit history has come out of the woodwork to plaster Wikipedia with deletion requests for all the products of a single company. This should raise a few red flags as to the motive of the AfD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.119.134 (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Meanwhile, the chief defense has come from an anon IP who does nothing but work on Paretologic articles. So I think it cancels out. Bahustard 19:08, 12 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. --Stefan ^talk 15:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XOFTspy Portable Anti-Spyware[edit]

Non-notable software; written like an advertisement Bahustard 19:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bfigura ^(talk) 19:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This one is actually notable as being the first of something, it is also independently sourced and reliably so --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - several decent sources already in the article. — xDanielx ^T/_C 10:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As stated in another discussion... this "new" user with no past edit history has come out of the woodwork to plaster Wikipedia with deletion requests for all the products of a single company. This should raise a few red flags as to the motive of the AfD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.119.134 (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Meanwhile, the chief defense has come from an anon IP who does nothing but work on Paretologic articles. So I think it cancels out. Bahustard 19:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (although without much enthusiasm). It's clear that the article was started to plug the product, but the product is just notable enough to merit a short article. I deleted a section of links to product reviews. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 03:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. —Rob C. alias Alarob 04:16, 14 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 02:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marauders (Harry Potter)[edit]

The article is a recitation of the plot of various harry potter books from an in-universe perspective. As the books cover the plot in their respective articles, this is entirely duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 19:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Prisoner of Azkaban where most of this is covered in the plot. James Potter's death and discovery of Wormtail's treachery effectively ended the Marauders as a clique so the stuff from Order of the Phoenix doesn't need to be repeated. Wl219 20:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge with various articles. I don't think that a blanket merge to PoA would be enough; some information needs to go on the character pages, and some should go to other books and organizations (such as Order of the Phoenix (organisation)). Do not salt, though, pending the release of JKR's upcoming "encyclopedia" which may bring need of it back. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 23:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of coverage from independent sources Corpx 05:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"independent sources"... pls its a book ofc there wont be any other sources.

Merge or change it into a sort of "Disambiguation"-page only showing "The Marauders refers to James Potter, Sirius Black, Remus Lupin, Peter Pettigrew" or something that short not having any info, just a multi redirect. Chandler talk 21:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What if we redirect as W1219 says to a section within PoA? In hindsight, that does look like a good idea. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 21:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it could be a good section in the plot section. Judgesurreal777 21:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the information is already in other articles anyway. Neville Longbottom 12:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then create as a disambig page to each of the four separate articles; like Neville said, the information has been covered already. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 18:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:FICT. Also, plot fork. Axem Titanium 04:02, 11 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. Maxim_(talk) 14:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bank Road[edit]

Lacks sources demonstrating notability. Tagged for such sources since June 2006. I looked but couldn't find appropriate sources to add. FisherQueen (Talk) 15:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This appears to be a major thoroughfare and a historic one, partially due to it's tram. [11]. According to the BBC, it's part of "The Matlock Trail"[12]. --Oakshade 15:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If a street is not known beyond its local area, it should not be notable. If there are media citations specifically discussing the street, and not just mentioning it in passing, then I would say Keep. Otherwise, Delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkBul (talk • contribs) 15:57, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
50/50 If this - At the beginning of the twentieth century Matlock proudly boasted that it had the steepest tramway in the world. - from the source is true and citeable then keep otherwise delete. Regan123 17:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the "steepest tramway in the world" claim from 1893 might have been news to users of the San Francisco cable car system (built 1873, expanded 1889). No opinion on the article's validity, as if the press were claiming this it would (weakly) be enough independent coverage, albeit probably better served by an article on the tram rather than the road — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The tram and the landmark buildings along it seem to be more notable than the street itself. The tram is also already covered in Matlock, Derbyshire, so merge the information about the notable buildings into the Matlock article. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 14:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 18:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a road in a small town - no real notability outside the town Corpx 05:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant material to Matlock per Elkman. LexisNexis, Google Book, Questia and Gutenberg (the last usually very good for turn-of-the-century sources) turned up nothing especially noteworthy.Jlittlet 18:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to have some historical significance and also has several landmarks, although sources would need to be provided particularly for the historical section, although it appears to be notable.--JForget 22:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and corpx non notable further they are thousands of other roads by the same name.Pharaoh of the Wizards 01:06, 16 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. Xoloz 17:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sack attack[edit]

Nonnotable footbag game. Even if it was mentioned in Footbag magazine 12 years ago (and the citation doesn't link to any discussion of this game), that's not enough. Also, see WP:NFT. NawlinWiki 18:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and complete lack of sources. I particularly find the "invention" claims dubious: no doubt others have thought of this same concept many times independently. Mango juice^talk 18:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not sure what the 'invention' claim refers to, perhaps an older version of the article, which has since been edited. The citation is to the magazine, but unfortunately the magazine does not have its entire archives online, although I have a print copy which I could scan? Seems like a game that was covered in a prominent Footbag magazine deserves an entry. Hansbethe

Delete per nom. Cannot establish notability. - CobaltBlueTony 19:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC) P.S. lol @ WP:NFT. HA! - CobaltBlueTony[reply]

Redirect to Groin attack? Eleland 19:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks very like stuff made up in school one day, and without any references to show otherwise it doesn't belong here. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking any significant coverage Corpx 05:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, made up in school one day. JIP | Talk 12:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, This office-type game (see [13] for more in the same line that are not on wikipedia), does begin as something made up in school one day, but I believe it has grown larger than that. Hansbethe 20:25, 10 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, national TV newscasters are noteable. Rlevse 15:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rosil Al Azawi[edit]

Appears to be a non-notable fashion model. Third party sources all but do not exist: [14], and the only claim to notability in the article is from the subject's own website. Thus fails WP:V and probably WP:BIO. The Evil Spartan 18:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is an Iraqi TV presenter with a (former? current?) following in other Arabic-speaking countries. Article ~~needs~~ would benefit from expansion based on non-web sources, but does not fail notability test. People with similar roles in other countries are written up in WP and have survived AfDs (e.g. Lauren Newton (TV star)). -- Rob C. alias Alarob 22:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my note below, and also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The Evil Spartan 19:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying "other stuff exists"; I'm saying the subject is already notable based on what we already know. I should have said the article would benefit from expansion, as I did not mean to imply that it will not be good enough to keep until it is expanded. I have amended my previous comment. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 23:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, national-level TV presenters are generally notable. The majority of sources are probably in Arabic, not English, and there are multiple transliterations between languages, so a simple search is generally not enough. Finally, misrepresenting a topic in order to jump-start an AFD is poor showmanship. --Dhartung | Talk 03:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide any of those sources? I would think that if there were such a plethora of sources, they would exist at least a little in Latin script (which French uses as well). Saying "other sources probably exist" is great, but we need some proof. The Evil Spartan 19:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gnan garra 14:40, 16 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. Carioca 00:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Benoit Raymond[edit]

Certain conflict of interest (compare the name of the subject's grandson with the author's username), pure original research, and zero google hits (two from Wikipedia, but that's it). An impressive set of medals and no doubt a fine soldier, but non-notable per WP:BIO and WP:MILHIST. PC78 18:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO, even though it appears to be a good-faith contribution from a proud grandson. Also add the picture on the article, because it has some non-free conditions attached and won't have a use after the article goes down. Thomjakobsen 18:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks any notability and I dont think any of his accomplishments are a ticket for notability Corpx 05:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Corpx et al. Accounting4Taste 19:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has being pretty much just like the ordinary military member (even with the awards) lots of them had awards.--JForget 22:54, 10 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 21:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shahara Islam[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This person (a terrorist victim) is notable only for one event. Sad as her fate has been, the article should not be on Wikipedia per WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:MEMORIAL, and (in a slight extension) WP:BLP1E.

As a marginally relevant side note: Someone predicted in the last AfD in 2005 that the Google hit count for her name (then 15,800) would decrease. Today it's 2190. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 18:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per precedent set with the 9/11 victims. Aside from anything else, I can see no reason she's any more notable than any of the other victims — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She isnt notable in her own right --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- wikipedia is not a memorial. What happen to her was truly awful but the article fails the criteria for inclusion--Cailil ^talk 23:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not news/not memorial Corpx 05:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:42, 10 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 and redirect to Dragon Ball Z. Most people here consider the secondary sources mentioned reliable enough to mention the film, but in the context of the main Dragon Ball Z article for now, until/unless the film gains more notability. — TKD::Talk 07:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Ball Z (film)[edit]

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

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

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

The creation of this article was not based on fact but on mere rumors on the internet. 20th Century Fox has never confirmed that the movie would be made, and they have released a statement in which they specifically refused to confirm the so-called new "info" from the Montreal Gazette on which this article is based. Currently, there's nothing substanciated about this supposed DB movie. Another rumor has popped up on the net last week (as dozens have, during the last 6 years), but it is not enough to revive this article. Currently no one -not even Fox- can confirm the allegations of the article from the Montreal Gazette, and until more concrete and official elements are made public, it remains a possible hoax. So, according to 2 criteria in the "reasons for deletion" policy ("Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" and "All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed"), the article should be deleted Folken de Fanel 17:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you are pretty good at lying, because last time i checked, variety is a reliable source. just because you don't think that it is a reliable source doesn't mean that it isn't a reliable fource. Opinions and facts are two totally different things. plus, that comment you left on my usertalk page was completly innapropriate. i haven't been lying, if anything, you have. stop personally attacking people. -cman7792

"You are pretty good at lying": sounds like a personal attack ! ;)

So, just because you think Variety is a reliable source doesn't mean it is reliable (don't forget, "and facts are two totally different things"). I'm saying what I've been saying from the beginning: nothing, in 3 years, has come to support Variety's claims...Thus, it should be handled carefully. Now, where are the so-called lies in that ?

The comments I've made to your talk page are absolutely appropriate, considering your behavior. Now, it seems you're mistaken, this Afd was not made so that you could post personal (and harmful) comments about me: you should change the tone of your contribs here.Folken de Fanel 20:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

my behavior, whatever i wont even go there but it is funny that you say that. the adf page is for fact on wether the dragonballz live action film article should be merged or not, no one cares about your personal feelings. if there is something you want to say, say it on my discussion page, not here --Cman7792 22:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the article should be deleted or merged or kept. Not only "merged", this is an AfD, Article for Deletion...Concerning personal feelings, I hope you realize no one cares about yours either...Folken de Fanel 12:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nom says it all -- this article fails WP:RS and WP:V. Supposed film is nothing but rumor. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks much better now. Merge all veriafiable info to a new section on Dragon Ball Z. Logical enough of a move until the film enters production. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 23:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
if it is a rumor, than it could be fixed later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cman7792 (talk • contribs)
Merge all verifiable content (prior to the Montreal Gazette coverage) to a "Live-action film adaptation" section at Dragon Ball Z. Per notability guidelines for films, there can be a stand-alone article for the film when it enters production. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That is not true anymore. at first, the origonal movie was rumors, but now it is confirmed to be filmed in montreal. the montreal gazzeter, newsletter of montreal, and other actual sources like ign confirmed this. this article on the dragonballz film should not be deleted, but merged with the dragonballz article.

-cman7792 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cman7792 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You're completely wrong. Fox refused to confirm what's in the Montreal Gazette article, which, until further notice, remains another hoax. By the way, IGN are merely reporting what the M.G. said and don't "confirm" anything (they have no ability to confirm anything since they're not involved in any way with the hypothetical production of the movie. Besides, it's IGN who reported that Fox didn't confirm). This article should be deleted, because based on unconfirmed rumors, no matter how hard some contributors here "want to believe"...As for a merge with the general DBZ article, I don't see enough concrete element to justify any mention of this.Folken de Fanel 20:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see enough concrete. This page could be deleted after the dragonballz live action film info is put into the dragonall z page. one of the sections on the page would be dragonballz live action film. that would be a merge and this is what we all want. you could have your opinion but you are looking for the wrong thing. -cman7792

There has been nothing concrete, Fox never confirmed they would make a DBZ movie, they just bought the right and that's all. There won't be anything on a DBZ live movie on the DBZ page, since there's no DBZ live movie.Folken de Fanel 22:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is alot of concrete. fox refused to comment on the montreal newspaper because they probably would like to announce it in a better way. if fox wasn't going to make the movie, they would of denied the news, not by not commenting. this article should be merged for now--Cman7792 23:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. i heard this page is being considered for deletion. this page should not be deleted, but merged with the dragonballz article. -cman7792 (moved from here) Editor has made direct recommendation below. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is not enough to merge once the unsubstanciated rumors are removed...Folken de Fanel 20:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What unsubstanciated rumors. The stuff about the dragonball z live action movie being filmed in montreal is true. Get your facts straight. you want proof that it is true. the montreal gazzeter which is an official newpaper in montreal canada claims it. i could picture the movie being made in montreal. this way fox doesn't have to pay as much taxes on the film-cman7792 Look, Folken de Fanel, everyone wants this film to be merged with the dragonballz page besides you. Look how many people agree with me rather than you:

1) The article in the Montreal Gazette has not been confirmed by Fox (that's quite the contrary). Until an official statement is made by Fox, the article is just another bogus report. Now, what you want to believe about the reality of the movie doesn't matter here, i hope you can understand that. No reliable and verified source, no article, that's all. Your beliefs alone won't do it.

2) Don't start with things like "look how many people agree with me". Anyone reading this page will see the obvious...Folken de Fanel 22:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike you, i don't personally attack people. But the point is that it was confirmed by montreal that the movie would be filmed there. all you care about is that fox didn't officially anounce it, but they would of denied it if it wasn't true. you have to look at more than one fact. stop being so black and white. --Cman7792 00:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's you who're personnally attacking me, by spreading lies, claiming that I would be "harassing" (?) you, saying "awful" (?) things, while I have never personally attacked you. Where do you see any "attack" ? Unless if you can't stand people having a different opinion than yours, taking it "personally" when they are sceptic about a supposed movie in which you want to believe, I don't see any problem.

Anyway, if you're trying to get me blocked just to take your revenge because I'm "daring" to be realistic about this so-called DB movie (I saw your "report" on the admin board), then you should know that it could very well backfire to you, and making up false claims of harassments and insults just like you did on the admin board can only make your situation worse.

Finally, no, any "news", particularly on the so-called DB movie, should be handled with caution, and without any confirmation by Fox, should be seen as a potential hoax. Concerning the Montreal Gazette article, it was denied by Fox. Folken de Fanel 11:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The following headlines exist:

Gardner, Chris (12 March 2002). "Fox draws deal for 'DragonBall' live-action pics". The Hollywood Reporter. 372 (28).
Brodesser, Claude (2004-06-24). "Ramsey rolls 'Dragonball Z'". Variety.

These items can be incorporated into a "Live-action film adaptation" section in the source material's article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only the article about Fox buying the right is valid, the rest is just unconfirmed allegations just like the article that appeared recently. However, since we haven't heard officially from the movie for five years (and Fox never actually confirmed they would make the movie) I consider this highly non-notable for WP.Folken de Fanel 21:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the Variety article not valid? Publicized intention to make a film out of a franchise is notable enough for a mention in the article of the source material. Please see articles like Fahrenheit 451 (2008 film), The Flash (film), The Jetsons (film), Jurassic Park IV, Knight Rider (film), Land of the Lost (film), Logan's Run (2010 film), Spy Hunter: Nowhere to Run, Street Fighter (2008 film), Voltron (film), Warcraft (film), et cetera. It's completely appropriate to mention that a project was previously in the making -- it's part of a franchise's history. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Variety article was never ever confirmed by official sources. There has never been anything about the movie (there was, about the rights, but not about an actual movie) from Fox, and since 2002 there has been so many bogus reports from various internet sources, that now anything not direcly from Fox is not to be trusted. And we've seen another proof of this recently, with the Montreal Gazette article as good as denied by Fox.Folken de Fanel 21:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Variety. It is an official trade paper and The Hollywood Reporter's competitor. It completely qualifies as a reliable source, and there is zero reason to dismiss it. In addition, the project was apparently not "denied" by the studio -- per IGN, "This report cannot be confirmed as neither start dates nor locations are locked in at this point." This is not a denial in the strictest sense, and the author of the Montreal Gazette must have gotten potential information from somewhere. Calling it a hoax without any explanation is not warranted. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is all the reasons to dismiss it entirely since it is not official in any way and not affiliated with Fox or with any movie studio, and Fox has never confirmed the Variety article. Your personal interpretations of Fox words is irrelevant at this point, the Montreal Gazette is just another bogus report until Fox officially announce the movie themselves. Since the Gazette article was used to re-created this DB movie article on WP, then deletion is the only option since it's not a reliable source which could not be verified. If the only elements are internet gossips, then this article must be deleted. Using denied allegations to create articles is not warranted either.Folken de Fanel 22:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources like Variety and The Hollywood Reporter are completely acceptable under reliable source criteria. WP:RS: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." A primary source like the studio itself is not what is requested. Since you are lacking understanding about trade papers, these are the papers through which studios reveal news -- take a look at the film section. I used the wording that IGN used about the project, where there was no form of "denial" used -- that was your own interpretation. I merely pointed out that there was no clear-cut denial of the project. Considering the availability of two trade papers and a newspaper (not Internet gossip), it is notable enough to make mention of the history of this project. Like I've recommended, it should be done at Dragon Ball Z. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Variety is not a reliable source, since the article about a so-called DB movie has never been fact checked and remains unconfirmed by Fox. It a 3 year old article than never proved itself true by actual movie development. I'm not "lacking understanding", I'm just realistic, if studios want to reveal news, they have their own means to do so. External websites are often based on gossips, rumors, fake sources, etc. Considering there's nothing official, nothing confirmed on the subject, only internet gossips and possibly bogus reports, there won't be anything here, until Fox officially confirm they're making the movie.Folken de Fanel 22:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete confirmation of a possible DBZ movie is not likely, only Internet gossip at this point. Is that Variety article the only possible source? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is The Hollywood Reporter article from March 2002. I don't support the existence of this article at all, but this project actually had form at one point and should be mentioned in the article of the source material. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The project had no "form" at any point, Fox just bought the right almost 6 years ago, and they did nothing with it. An actual production process was never mentioned. The Variety article was just another unconfirmed rumor. That's why there isn't anything notable in it for WP.Folken de Fanel 21:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Variety is a trade paper with enough credibility to qualify as a reliable source. There is no reason to doubt its content, and the information should be included at Dragon Ball Z. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it has no credibility whatsoever, because none of its info was confirmed either by statements from Fox, or by actual movie material released to the public. All the reports about the so-called movie have been proven bogus, and Fox itself never confirmed a movie was being made: in this circumstances, anything not from Fox is not reliable.Folken de Fanel 22:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is literally no information in the article in question; in fact the article consists of a single paragraph which itself states that the information is unconfirmed. Unconfirmed=non-verifiable. HalfShadow 22:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The gazetter is a real source, so as the hollywood reporter. Newspapers and the nespaper's websites don't lie. the author must of gotten the information from somewhere. besides, fox never never denied that the film is in work. they just didn't say who the director is yet because they don't have a director yet, nor do they have a script, unless if they used the old one from 5 years ago when the film get cancelled when the film was in pre production. once fox hires people to work on the movie, more information will be revealed. add the info from dragonball z live action film to dragonallz article for now and if it turns out that it is a rumor, then it could be deleted. -cman7792

All this is pure unsubstanciated speculation. And yes, Newspapers and the newspaper's websites can lie. Welcome to the real world.22:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

funny how you claim that all the newspapers are lying about this movie. newspapers don't copy each other, they get information from RELIABLE sources. but enough about newspapers. you can't prove they are lying, and most of the time newspapers don't lie. Now lets get back on topic. Add the dragonballz live action film info into the dragonballz article now, and if it turns up that it was just a rumor then it could be deleted.

Newspaper are not the Absolute Truth, far from that. A reliable source in that case is Fox, and there has never been any statement from Fox about a movie. We don't care how bad you want the DB movie to be real, Wikipedia is not based on the assumptions of its contributors, it's based on verifiable facts. Rumors cannot be verified so they're not in the articles, that how WP works.Folken de Fanel 22:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Farix (Talk) 22:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dragon Ball Z - this is an obvious merge. Article has some sources but the subject is not yet notable enough fr its own article--Cailil ^talk 23:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Filming has not begun, should not have its own article (notability guidelines). Hal peridol 23:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - The information is cited by reliable secondary sources, which is what Wikipedia asks for. Is the film going to be made, maybe/maybe not. It certainly isn't in production at the moment, and there isn't enough information to warrant separation. It will be better placed on the DBZ page until such time that it will be appropriate to separate. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - It hasn't begun filming yet, and for now, who nows, it might not even be made. Merge to the Dragon Ball page for now--$UIT 00:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the verifiable content into Dragon Ball Z per above. Suitable for an non-notable film. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BrenDJ 14:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind explaining why you think it should be kept? Per notability guidelines for films, stand-alone articles should be created when the film enters production. As you can see from the article's information, that is questionable. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has to be true because IMBD has a page for the movie see more info here http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1098327/ . IMBD would never post flase info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.91.213 (talk) 22:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is actually not considered a reliable source because it is user-submitted. Additionally, even if IMDb has a page about a film, this does not mean the film will come out. For example, a film adaptation of The Giver was pursued in 1994, but the film still has not entered the production stage all this time, despite having a page at IMDb, which is as old as 2004. Announced projects do not necessarily equate the immediate production of a film -- this lag is called development hell. The Spider-Man films have been in development since the 1980s. The resurrection of the new Superman and Batman films took longer than anticipated, too. Hope this makes sense -- it's just the nature of the industry to pick up rights whenever possible to produce a film, but there are many factors that stop a project from advancing. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The info about dbz being filmed in montreal seems to be true. just add this article into a dragongallz live action film on the dragonballz page for now

--Cman7792 23:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above, it is somewhat too early for a proper article and relatively little info has been confirmed.--JForget 22:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I can't find anything that causes deletion of this article. I think there're so much well-based info (more than rumors) that it's very fool thinking that is false or poor-based. I vote against its deletion. --S.V.B.E.E.V. 16:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about merging it to Dragon Ball Z, since per notability guidelines for films, articles shouldn't exist until a film enters production? All the content is kept, and when the film enters production, the article can be stand-alone again. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP It seems you should do less arguing over deletion and focus on the information that you do have. There is no way this movie is not going to be made. Right now they have the other super hero movies coming out and DBZ would tank next to Ironman or the Spiderman movies. The demand for the movie will increase if we catalog the information we do have and project our anticiption of the film. The fact that the film is not yet in production shouldn't matter as much as the intent of making the movie as evidenced by Fox's purchase of the rights. It should also be noted that I friggin love me some DBZ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.206.224.50 (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is speculative reasoning at best. Just because of the surge of films does not guarantee that a superhero-esque film will be made. The Superman Returns sequel is on hold until after Bryan Singer finishes Valkyrie. Spider-Man 4 is not being fast-tracked to production, since nobody has decided what they want to do. Ant-Man, Captain America, The Flash, and other projects still have not entered production after a number of years. The article reflects that the studio disputes the report of the film entering production, so at best, the content should be merged to Dragon Ball Z. If the film does enter production, the article can be re-created. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thisis also fairly bizarre reasoning. Wikipedia does NOT exist to influence studio decisions, this is NOT a fan-site. You seem to think that Wikipedia should be used to show interestin the film. No, it most certainly should NOT. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, whether you're expounding on the virtues of communism, anarchism, kool-aid, or dragonball Z movies. ThuranX 23:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Dragon Ball Z. This article fails notability, but I do not think that all information should be deleted. Carlosguitar 23:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redir. Above commenters have already summed up a number of good reasons including time since sources, quality of sources, lack of action, that the content is smaller and verifiable now but without a rudder the project's jsut a footnote on DBZ, etc., etc. Merge it. ThuranX 23:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - Reliable sources can be inaccurate, and sometimes repeat rumors which turn out not to be true. We are not, however, blindly bound to follow them when it becomes apparent their speculation is unfounded. Reliable sourcing is necessary for the attribution of a statement; it is not sufficient for surety that said statement is encyclopedic, or even true. --Haemo 23:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other sites like Comeingsoon.net said it true. 20th Century Fox has confirmed movies that where in the montreal like Night at the Museum 2. So it must be true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.91.213 (talk • contribs) 21:15, September 13, 2007

Just because one project is confirmed doesn't mean the others are. The studio has not officially confirmed that this project will enter production. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:17, 14 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 both. — TKD::Talk 10:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Black[edit]

Non-notable musician, only claim is being the brother of Clint Black. While Clint passes WP:MUSIC easily, Kevin unfortunately flunks.

I'm also nominating Kevin's album:

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 17:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both No real assertion of notability. MarkBul 18:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Agree that these articles fail notability tests. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 22:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable fails WP:MUSIC --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the album and merge himself to the brother's article per failiure of WP:MUSIC.--JForget 22:57, 10 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 merged relevant non crystal info into Treatment of Crohn's disease#Research on medications in progress and Psoriasis#Future_drug_development, with a redirect to Treatment of Crohn's disease#Research on medications in progress as suggested by User:Espresso Addict. Gnan garra 14:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ABT-874[edit]

Non-notable test drug. Article states it may be approved by FDA in 2010. WP:CRYSTAL OfficeGirl 17:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who suffers from crohn's disease, I can tell you that this drug is very notable and offers a promising treatment using anti-interleukin therapy. Slyfoxman7 20:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)— Slyfoxman7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. For now, premature. Not enough sources yet. • Lawrence Cohen 21:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of assertion of notability, with no prejudice against recreation if notability can be established. Someguy1221 20:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The drug is entering phase IIb/III clinical trials for Crohn's disease & psoriasis and therefore will be offered to many thousands of test subjects who might be interested in information from Wikipedia. Plenty of independent references exist, for example this highly cited NEJM paper: [15]. At very least, it should be merged (with redirect retained) into the discussions of upcoming treatments for Crohn's in one/both of Biological therapy for inflammatory bowel disease & Treatment of Crohn's disease, as well as psoriasis ([16]). Espresso Addict 17:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It may prove to be important but it is not at this point notable for an encyclopedia on the basis of the limited amount of material available-. The importance of the disease does not necessarily justify an article on the drug.DGG (talk) 03:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, mostly per Espresso Addict. Stubby, with two relatively reliable sources and two less so, but solution is to expand, not delete, and there's nothing inherently wrong with stubs if the subject is notable. Notability is a little borderline, but I lean toward keep since it does no harm and may do someone some good. If it is deleted, agree again that material should be merged into the articles mentioned by Espresso Addict, but that would be my second choice. --barneca (talk) 13:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment If there is real, sourced information on this to be had, it still might be best to put that information in the Crohn's disease article. Once this drug is approved by the FDA it will be known by a trade name like Viagra or Vioxx. Nobody knows to search for this term, but they will know the trade name and they will know Crohn's disease. This nomenclature of ABT-874 is only helpful to a few who are more familiar with the technical side of things. Not a suitable article title for a general public encyclopedia.OfficeGirl 14:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the drug is approved, the article should be moved to the generic name (not the tradename), retaining a redirect. The current absence of a generic/tradename seems irrelevant to the question of whether the agent is notable; many newly approved drugs are well known to patients by their investigational codes. Espresso Addict 14:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)Hi OfficeGirl, I do see your point, and maybe a move to the trade name will be appropriate in the future, and a redirect and merge now would certainly not be the end of the world. For me, though, if notability is borderline and it isn't a BLP or an attempt at an ad, I'd slightly lean towards including the article, on the theory that it does no harm (insert whatever the link to "it's not paper" is here), and might do some good. I think at this point someone interested in the subject might very well run across the current name and want to know more. --barneca (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At this point we don't even have a generic name for this drug. Users in this discussion have shown very good evidence that the information can be well documented and notable, but for inclusion under Crohn's disease. I think this information should be moved to Crohn's disease and a new article with the generic name should be created as soon as the generic name is known. That's what I think would be best. I'm a bit more ambivalent on that assertion since the reliable sources for the information are present.OfficeGirl 18:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with moving the material to Crohn's disease is that the agent is also under clinical investigation for psoriasis. Espresso Addict 18:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have enough paper in this encyclopedia to reference this test drug in both articles about both diseases? I'll make a run to Office Depot or Kinko's....OfficeGirl 18:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One could make the same argument for retaining the present article ;) Espresso Addict 18:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Week Delete It does appear a non notable test drug.Pharaoh of the Wizards 01:04, 16 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 and redirect to pit bull. KrakatoaKatie 18:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bully breeds[edit]

Appears to be a recent name used by some hobbyists to describe all bulldog/pit bull type dogs, or ones which are bred with abnormally large heads. Doesn't appear particularly notable as a term. No reasonable media/ASPCA/dog show coverage that I could find. I wanted to redirect it to whatever would be a good landing page for this sort of breed, but nothing appears to fit. So delete for no notability, and nowhere to really redirect the phrase too. It seems the phrase gets enough action to merit a redirect somewhere, but darned if I can spot where. Will happily withdraw deletion request if someone can dig up sourcing or a good place to send this page. Also reads like an advertisement for unaturally big-headed dogs, for what it is worth. • Lawrence Cohen 17:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete copyvio of a magazine article (reproduced here). Tagged accordingly. (no attempt to back up its claim of "permission granted") Thomjakobsen 18:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, thank you. I totally missed that. Deleting admin, please redirect as/if needed after copyvio version is gone. • Lawrence Cohen 18:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CSD#G12, then redirect to pit bull (itself a vague basket term). This appears to be little more than to give a sheen of professionalism to dogfighting. --Dhartung | Talk 18:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pit Bull, which is itself a catchall. I've seen it in many other places and there are lots of ghits [17] [18] and so on, so I wouldn't characterize it as a copyvio, but it's really just a euphemism. As such, it doesn't merit its own article. Acroterion _(talk) 18:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The text of the article itself is a blatant copyvio, I've provided a link to the source content above. Thomjakobsen 18:56, 7 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. "Its official website has not been launched yet or has still not been announced." Cited only to a blog. NawlinWiki 18:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isktre54 xcore[edit]

Possible advert, but at the least, no sourcing for notability or the various claims in the article. TexasAndroid 17:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Blatant gibberish. A mish-mash of computer-related terms trying to sound plausible. No ghits, which is inconceivable for something claiming to be a popular file-sharing program, and full of evasive language concerning its unknown author (and lack of any web presence) in an attempt to cover up the fact that it doesn't exist. Clear hoax. Thomjakobsen 17:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G1, fairly obvious nonsense. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 17:54, 7 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, given the improvements made to the articleduring the course of the discussion. Xoloz 17:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elisheva Carlebach[edit]

NN, fails WP:PROF and non-notable relations of possible notables don't need their own article. Yeshivish 16:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —Yeshivish 16:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Yeshivish 16:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oy Vey! Non-notable. Her book didn't seem to leave much of a mark, and there's nothing else there. Notability is not inherited. MarkBul 18:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- but it's close. She is a scholar of ordinary attainments & with notable family ties. I almost voted to Keep. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 22:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established. --Crusio 17:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep I dont see much in the way of substantial arguments for deletion here. Though Queens College is not a research university, the CUNY Graduate center is a high-ranking research university, and she;'s a full professor there. the article was a uncharacteristically modest one, mentioning her family but scanting her own accomplishments. She has actually published two major books, one of which was a finalist for a major reward as is documented by several very strong reviews in major academic periodicals, and a number of research articles. I added this to the article. That's enough for notability as an author or an academic. DGG (talk) 07:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Miamite 08:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:VERIFY, WP:BIO--AmerHisBuff 09:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per dgg--יודל 11:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Not notable (and I'm a QC alum) Avi 13:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article substantially improved -- Avi 20:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per DGG's substantial improvement to the article and argument for notability. --MPerel 17:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Full professor, lots of books and articles, lots of mentions elsewhere. She clearly passes basic WP:N and WP:V requirements. Although perhaps her ancestry and Jewish affiliations in her personal life are currently getting too much mention compared to her academic work, this is a perfectly notable academic and I see no problem under WP:PROF. Does a professor have to win a Nobel Prize to be considered as notable as a Simpsons episode or a minor Star Trek character? --Shirahadasha 17:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Much as I hate to say it: a Simpsons episode or Star Trek have been seen by millions of people. That makes them notable. For an academic to be notable, more is needed than being a full professor who has published cited works. I see no reason to modify my "delete" vote --Crusio 21:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

popularity is not notability, or the encyclopedia would be limited to video and sports and politics. DGG (talk) 04:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Yeshivish--Truest blue 17:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —Eliyak T·C 04:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notability is not in doubt, and indeed is heightened by the fact that she is married to a Haredi rosh yeshiva and is one of very few Jewish Orthodox women (herself descended from a rabbinic dynasty yet) to reach such a high academic standing, attaining not just a PhD but also becoming a long-standing professor and author of serious works of Judaic scholarship. In the Haredi world, women cannot become Talmudic scholars, so that this person's milestones are very significant in that context as well. It's a kind of "Rosa Parks" of Haredi women story in a way, but with lots more academics involved. Her books and research deal with some of the most complex, controversial and difficult areas of Judaism, Jewish history and Jewish studies. Just as a professor who studied and is an authority in astrophysics may not be regarded as "notable" by the outside world, they do nevertheless have notabilty in their own field of expertise and are recognized as such by their colleagues. Dr. Elisheva Cralebach is known and notable in the field of Jewish studies in New York City and where-ever Judaism is studied in an academic non-yeshivish manner. IZAK 04:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Although after the additions of DGG the article might pass WP:PROF, your comments are way over the top. 1) Plenty of Orthodox woman of similar religious level as Yoffen have PhD's. 2) She never became a talmudic scholar. 3) Her books do not deal with the "most complex, controversial and difficult areas of Judaism.--Yeshivish 18:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeshivish: It is your POV that my comments are 'way over the top" (top of what? one may ask.) In reply to your points: 1) Wrong. Very few Haredi women have PhDs and even less are tenured professors who have published voluminous books and published widely. 2) I never said that she became a Talmudic scholar. That is just you twisting my words around, which remains to be seen why you did that. What I did state is that: "In the Haredi world, women cannot become Talmudic scholars, so that this person's milestones are very significant in that context as well" meaning it is precisely because they cannot and do not become Talmudic scholars, then the fact that they become great in other fields like academics to which they are not restricted, is all the more notable. 3) Her books certainly do deal with some of the most complex issues in the Jewish world, such as "The Pursuit of Heresy: Rabbi Moses Hagiz and the Sabbatian Controversies" that deals with the question of Sabbatai Zevi the false Messiah that touches upon questiopns of the Jewish Messiah and the questions surrounding Jewish Messiah claimants; and in "Divided Souls: Converts from Judaism in Germany" she deals with issues that touch upon Jews in apostasy, Conversion to Judaism, History of the Jews in Germany and much more in Jewish history all of which contribute to the filed of academic Jewish studies. You can't get more serious than that. IZAK 03:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - See here: Going over the top "The phrase 'over the top' , has come to refer to excess, particularly outrageous behaviour or hyperbole. A person engaging in such activity would be figuratively 'going over the top.'" 1) Very few Haredi women have PhDs (according to most defenitions of Haredi). However, you said that "few Jewish Orthodox women ... attaining not just a PhD... (emphais added). 2)Your current explanation doesn't really make sense. Is it more notable that one made (great) achievements in a field when that person had other fields to go into or when the person had no other fields to go into? Obviously, the former. 3) The questions surrounding the Jewish Messiah are never described as "complex." They are usually described as "very vague" or something similar to that effect. In any case, currently, it is not a "controversial" issue. She is not at any sort of risk of being publicy denounced.--Yeshivish 04:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Izak. Yossiea ^(talk) 20:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. -- Y not? 04:22, 11 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 per withdrawal of nomination. Non-admin closure.--JForget 22:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Pappas[edit]

~~Non-notable college professor. No sources, not able to verify, only a handful of relevant Google hits. Amazingly, this article has been around for five years.~~ Realkyhick 16:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Nomination withdrawn. Sufficient sources have been added to prove the subject's notability well above the standards of WP:PROF. No need to proceed further with this nomination; move to close. Realkyhick 05:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —Yeshivish 16:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Yeshivish 16:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. GreenJoe 16:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The "widely used" book mentioned in the article indicates notability in his field; this link indicates it's being used in courses and calls it "the best collection of essays" on a particular problem within epistemology. This review of the book he edited seems to suggest he's a leading figure in his field. These cropped up on the first two google pages of his name along with "epistemology" (to filter out others with the same name), so it appears someone with more expert knowledge could easily establish his notability in the article. Suggest mentioning it one of the Philosophy-related wikiprojects to remedy the "lack of activity" issue. Thomjakobsen 16:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Fair enough, if those folks can help out, I'll gladly reconsider. If he's that notable, this article may need expansion instead. I'll keep an open mind here. Realkyhick 18:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I've added and sourced enough that it meets the first three criteria at WP:PROF - satisfying just one makes them "definitely notable". I've also given it a "philosopher-stub" tag and added it to Category:Epistemologists, which according to this recent proposal would see it coming to the attention of the Epistemology task force, presumably to be expanded and improved. Thomjakobsen 20:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, that's much better. I think we can keep this now. Kinda surprising that someone of his apparent reputation hasn't had more attention, but sometimes these kid of articles tend to get buried in the huge mountain of stuff that is Wikipedia. Realkyhick 05:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He's also responsible for an entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which to me absolutely establishes that he's viewed as a leading expert in epistemology. Thomjakobsen 17:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but in serious need of improvement. UTAFA 20:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nominator withdrawl.--Miamite 08:31, 9 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. Maxim_(talk) 13:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Santiago Rodríguez de Mendoza Hernani[edit]

Article does not reveal importance of subject. Fails WP:BIO. AmerHisBuff 16:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above.--AmerHisBuff 16:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merge this info into the article on his son, if it's not already there. Non-notable relations of possible notables don't need their own article. Thomjakobsen 16:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:44, 10 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 to delete. Maxim_(talk) 13:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Truck nuts[edit]

Contested prod. Non-notable novelty product. Not enough context, no sources. Author did remove links to websites selling these items, but that's not enough to save this. (I'm sure some of you creative types will have some very interesting messages to go with your votes.) Realkyhick 16:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I add links for sources and he flags it spam. Who dictates what is "Non-Notable", these have been contested on the senate floor and debated on capital hill. Every edit I do, this guy just has a problem with - I believe its because he has a personal feeling against the product which is hindering his ability to let the information exist.

SO, once again, if I add links for sources, he flags as spam. He alone is determining what is notable and not. Talk about censorship and the god complex, this guy is purely nuts! Edhartel 16:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please remember not to personally attack other editors and to keep your remarks civil. As for who dictates what is not notable — well, that's the whole point of this discussion. I'm hardly alone in this determination. For the record, my edits to this article were 1) the original ((prod)) and 2) the AfD notice. As for being contested in the Senate, there's gotta be a Larry Craig joke there somewhere. Realkyhick 16:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment possible notability: an article in the Washington Post here. As the article is now, it's completely non-encyclopaedic and there is a conflict of interest as the author appears to be, at the very least, the web designer for the product's site. [19] --Beloved Freak 16:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please refrain from making comments in an article that are about the article, as was done here. Comments/discussion about the article belong on the article's talk page. If the article is being debated in an articles for deletion, as is the case here, then comments/discussion about the proposed deletion belong on the AfD page. Thank you. — Becksguy 18:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this is the reverted text from the article: Now, would the dick who keeps deleting this for spam tell me why that is spam? That is pure information, not spam, and DO NOT let your religous feelings or thought block you from telling people about what the term truck nuts is for. — Becksguy 07:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete unless sourced and made NPOV (to account for the variety of brands, e.g. Truck-Nutz, Your Nutz, etc.). For such a widely-sold product there appear to be few reliable sources but I have an open mind. In any case, the present article is of poor quality and the COI issue (and the incivil means of dispute) means I'm not willing to give it an extra chance. --Dhartung | Talk 18:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dhartung. I'm rather surprised that there doesn't seem to be enough out there to support this article. It's a fairly ubiquitous sort of product and one would think there might be more to say about them than there is - but apparantly not. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 21:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a non-notable fad, and a few newspaper articles don't change this. Ubiquitous? I drive Alabama highways every week and have not noticed this. Clearly it's no hula hoop. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 22:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. --Agamemnon2 08:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dhartung and nominator. Although there is a newspaper article, per Belovedfreak above, that may confer notability, I agree that the WP:COI issue, lack of context, WP:SPAM issue, lack of sources in the article, and the incivility of the author render this problematic as it is. The article was created, WP:PROD proposed, contested, nominated for WP:AFD, vandalized by the author, and finally reverted by me, all on the same day, September 7th. I usually argue that if the article can be fixed, then it should be fixed, but in this case, I just don't see it becoming an acceptable article. Therefore, unless an established editor is willing to take it in hand before the AfD discussion period expires, delete without prejudice. — Becksguy 04:11, 12 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 02:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Darkening Sky[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Darkening Sky

In universe article on a fake book created as a promotion for the comicbook Doktor Sleepless. Speedy deletion as spam was declined. Artw 16:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, non-existent book. Sheesh! Realkyhick 17:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There exists a book by this name, but not by this author. --Alvestrand 19:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:44, 10 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. — TKD::Talk 10:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ipso Facto (store)[edit]

Apparently an advert for a non-notable shop; however, given the claimed press & TV coverage, not sending it off to the ((prod)) mulcher in case I'm making a wrong assumption and it's of significance to the goth scene. — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Suggest providing references to support claims that store is mentioned in various publication and to support verification and review of the nature of the mentions. --Shirahadasha 16:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability established and trivial mentions do not count Corpx 18:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:CORP. --Gavin Collins 15:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per a local music shop and also per spam G11.--JForget 23:03, 10 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 02:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dean's Law Dictionary[edit]

In spite of repeated requests to supply 3rd party/independent sources to verify notability the author's creator has failed to do so. Originally up for a spam CSD the article was rewritten slightly and the CSD was removed. 2850 ghits although a proportion of those are retail sources. The article's creator is one of the firm's progenitors so there is also a problem of WP:COI. Author removed prod. Frequently uses the WP:WAX argument in relation to Black's Law Dictionary. WebHamster 15:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While the article is clearly a WP:SOAP in its current form, I am inclined to let it stay for a while, especially as it has been up for less then a day, until at least it has gone through a few revisions by other editors. The author doesn't strike me as trying to spam, more as misunderstanding exactly what Wikipedia is for. ~Cr∞nium 15:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A great idea, hopefully someone will step up and clean up the article. I'll keep my delete because for now I still think the article is a mess and its spamminess concerns me; but a) 5 days is plenty of time for the article to be cleaned up, and b) AfD is not a vote, so it's not you against me; hey I'm just making a suggestion :) let's see what everybody else thinks. Roadmr (t|c) 16:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Firstly the article is written very poorly, with most wikilinks broken or badly formatted, even though most of them intend to link to existing definitions such as united states law; the author just didn't bother to check the referenced pages. The article still reads like a brochure for the product; the author added an availability section in the article and signed it, evidencing poor understanding of article editing and signing procedures. His eagerness to add the dictionary to Law dictionary, not only as an allegedly notable downloadable dictionary, but also as a "major law dictionary" (conspicuously making it the only one listed on two categories) just reeks of WP:SPAM to me. Also, the author's contribution history strongly suggests an agenda for promoting this product. Finally, as per nom, the WP:WAX argument doesn't hold (let's give it the benefit of doubt even though black's has almost 500,000 google hits compared to less than 3000 for dean's); perhaps other law dictionaries should be under scrutiny too, but as of this AfD discussion, dean's dictionary is the one being reviewed. Roadmr (t|c) 16:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In order to keep, the article needs WP:RS that verify notibility. If the subject is notable and sources show this, poor writing and tone issues can be addressed. If sources can't be found by the end of this Afd, delete. --Shirahadasha 16:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable treatise. Bearian 20:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there are real sources. Many of the ghits are accidental mentions. The full phrase limited to .edu gives zero ghits, which indicates the lack of academic acceptance.DGG (talk) 03:22, 11 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. Sandstein 19:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Locke[edit]

Pure advertising/spam. The article's body is just a small paragraph and seems to be a simple excuse to list two dozens of external links on the page. Note that the article was speedy-deleted twice already before this third recreate. Kariteh 14:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep - ~~subject of article does not meet WP:BIO. Should probably slap a protect to stop recreation as well.~~ A bit more research suggests that the subject possibly meets WP:BIO, but his page needs severe cleanup.~Cr∞nium 07:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like a ~~vanity~~ self-publication article for promotional purposes. --WebHamster 15:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I only checked the Forbes article - that one seems real. If his work appears in many respectable journals, he's a notable journalist. Does it? The article claims as much. --Dweller 15:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per WP:BLP Needs mention in mainstream media, interviews with other bloggers is not enough. WP:BLP requires especially careful requirements for WP:RS than other subjects. However, given this individual's authorship of multiple articles in mainstream publication, notability could well be established and WP:SNOW on first appearances is inappropriate here. Article should not be deleted simply because it contains promotional materials in its current form. Wikipedia's criterion is objectively verifiable notability, not subjective intentions. This individual may well be a notable professional promoter. The fact that marketing and promotion is his business is irrelevant. We can certainly tone down the article to make more neutral and less self-promoting, remove improper links, and deal with anyone who repeatedly attempts to remove critical material or adds puffery, but these are not reasons for deletion. --Shirahadasha 16:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but clean up, as Shiradasha suggests. --Orange Mike 16:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite. I think he has enough reliable sources to assert notability. There are definite POV and cleanup issues, but even so I think this article can stand on its own. I thought about sending this to the ICU, but I don't think it's in that bad a condition. Realkyhick 16:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and repair per Shirahadasha. I would have removed the speedy tag if Dweller hadn't beat me to it. Like Realkyhick says, it's not that bad and the guy really is widely published. A bit short on info in the articles "about" the subject (two are about the Cluetrain Manifesto as much as the subject), but enough for a bio if eked out with the interviews and verifiable info on his writings. More than sources, this needs tough love from a disinterested editor so it can become a decent bio. The linkfarm should certainly be culled, but I have no idea which should stay and which should go. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is highly unlikely that the internets would exist as it does if The Cluetrain Manifesto had never been written. Searls' and Weinberger's 'pedia articles have never been slated for deletion, why single out Locke? He's written many more books than the others combined. As far as he being some sort of marketer or pr guy, take a look at his writing. He's anything but. I agree, the article needs some intervention, cleanup and editing from some more neutral editor, but let it be someone who is willing to put in the time and not peruse one article and make a request for speedy deletion based upon inadequate conjecture. Or worse yet, from someone who has a personal grudge, which could be the case here. TreeShap 05:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - It should be noted that the above comment was written by the re-creator of the article, and is also the major contributor to it. Possibly a case of WP:COI ~Cr∞nium 15:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't believe there's a WP:COI here. I am a noob and am willing to listen to advice, take part in discussions and try to learn how to edit more impartially. But: this doesn't change the facts. The verifiable Facts. I want to follow the rules. "Editors who may have a conflict of interest are not barred from participating in articles and discussion of articles where they have a conflict of interest, but must be careful when editing in mainspace. Compliance with this guideline requires discussion of proposed edits on talk pages and avoiding controversial edits in mainspace." There is certainly no criteria for deletion here. Cleanup, yes. Deletion, absurd and perhaps personal. TreeShap 04:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - Please refrain from accusing us of "personal grudges" without foundation, remember WP:AGF ~Cr∞nium 07:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment - Point taken. Perhaps the article could be shorter, include less links and follow the model of the other authors of The Cluetrain Manifesto? Searls and Weinberger. Any suggestions? TreeShap 06:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for Cluetrain Manifesto. --Groggy Dice T | C 22:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. The Cluetrain Manifesto has its own article, and notability is not inherited. Kariteh 09:50, 15 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 21:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ride Wit Me (DBF song)[edit]

Another attempt to use Wikipedia to kick-start publicity by Chris Dotson and Chrishan. "SoundClick" is basically a MySpace knockoff (and not a nationally notable chart), the reference links do not contain any mention of the song or album and wouldn't meet WP:MUSIC even if they did.

- p.s. If vote is for deletion, be sure to pick up [20] and [21] as well. - Richfife 14:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable single from a barely (if at all) notable musician. Hard to tell because the artist link goes to Dope Boy Fresh which isn't an artist's page, it's a rap single of the same name. --WebHamster 15:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is there a hip-hop term for spam? Realkyhick 16:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Dope Meat In Da Can? MarkBul 18:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Thank you MarkBul for insulting the artist like that. I appreciate it. As for Richfife, I do see your point of reasoning and I am trying to get all the information I need up here so that it wont be an issue. I already took the time to give the exact link to the page that the single "I'm Fresh" is listed on ^[1] which is on B96-96.3 KTTB. There are also podcasts of each episode on iTunes as well as the other shows on B96 like the Ton. E Fly morning show. I am personal friends with Ton. E. as he does the mixing for the show. If you could please view what I have added. Thank you. D1designsinc 04:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable at all. If the artist has to create the page himself, that says something right there. (sorry D1designsinc) Google only returned a bunch of MySpace and IMEEM pages. Being on the radio or iTunes (hmmm...) doesn't mean notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocket000 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 12 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 A7'd. Fang Aili ^talk 15:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zodiac death valley[edit]

Non-notable band. Prod tag removed by anon. Recommend delete Dchall1 14:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. No assertion of notability. --Moonriddengirl 14:39, 7 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. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Horance[edit]

Nominating as a primary author of the article. This is one of those "Years ago I was dumb and young and made an article about an insignificant topic" dealies. Why, you may ask, did I make it? Heck, the answer is simple: I think Horance kicks Sephy's butt. =) Yes, it could be argued that here we have a game character who appeared in two games in a major computer game series, so that would be keep-worthy, but basically, this article boils down to a plot summary that's more about the game plot than the character background and how it relates to the game, and if you really think of the character, he's not a major character at all, but clear merge material if even that. Basically, we now have an Ultima wikia article, and the Ultima wikia is probably a better place for "kind of important" characters (as opposed to "very important" characters, of which we do have justifiable articles). I assure you we will lose little if this article is deleted as is, and I'm going to eventually write a better plot summary for Ultima VII article. wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per author. You have matured in the myriad ways of Wikipedia, my son. Your past shall be forgiven, and shall trouble you no longer. Go and sin no more. :-) Realkyhick 17:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: if you wish you can ((db-author)) it since the only other edits are minor copy, style, category, and vandalism. Eleland 19:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ...or just go delete it myself, but I'm in no hurry and I'd rather do this by the book, so to speak, just to see if anyone has any pressing needs to preserve the content. So let's keep this open for at least a few days, shall we? The article has been sitting there for quite a while now, it's not like a few more days will make things much worse =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:47, 10 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. A member of WP:JEW nominated this article for deletion and other Jewish editors who had an opinion on this page support deletion. I looked at all the sources and I do not believe the subject is notable, but I'm not Jewish. Since the majority of the WP:JEW editors who added an opinion here – indeed, most editors who gave their opinions here – agree with deletion, consensus is achieved. KrakatoaKatie 19:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe Weinberger[edit]

As per WP:BIO I'm not sure if he's notable enough for a Wiki entry Yossiea ^(talk) 14:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —Yossiea ^(talk) 14:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO Avi 14:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Smokizzy (talk) 14:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO Yossiea ^(talk) 15:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a non-notable congregational rabbi. --Shirahadasha 16:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have 2 biggest newspapers in the Jewish religious word who disagree with this assumption, they see in him as a major leader in their circles.--יודל 18:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, This subject has numerous outside third party sources from respected and reliable newspapers, universities, organizations, who say that he is notable. if a few users claim to the contrary they should at-least bring one reliable argument why he isn't worth a biography.--יודל 18:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not see any significant coverage for this individual. User:Yidisheryid, if you can provide them, I'll gladly change my mind Corpx 18:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do u call Significant? I think i have provided a few newspaper clippings (Jewish Press, Hamodia) and university (YU) and other very respected organizations (OU) who have put notices about the subject that i can find online, why isn't it enough?--יודל 19:01, 7 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 and move Agony (disambiguation) to Agony. The sole recommendation to keep doesn't address the dictionary definition issue. — TKD::Talk 06:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agony[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. This should be a subhead in Pain, not a separate article. Reinis^talk 13:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete and replace with Agony (disambiguation), where "''[[Agony]], suffering" becomes "''[[Pain|Agony]], suffering". The primary value of this distinct page is probably in religious terminology, and there's an article on that which is far more developed--Passion (Christianity), a redirect from Agony of Christ. --Moonriddengirl 14:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace per above. JIP | Talk 12:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agony is not necessarily pain. It also means "the last struggle of life; death struggle.".Biophys 01:21, 12 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. Carioca 00:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul simmonds[edit]

Article concerns a non-notable individual. Jameboy 13:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, good chance this is a hoax. The only Paul Simmonds I can find that has anything to do with Coventry is a clergyman, or so Google says. Realkyhick 17:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. No mention whatsoever on either the Coventry or Sliema Wanderers websites or on the (much underrated) Championship Manager database — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, near-certain hoax. If real (highly, highly unlikely), I suspect WP:COI at play too. Simmo[nds] United? Ha... Completely fake club, with the exception of the fantasy results on Google (Hattrick/other fantasy sites). AllynJ (talk | contribs) 14:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphan without sources and the last sentence says it all: "Although Paul is not yet a well-known name throughout the country yet, once he overcomes his current niggling ankle injury and establishes himself as a prolific goal-scorer and the Championship pin-up for the female fans, he soon will be dominating the national tabloids." John Vandenberg 22:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom. No verification/sources asserts the info--JForget 23:05, 10 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 21:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bunny Run[edit]

Poorly written dictionary definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Delete; may be transferred to Wiktionary in some form. - Mike Rosoft 13:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In defense--we need time to clean up and expand the article and add more about the history of the phrase. I'm not sure it's "poorly written"; it's just not long and detailed enough yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadill (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom. The sources suggest that the race mentioned may be a more common usage. --Evb-wiki 14:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. MarkBul 16:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pending anyone writing an article on the lake of the same name; although Google shows is as a legit term in use (albeit one I'd never heard of), it's a dicdef as it stands, and probably not worth transwikiing — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Rypcord. 18:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP is not a dictionnary.--JForget 23:05, 10 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.. CitiCat^♫ 00:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Zombie Diaries[edit]

Non-notable independent film. These guys have been spamming List of zombie films‎, George A. Romero and Diary of the Dead for almost a year. There is no actual movement behind this film. It is the filmmakers spreading word on various message boards and asking others to spam Wikipedia on their behalf. It had a very small showing in England in a single theater and then went direct to (self-financed) DVD. Nothing of note here. IrishGuy ^talk 12:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. • Lawrence Cohen 21:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (article creator). I have been a Wikipedia user for some time, and as someone who was not in any way involved in the production, I resent that insinuation. I added it to List of zombie films because it's a zombie film. I never added anything to the Romero page, and I only added something to Diary of the Dead because people have claimed that The Zombie Diaries stole Romero's idea. (In fact, Zombie Diaries had completed filming before Diary of the Dead was even announced.) I notice that there is a fan backlash against this film, and that may be part of the reason why this AfD has been raised. The film was a major part of Fright Fest, and has had coverage by numerous sources independent of the production, including Kim Newman and others [22][23][24][25] which are not just limited to the UK. Even BBC News covered it [26]. I would like to see some evidence of filmmakers asking people to spam Wikipedia, because I've never seen any. The DVD, so far as I can tell, was not self-financed. It was released through Revolver Entertainment. From what I can tell from the heavily-active IMDb boards on this film, most of the people who have an axe to grind about the film are big fans of Romero's work, who complain about the DVD's cover not being representative of the film itself. 10:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poker Flunky (talk • contribs)
- Evidence of Wikipedia spamming and promotion: [27] [28] [29] [30]. IrishGuy ^talk 17:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Clearly those edits were unacceptable, and abuse of Wikipedia. However they were not me. Please assume good faith. Thanks. Apologies for not signing my previous post. Slipped my mind! Poker Flunky 07:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Movie itself has gotten some press, but the spamming is real. I don't think it is appropriate to punish these no-talent spammers by deleting their movie. Keep the movie, but monitor the "what links here" for illegitimate linking until they stop. SolidPlaid 01:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a notable film. Don't be Americo-centric. Wryspy 07:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep its on IMDB which means it has some notability, It also for sale on Amazon UK, though all the reviews seem pretty bad. Sherzo 22:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepIn addition to the BBC article mentioned [31] , the film was also covered by ABC (Australia) [32], and has numerous reviews as already mentioned. Which is a lot of coverage for an independent film. Appears to have enough reviews to satisfy film notability, and definitely satisfies general. Horrorshowj 14:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This may indeed be a low-budget film, but it makes no attempt to hide that or to present itself as something it isn't. What it is is an interesting and refreshingly different take on the zombie theme, recently given a full DVD release in the UK. Low budget or otherwise, it exists, and deserves as much recognition as any other independant film. revolting 17:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC) — revolting (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 - after reviewing the article, and the comments given; one states a weak keep, claiming "mild notability". The other keep makes an exceedingly weak argument based on red links. The delete comments, however, make remarks that are seen to be true within the article. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ericsson R520[edit]

Yet another phone catalog entry. Non-notable phone, only references at present are a blog entry (!) and a review. Wikipedia is not a catalog, nor a directory. Mikeblas 12:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This one seems to be mildly notable for certain design characteristics such as proximity sensors [33] and being the first handset with Bluetooth support [34]. Jakew 13:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - redlinks are annoying. (currently that template contains no redlinks). -Yyy 06:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You know, there's a really easy way of getting rid of redlinks. Just replace [[this page doesn't exist]] with this page doesn't exist... Jakew 10:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This would not contain any useful data. -Yyy 12:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article contains no more than a claim the phone exists, it's shape and unsupported POV statements. If someone changes it from a catalogue entry to an encyclopaedia entry I will reconsider. Nuttah68 20:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom non notable phone.Pharaoh of the Wizards 01:03, 16 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. Wizardman 12:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Hills Middle School[edit]

non-notability Chris 12:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable third-party sources with substantial coverage can be found. Jakew 13:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. --Fang Aili ^talk 15:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't have the pretty-much-automatic notability of a high school, nothing else notable about it. Realkyhick 17:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Realkyhick Bfigura ^(talk) 21:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That looks to be just the typical local middle school.--JForget 23:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's plenty of precendent for school articles, even middle schools. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 03:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply, yes, when they are notable, but your WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument doesn't stand by itself. Can you provide some other reason? Chris 04:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Twenty Years 08:19, 12 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, as no reliable third-party coverage was found for the AFD. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 00:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motorola E398[edit]

Yet another phone review. Uncited list of features, uncited list of "complaints". Reads like an advert or a review. Only sources are reviews, which are not substantial. Mikeblas 12:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and better source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 12:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable third-party sources giving substantial coverage are found. I tend to agree that reviews are not sufficient, and have not found anything better while searching. Jakew 13:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Mikeblas and my comment at Ericsson 520 deletion discussion. -Yyy 06:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Again, Wikipedia is not a user's guide for objects such as phones.--JForget 23:08, 10 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 cut. er, I mean delete. Had a "brief tryout" with the Jags. CitiCat^♫ 00:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Padrick[edit]

NN former college football player, tried-out but never recieved an offer from the Jaguars, thus never played in the NFL. Owns all those school records because the football team existed for only five years. Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If he hasn't played for the Jags, the article should be edited to reflect that, but as a holder of several records for a DIV-IA school, he appears to meet the notability criteria for athletes, per "Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports". Isarig 18:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He owns records for a minor Division-I school that only had football for five years, no good sources that are not from FIU or trivial mentions nither. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless proof can be shown that he signed with the Jags. Otherwise, I'm with the others in saying that his play with FIU isn't that notable, primarily due to the relative lack of notability of the still-nascent FIU program. Realkyhick 17:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Temporarily his records for a Minor league school doesn't make him, although, when he will play for the Jags maybe he will, so maybe someone can put into a sub userpage temporarily.--JForget 23:11, 10 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. CitiCat^♫ 00:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hephzibah Children's Association[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Hephzibah Children's Association

Survived an earlier AfD, but I'm not quite sure how. Yes, there are sources, but all they seem to do is prove the place exists — I can't see how this warrants an article. Orphaned stub article, and seems to have been since its creation, with no sign of anyone expanding it for a year — iridescent (talk to me!) 02:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. I don't see any hope of justifying this one. MarkBul 02:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just doesn't seem to be notable. Realkyhick 17:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I added the WP:ICU tag. I think it's possibly notable if the article could be extended. I'm somewhat reluctant to see a child charity deleted. 1redrun ^Talk 18:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's an organisation which was founded in 1897 and was covered in Time Magazine [35] which said "Hephzibah Children's Association, named after a biblical benefactor, operates a small facility funded by the mostly well-to-do citizens of Oak Park; it accommodates children ages 3 to 11 for however long it takes them to be adopted, thus sparing them the foster-care shuffle. Even more unusual, it allows them to veto adoptive parents they don't like. "They stay here until they find a place they are comfortable with," says executive director Mary Anne Brown." There's also this story [36] about a man who was raised in the orphanage in the 1930s who talks about it at length and this [37] from the Jewish World Review. An organisation which has been running continuously for 110 years can't be judged on google hits alone but this one does get 34,500. I don't really understand the nomination rationale, it admits there are multiple independent sources for this association but says they can be discounted because they merely prove it exists. It's an orphanage and foster care association which does a lot of work in the local community as all the sources attest, does it have to have its own space programme to get in wikipedia? Nick mallory 01:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All the references - those you've given, those on the article and those I can find on Google - just mention the orphanage tangentially; thus — as I said in my original nom — this undoubtedly passes WP:V in that there are plenty of sources to prove it exists, but I'm unable to find anything to satisfy WP:N ("the source addresses the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content"). Incidentally, you need to go to the last page of the Google search to get the true number of Ghits - the number on the front page is always wildly out. In this case, the true number of Ghits isn't 34,500 but a rather less impressive 242 — iridescent (talk to me!) 09:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:04, 10 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. WjBscribe 15:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rikki Blake[edit]

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 21:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not possible to find reliable sources to meets notability. Carlosguitar 22:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Moonriddengirl 14:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Thomjakobsen 16:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 22:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm so embarassed making these comments on several of these types of actresses hence the new user name. I am embarassed to admit that I have watched some of these videos. This actress isn't yet notable, from my knowledge of the subject. Blushing 19:18, 10 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. WjBscribe 15:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Dane[edit]

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 21:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Thomjakobsen 16:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Starring in porn movies does not make one notable. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 22:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I disagree (politely, I hope) with Alarob, per WP:PORNBIO, but the subject does not pass the PORNBIO test. Accounting4Taste 19:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I meant that starring in porn movies is not enough to make one notable, and no other claim to notability is offered here. Coulda been clearer I guess. I'm not disputing WP:PORNBIO, fwiw. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 02:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm so embarassed making these comments on several of these types of actresses hence the new user name. I am embarassed to admit that I have watched some of these videos. This actress is notable, from my knowledge of the subject and also was one of the prominent Asian-American stars of the period. Blushing 19:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Accounting4Taste. She does not seem to meet any of the criteria of WP:PORNBIO. Dane has had a long porn career and has appeared in a large number of videos (300+, albeit, many of these videos are simply compilations from other videos she's appeared in). However, a Google search reveals precious little about her, other than her name being mentioned in cast credits on a bunch of adult videos, and a few "actress" pages on adult DVD sites. That simply does not establish notability. Iamcuriousblue 00:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:05, 10 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.--Kubigula (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Empty Walls[edit]

Individual track from an as yet unreleased album. Does not pass the proposed notability criteria at WP:MUSIC Kevin 09:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- --Rrburke^(talk) 14:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's going to be released as a single. gracz54 ^(talk) 16:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment on that And where is your sorce for finding that? Just wondering, because if the source is reliable is may be worth keeping if it will be released as a single. --Pupster21 Talk To Me 12:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Here, for example. gracz54 ^(talk) 12:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When it has been released then create the article. Currently it's a non-notable single that hasn't charted and is only reported to have been playlisted on two local radio stations. Not all album tracks/singles warrant their own articles. --WebHamster 12:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Then what is the ((future single)) tag for, if you can't create an article about upcoming singles? gracz54 ^(talk) 12:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Elect the Dead. I've replaced the inappropriate (per Wikipedia: Verifiability) unofficial fan site source (which, note, was also problematic in regards to its illegal inclusion of copyrighted works) with proper external sources, so the article is verifiable in its current form. If the single or song gains notability on its own, then might be time to create a separate article. Meanwhile, merging ensures that those searching for information on "Empty Walls" as a single wind up where they need to be. And, with respect to your question, gracz54, I have no idea. :) The guideline covers albums, but is a bit vague when it comes to singles. --Moonriddengirl 15:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Single does have a cover now, and an official release. I think the discussion ends here. --Rodolfostanic 21:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Let's give it some time. - Rocket000 04:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's going to be released as a single, it has an official cover and release date. And now the video's on YouTube.FallenWings47 16:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thats an official release. User:Risteristevski 12:53, 15 September 2007 (GMT+1)
Keep - Somewhat notable song by Serj Tankian. It has a music video, is gaining major airplay on rock radio stations, and will be released as a single. --FlyingPenguins 18:45, 15 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 Mr.Z-man 03:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coyote Bones[edit]

Indie rock band whose article hints at assertions for notability. They imply that they've toured nationally but don't actually say so. There is an alleged tour planned for later this year. They only have one released CD which doesn't appear to have charted in any major chart. 725 ghits (using search term "coyote bones" -blog). CSD was denied due to slight assertions. Doesn't appear to satisfy WP:BAND WebHamster 11:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a hint of a sniff of a glimmer of notability. As written, it screams non-notable. MarkBul 16:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, bandcruft. I love these CSD's that are declined because of the bare assertion of notability. Not notable, fails WP:BAND. Realkyhick 17:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are being failing to research the band further and thus exercising an elitist stance on false deductions. The band is linked directly to Tilly and the Wall's page and The Anniversary. Not to mention the amount of national and international coverage the band has. As for the touring, would you like an excel sheet of the tour history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greatgreatwaves (talk • contribs) 20:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Methinks we are close to achieving Godwin's Law any time now.--WebHamster 20:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. You learn something new everyday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greatgreatwaves (talk • contribs) 20:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate articles like this one. This band appears to have just gotten sorted out, and has connections to what appear to be notable groups like Tilly and the Wall, but hasn't got albums out on a notable label. The band is getting press: [38], Pitchfork Media, a small mention in Philadelphia City Paper (which also affirms that they are indeed touring more than just regionally; Google search indicates they're doing a number of dates through at least the Midwest and to the East Coast), a profile of the founder on flagpole.com... It looks like they might be awful close to making WP:MUSIC, especially with the Spin.com thing, but I'd be far more comfortable with albums on a notable label. Neutral leaning keep. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BAND Pharaoh of the Wizards 01:02, 16 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 16:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rush band members[edit]

Article is a collection of lists, and serves as a content fork with History_of_Rush#The_early_days_.281968.E2.80.931974.29. THe lists were removed by consensus[39] from Rush (band), at which time they were taken to this new article. ThuranX 11:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To me, it seems a content fork both of the link above and of Rush (band)#Band members, which sets out the member list far more succinctly. (Is there a reason why Lindy Young is not listed at the main band page? According to History of Rush, there does seem to be cause for his inclusion?) The Rush band members list also supplies no context for "Hadrian", which appears rather out of the blue in the middle. I don't believe it adds to an understanding of either article in its current form, though it does make me curious why Lindy seems to be excluded. :) --Moonriddengirl 15:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, content fork, redundant to Rush (band)#Band members. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 17:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into whatever article about the band Rush that this came from. Can't Alex Lifeson get along with anyone? Mandsford 21:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: I feel that the list should stay. It displays all of the incarnations Rush has gone through, including the "Hadrian" period. It is very comprehensive and consistent, and shows all the line-ups Rush has gone through for those who want to know the truth about Rush's past. If people don't like it, then they can refer back to the poorly made band members section on the Rush page. It also shows how there was a period where the band dubbed the name "Hadrian". Leaving this out will most likely also leave out the incarnations of Rush before Hadrian, and this should be noted how these eras were. This one is very detailed and should stay. Lastly, this page shows current & former members of Rush in a very quick-and-easy fashion, rather than have the reader go through a whole page just to figure out the band's members, or look at a short list and have to guess which members played together. Heavymetalis4ever 22:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Extraneous and redundant per the Main article. Integration is unnecessary as History of Rush hosts the information in a more detailed manner. Wisdom89 23:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ThuranX and Wisdom89's comments. Peter Fleet 01:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STAY; it says basically states everything about all the current & former members in a quick and easy way. I agree with that heavymetal4ever person about if you don't like it, don't read it! In the long run it saves time because it is a neat and comprehensive list. In ways it's like the band members section on the Rush page. It simply combines the factual information on the band members and organizes them into one place. The difference is, this one shows ALL of the various line-ups of Rush, including even minor members. Whereas I agree they aren't as important as Geddy, Alex, and Neil, they are a part of the band's past and should be mentioned to those who want to know the truth of Rush's members. 69.148.68.58 02:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC) — 69.148.68.58 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

comment The above IP's ONLY contribution is this stay vote. ThuranX 03:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a content fork. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 03:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rush as an unnecessary additionnal page in which the info can be easily merged (if it isn't already) to the main article.--JForget 23:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a separate article this is a content fork, but this table would fit nicely in History of Rush. / edg ☺ ★ 22:03, 12 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. — TKD::Talk 10:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motorola C975[edit]

Product page for another run-of-the-mill cellular phone. Contains lists of features, just like an advertisement. No claim to notability, no interesting information about the phone's design methodology or history. Only links are product reviews (and "previews"!), which are not substantial. Just product catalog fodder. Mikeblas 11:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as celfonefan cruft and advert. ThuranX 11:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless substantial coverage in reliable sources can be found. Couldn't find anything myself. Jakew 14:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. Do not like redlinks. Template currently doesnot contain any. -Yyy 06:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is written like a user's guide and an advertisement.--JForget 23:13, 10 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 redirect to the new article 1993 CIA shootings per Thomjakobsen's suggestion at the bottom of this discussion. The subject is notable only for his involvement in that event (see also WP:BLP1E). Sandstein 19:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lansing Bennett[edit]

CIA doctor killed by a foreign nation. This seems to be as far as his notability extends. Other than that he was just one of many other Government employees of similar anonymity. This article doesn't appear to meet the criteria for WP:BIO. 1060ghits mostly of news reports of the assassination though most only mention him in passing and discuss the wider issues. Some of those hits relate to the name of a Forest. WebHamster 11:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The Forest was named after him because he was considered an important person.

Note: Other CIA employees, such as Valerie Plame, have less claim to notability, yet they have an article.Mrs.EasterBunny 23:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out several times to you: WP:WAX. As an editor it is your right to visit these articles you are pointing out and bring them to AFD if you believe they shouldn't be articles. --WebHamster 20:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO, murdered Westerners invariably generate news mentions as "the victim was..." but need notability outside of getting shot. Otherwise it's just a memorial. Thomjakobsen 16:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - No real notability outside the one incident Corpx 18:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Aimal Kansi has no notability except his murders. Hinkley has no notability except his attempted murders. Both have article.Mrs.EasterBunny 23:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - Feel free to put them up for deletion also Corpx 16:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't this be WP:POINT??? Mrs.EasterBunny 18:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it would be a perfectly succinct answer to a large proportion of your argument. --WebHamster 20:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Mir Aimal Kansi. This certainly was a notable incident -- two analysts were machine-gunned in their cars as they drove into work. I know 1993 was a long time ago, but this and the first WTC bombing were considered pretty important news at the time and the victim's names are plausible search terms. --Dhartung | Talk 19:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

redirect Mir Aimal Kansi to Lansing Bennett???Mrs.EasterBunny 18:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep

The 1993 terrorist attack was the first incident of Islamic terrorism on US soil (later followed by the 1993 WTC attack, September 11th WTC and Pentagon attack, etc.) As such, it is notable.
Reason why not to merge with Mir Aimal Kansi; for the same reason that Reagan is not merged to the Hinkley article and the September 11th article is not merged with the bin Laden article.
Reason why not to delete. Bennett is one of the few people memorialized in the CIA wall of stars. He is not just a murdered Westerner.
I am not related to Lansing Bennett.
Another reason why not to delete. His death made him notable. Teacher astronaut Christa McAuliff has an article yet she did nothing except was a passenger on a fatal bus accident (albeit bus to space, i.e. Space Shuttle). Others with articles include Daniel Pearl and William R. Higgins. McAuliff, he has had things named after him after his death. There is also a memorial outside the CIA for Bennett; it's a garden and a bench and plaque. Tim McCarthy has an article and he doesn't even have a memorial, wasn't even killed.
Note: Some may hate the CIA and want to punish Bennett by deleting the article.
Meets criteria. "The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." None of the 14 of so sources in the article are Lansing Bennett websites or websites of friends and some other articles exists but are not used in the article. There's even more stuff in print since he was murdered before the internet era.
The article has been improved!

comments revised slightly Mrs.EasterBunny 19:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These are all memorial sources. I don't want to sound insensitive as it would appear you're a relative of the deceased, but biographical subjects need a certain degree of prominence. The examples you give are all of very famous people, which is why we recognize the names instantly: Hinckley will go down in history as an attempted presidential assassin, McAuliff was famous before she died as the (planned) first teacher in space, has had films made about her... We're don't "hate the CIA", we're not "trying to punish Bennett", we're just pointing out that this is not the place for articles which are basically memorials, however well-loved he was by his family, colleagues, local community. There have been lots of articles deleted relating to 9/11 for the same reason: victims of newsworthy events don't immediately qualify as "encyclopedia notable", even though their names may have appeared in news items on those events. It's not personal, we're not attacking this man's memory. Thomjakobsen 00:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mrs. Bunny's reason 1 (was a notable event) and 2nd to last reason (does meet criteria). If merged, a new article should be created entitled "1993 attack at CIA headquarters" or something like that, not under the terrorist's article. People under 40 probably don't remember the attack.UTAFA 21:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please note that blogs are not reliable sources. There are plenty of mainstream media sources available; no need to rely on blog anecdotes. Chick Bowen 23:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well written article about a notable, albeit minor, historical figure.E343ll 16:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment left on another AFD but applies here

Comment: generally the phrase "notability is not temporary" means that if someone is notable at some point that does not go away and they may have an article as an historically notable person (say, a minor figure in the Watergate scandal). --Dhartung | Talk 07:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This guy/article was very notable in 1993. E343ll 16:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The event/atrocity/assassination/killing (delete as appropriate) was notable, the victims weren't other than the fact that they were killed. What I can't figure out from the reports is; were they killed for who they were or were they just in the wrong place at the wrong time? If it's the latter then that further degrades any notability. Like it or not, and it's a vagary of our society, killers are always perceived to be more notable than their victims. I have no idea why, perhaps it's something to do with the celebrity mentality that has been building for decades. --WebHamster 16:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The shooter was firing randomly at targets using an off-ramp leading to CIA headquarters. A couple of ~~links~~ I found trying to source this suggest it was a tribal revenge for the death of an uncle working for the CIA, and the initial suspicions of terrorism seem to have been dropped when they couldn't link him to any such organizations. It's all very murky, which complicates proper sourcing. Given the present situation, it's not likely that documents on Afghanistan/Pakistan are going to be declassified any time soon, which makes memorial sources even less reliable. Edit: The second link has some unreliable editorializing, I thought it was a Washington Post article but it isn't, just quotes heavily from it. Thomjakobsen 17:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: striked the comments about lack of reliable sources for the shootings themselves. Did some digging, wrote an article, see new comment near bottom of this page for redirect suggestion. Thomjakobsen 15:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So basically it's likely that Bennett wasn't the/a specific target and was just unfortunate to be a random casualty... wrong place, wrong time. Or in other words, pending further information, his murder was not as a direct result of his importance, just that he was in the CIA building. This does not point at personal notability before the incident? --WebHamster 17:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a pretty comprehensive collection of reports on the incident. It appears he waited for the red stop-light, then walked from car to car, firing into them. In other words, no specific selection of who he shot at, just that they were CIA employees, and he refused to shoot at women. Thomjakobsen 17:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's what I thought. I'm still trying to figure out where "died in the line of duty" came from. Sounds like he was on his way home/off to lunch etc. But once again I fail to see how notability comes into this. Do we have an article on each of the other victims? Do we have an article on the women he didn't shoot? Do we have an article on every victim of an LA drive-by. I get the impression that there's a degree of patriotic spin going on here (not from Mrs.EasterBunny I should point out). What makes Mr Bennett any different from the rest of the victims? I'm sorry but from my (neutral/non-US) vantage point this does nothing to further the claims of notability. --WebHamster 18:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was the morning rush-hour, and the shooter knew that the cars were headed towards CIA headquarters (due to the road layout; it doesn't head anywhere but the main gate there). The CIA have a "wall of stars" at the Langley HQ for all employees who "die or are killed in the line of duty", and the two fatalities in this incident both have named stars (there are unnamed stars when the deceased can't be identified for reasons of classification). I agree that military deaths don't confer automatic notability - there'd be a problem if someone decided to create 7 million bios on WW2 Red Army casualties - and the claim in some of the blog references of "first US victim of Islamic terrorism" doesn't hold up in light of the FBI and CIA later saying that he acted alone and had no links to any terrorist organizations. I think the article on the shooter is probably the best place to mention the existence of the memorials, but not detailed bios. They can only really contain memorial information, since the pre-incident lives of the victims are not adequately sourced. Thomjakobsen 18:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Positive comment about the article - see this dialogue reproduced below:

I saw the William R. Higgins article that you created a few years ago. Do you have any tips about notability? I've written an article about Lansing Bennett which is going to be deleted for lack for notability (see comments http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lansing_Bennett ). Bennett was killed in the 1993 attack on the CIA, sometimes noted as the first incident of Islamic terrorism in North America. If Bennett is judged to be not notable, Higgins is similarly at risk. Again, I am not canvassing but merely asking for your advice on achieving notability. Mrs.EasterBunny 16:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Big_iron"
My suggestion would be to look at Wikipedia:Notability for ideas: establishing that there has been "significant coverage" in reliable, independent sources appears to be key. There is also Wikipedia:Notability (people) which provides additional criteria for articles about people. Note that my original contribution to the William R. Higgins article was only at the stub level and I think that contributions by other editors have been more important in establishing notability for that subject. I hope that this is helpful. --Big_iron 09:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Note that it was 30 days after the Higgins article was started did others contribute to it. In contrast, there have already been other editors editing the Lansing Bennett article. Also note that Big_iron believes the Higgins article is notable and, by the same logic, Lansing Bennett would be notable. There is a possibility of consensus but I'll let this AFD proceed first before proposing the concensus compromise. Mrs.EasterBunny 22:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tough call More notable (or has more citations) than fellow victim Frank Darling, more notable than most 9-11 victims due to the shear numbers on 9-11 (sorry, folks), but most citations are related to the attack. Goss9900 04:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the article isn't about the attack, it's about the man. --WebHamster 09:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've created an article 1993 CIA shootings covering this notable event in detail, all of it backed up by reliable sources (Washington Post, the perpetrator's death row letters to Salon, the opinion of the Virginia Supreme Court). Really, neither Kasi nor Bennett nor any of the other victims were notable outside of this event and its aftermath, so I've kept all the information on them which is sourceable and relevant (including mentions of the CIA memorials, what they did at the CIA). My suggestion is that "Lansing Bennett" be deleted and redirected to this new article (along with "Frank Darling"), and I'll put Mir Aimal Kansi (his real name doesn't have the "n") up for an AfD later, again asking for a redirect. What do people think of this? Thomjakobsen 15:12, 12 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. — TKD::Talk 10:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Chaplains Association[edit]

Entirely non-notable company: entry is in effect spam. Was previously prodded by user GRBerry and deprodded by user Necrothesp Springnuts 11:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, not a particularly good nomination, since it's blatantly not a company and blatantly not spam. If this article is spam then so is this one (which is a commercial organisation) and this one (which is another professional association). However, I'm neutral on whether it should be deleted or not, since it does seem to be pretty small and non-notable. If it was an association which all chaplains joined then it would be a definite keep, but its membership list suggests only a handful bother. I deprodded it, incidentally, not because I thought it was particularly notable, but because the cited reasons for the prod were inaccurate ("self promotion, no sources, not notable" - the article was not self-promotion and there was a source) and I generally dislike prods of NPOV articles on genuine non-commercial organisations. These should be taken to AfD, not prodded. -- Necrothesp 11:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While I can't honestly find anything that asserts notability in this article, it would be nice to know what's spam about it? 1redrun ^Talk 11:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Not per the nomination though. I'd use ((db-group)). There are no assertions to notability which is just as well as there doesn't seem to be any notability whatsoever. As the previous two editors commented there is no spam and it isn't a company... but that doesn't detract fromt he fact that it should be speedily deleted. --WebHamster 12:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I just endorsed the prod while on prod patrol. My rationale was "Unable to find independent reliable sources to use for the article.". The original prod was by Vidkun, whose rationale was "self promotion, no sources, not notable". I don't see any independent reliable sources in the article yet, and still believe in the WP:INDY logic I used at the time. GRBerry 14:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - as per Webhamster and my original prod rationale.--Vidkun 17:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable. profg 02:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one news hit and two scholar hits is not a good sign. John Vandenberg 23:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:12, 10 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. WjBscribe 15:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoo[edit]

This article recently underwent a Featured Article Review, which defaulted to keep due to an overall lack of consensus (7 keep votes, 6 remove). Technically, it still has its bronze badge. But a content review like FAR cannot address the more fundamental issue—notability—without running in circles (participants tend to presume notability in such discussions). In the review, the article's primary author and defender, wrote "Any subject deserving an article deserves a featured article." But before we can test whether the article deserves to be featured, we must test whether the subject deserves the article. WP:AFD is the most sensible place to do so.

So, does Babylon 5's spoo deserve an article? It doesn't appear to.

1. Fails the general notability guideline. Spoo does not appear to have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject; the article relies almost entirely on primary sources, roughly divided between the self-published thoughts of Babylon 5 creator J. Michael Straczynski and the episodes themselves. There is not one third-party newspaper, book, magazine, or television or radio documentary cited that asserts spoo is notable outside of the 6 out of 110 episodes of Babylon 5 it appeared in, outside of the half-dozen comments Straczynski posted about it to USENET, or outside of fan websites, forums, and blogs—let alone significant coverage. (Some secondary sources are used within the first paragraph of the "Real-world etymology of the word" section, but they refer to random uses of the term spoo that predate and have no demonstrated connection to Babylon 5. In the FAR, several participants voiced their concern over this irrelevant information, but Jeffrey O. Gustafson has refused its removal.)

2. Fails the fiction notability guideline. Due to the lack of third-party sources, the article focuses too much on the fictional aspects and inadequately describes the real-world aspects of the concept—critical and popular reception, development, cultural impact, merchandise, etc. Straczynski's posts offer little insight into the real-world aspects, as they are mostly written from the perspective of the fiction.

3. Fails the no original research policy. The article employs original research methods in an attempt to make up for the lack of third-party sources. Wikipedians stringing together and interpreting primary sources that they found in a USENET archive or forum is conducting original research. There is no editorial oversight from credible, professional publishers that indicates that these USENET posts are worthy of anyone's attention. Jimbo Wales himself cited spoo as a "very good example of a specatularly horrible use of original research. This is Wikipedians obsessed with trivia trying to be historians rather than encyclopedists. This should all be nuked from the encyclopedia with extreme prejudice, in my opinion."

(Please resist debating whether USENET posts are "authoritive"—whether we can trust that Straczynski actually made these posts. That debate was beaten to death throughout the recent Featured Article Review, and is unnecessary here.) Punctured Bicycle 08:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is very cleverly disguised as a notable well written article, but a notable well written article it is not. This is clearly not notable (Would we have an article on Jabba the Hutt pies just because we could write it to a featured standard?) and is so obviously fan cruft it is not funny. You might consider AfD'ing the article in the see also section too, Slurm, which has the same issues. I support the deletion, but it does seem you have a secret vendetta against this article (And possibly Jeffrey O. Gustafson?) by the way you write with such vehemence. In any case, Delete - Cheers, Spawn Man 10:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - I don't agree however that all trivial articles should be nuked - I recently saved Cultural depictions of spiders from deletion after I rewrote it completely and now it's a great article. The problem lies with deciding which trivia is notable and which is not. Spawn Man 10:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's about time we get around to culling the herd of FAs. :-D Nah, not really, although it amuses me this insipid drek has survived this long. --Agamemnon2 11:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FICT. Doesn't seem to be particularly notable even within Babylon 5, with the article itself pretty much admitting this. Apparently it's only ever mentioned in 6 episodes (of a 110-episode show comprising 5 seasons) and only one of those mentions has any bearing on the plot. If anything, it appears more of an in-joke among hardcore fans. Jimbo Wales was right about this one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As much as it aches me, Merge to another Babylon 5 article on the grounds of notability (or if it is even too nonnotable for that, at least leave it as a redirect so that other people know what was wrong with it to go from FA to no-longer-existant-as-an article). I have never watched Babylon 5 (therefore I can't tell what notability Spoo has in-universe), but I have been following the FAR discussion with great interest, and the longer it lasted, the more it became clear that Spoo is too non-notable if wikipedia wants to be a general encyclopedia instead of something like this. The notability guidelines for fiction were overhauled recently, and they are still strongly discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Notability (fiction), so I made a note about this AfD there, as well as notifying User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop citing WP:FICT incorrectly—I wrote the current version from the ground up, heh. Deletion is a last resort; this is a fictional article that establishes at least some notability, and should be covered in some form on Wikipedia. As a separate article? Maybe not. As part of a larger article on the fictional universe? Definitely. — Deckill er 12:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Please note that the content of WP:FICT is currently being debated, in regards as to what may exist as a separate article. G.A.S 12:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, of course. Spoo is a significant part of the Babylon 5 mythology, and has always played an even more significant role in Babylon 5 fandom. I won't bother to fire off all the similar articles we do keep around here, or silly initialisms in support of its status. It is notable, always has been notable, and is worthy of keeping (if it wasn't, I wouldn't have bothered with it). I believe the only reason the nominator has put this on AfD is because it stubbornly passed FARC. Again. Indeed, the nominator more or less says this. AfD shouldn't be used as a run-around for frustrated FAR reviewers, and deletion is last resort, especially for an article on a subject that is notable, and, sorry folks, remains featured. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, I raised the same concerns about notability in the FARC itself, before it passed. Your theory makes no sense. See also Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Punctured Bicycle 13:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I never commented on the FAR, nor had I read the article before. Is my want to delete the article invalid? -- Kicking222 17:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or merge into a longer listing of Babylon 5 items. Article seems fairly well referenced, if on an obscure topic. - Mike Rosoft 13:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On the second thought, the nominator's arguments do have merit; a merge seems to be a preferable choice. - Mike Rosoft 14:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good grief. It just underwent a FARC. Some people aren't happy with the outcome, so they nominate it for deletion? Oh, that's brilliant. --Fang Aili ^talk 13:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Here's the real story: In examining the article, I noticed that it lacked evidence of its notability, I expressed this concern in the FARC, I realized that FARC was not the place to address notability concerns, I waited for the FARC to close so there weren't two things going on at once, then I took the article to the place where notability concerns are addressed—AFD. See also Wikipedia:Assume good faith. If you wish to keep, please provide actual arguments in reference to the subject/article. Punctured Bicycle 14:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ignoring the obvious bad feeling between the author and the nominator, this really is awful fancruft. I would be embarrassed to see this on the front page, and that is the lifeblood of any Featured Article. Merge-worthy at best. Calr 14:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I should point out that it did appear on the front page, on April 1 2006. DS 14:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has real world notability in the fanfic community and parodies of B5. Classify it as a B5 "race" if you want to get down to it - they are a species of animal after all. Wl219 15:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the subject of the article exists, as proven by the multiple reliable sources. The subject is notable enough that a sizable group of people get worked up about it - that is significant. There is no Wikipedia policy that mandates or even justifies deletion of an article like this. Most of the complaints made by the nominator are questions of writing and content and are not any sort of grounds for deletion and the proper forum for that discussion would be the article's talk page. The nominator seems to be frustrated by an article that they don't enjoy, but Wikipedia is not a battleground for personal disputes. This nomination is a waste of time. Force10 16:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The subject possesses real world notability as an aspect of Babylon 5 about which there is substantial out of universe information. If WP:FICT can be read as requiring its deletion, the problem lies with a lack of clarity in WP:FICT's intentions, not this article. --tjstrf talk 16:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment regarding the last three keep !votes All three of the above rguments state that there is real-world notability because Babylon 5 followers care about it. That doesn't mean there's notability; that means there's fandom, which does not mean we need a WP article on the subject. -- Kicking222 17:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - All notability is contextual. Something which is notable to a newspaper reporter may be trivia to a college professor, and visa-versa. Suggesting that something isn't notable just because it is only notable in a certain context misses the point. Georgewilliamherbert 00:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You seem to be missing the point. It might be true that spoo is considered a very important and notable aspect of Babylon 5 within the context of the fan community, but "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. . . . Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Punctured Bicycle 01:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - You propose deleting on three principles, one of which is notability. You can't counter "your notability argument is in error" with "But! It's also not Verifyable!". They are separate issues. The notability one is (in my opinion) in error, and it's notable in context, a point you implicitly conceded if I interpret you correctly. Separately, I also believe that the [{WP:V]] and WP:OR concerns, while legitimate, are not sufficient to justify deleting the article. Georgewilliamherbert 01:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You never claimed my notability argument is in error. You claimed that Kicking222's rebuttal to the above three keep votes is in error. But you seem to have misunderstood his point. Kicking222 makes the point of distinguishing Wikipedia notability from real life notability; just because people care about this subject in real life doesn't mean Wikipedia should care about it—we only care about what can be verified through reliable, third-party published sources (WP:V). WP:NOTE and WP:FICT echo WP:V's sentiment very closely, so the issues are not as separate as you think. Punctured Bicycle 03:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Delete What tjstrf said, inverted, viz: the subject possesses no real world notability at all; it is Babylon5cruft about which there is no out of universe information. WP:FICT should certainly be read as supporting its deletion, and the problem lies with fans that place individual preference over the clear and consistent application of policy. A well-reasoned and well-expressed nomination. Eusebeus 16:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am struck with the comparison to Tribbles in the Star Treck universe... While orignially tribbles appeared in but one eppisode of the original series, and did not play any real role in-universe, they made a huge impact on real world perceptions of the show and quickly became recognizable to non-ST fans as something associated with "Star Treck". Spoo never did. Tribbles rated mention in books about the show, Tribble pillows were sold. They became a cultural phenominon. Spoo never had this sort of impact. It was an obscure reference while the show aired, and it remains obscure. It did not have any impact in either in-universe or real world contexts. Perhaps, one day, it will. Someone, someday may write a book that reminds people about spoo and turns it into something noteworthy. But until that happens, we should not have an article on it. Mere existance is not enough. All that said... I, too, am concerned by the degree of OR in the article. If it is kept, that must be addressed. Blueboar 17:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge) per the nominator's reasoning. CloudNine 17:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This might even be a strong delete. I never thought I would request the deletion of a deleted article, but the nominator and some of the above commenters hit the nail on the head- there are zero third-party mentions of spoo, except to note that the word "spoo" existed before Babylon 5 (and what does that have to do with anything, anyway?) This is simply fancruft- perhaps it is rather well-written fancruft, but it is fancruft nonetheless. There isn't a single reliable source that discusses this product, and in fact, the only notability even stated within the article is that fans really enjoy discussing it. The fact is that we're talking about a food that was mentioned in six episodes of a television series (and one episode of a DVD spin-off) with no importance to anyone outside of die-hard followers of said series, and I see zero keep arguments above that claim otherwise. -- Kicking222 17:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see why it matters who it's notable to, as long as it's notable to someone. ('Cruft' is stuff the average fan isn't likely to know, but anyone who's seen B5 would know this. It even drives a significant plot point in one of the later seasons.) If anything merge, because it must be covered somewhere, but it's so long and full of information that it would just clog up a list. It's much better on its own. --Masamage ♫ 18:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This argument still doesn't cover the whole "complete lack of third-party, much less reliable third-party, sources" problem. -- Kicking222 18:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a content issue and can be fixed. The nominator's argument is that the subject doesn't deserve an article at all, period, ever. --Masamage ♫ 18:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The nominator's argument is that the subject doesn't deserve an article precisely because of the "complete lack of third-party, much less reliable third-party, sources" problem. That's a notability issue and can only be fixed if significant coverage in third-party, reliable sources can be demonstrated. Punctured Bicycle 05:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The sources issue has been shot down in a Peer Review, one FAC, and two FARCs, one ending just this week (where it was kept). There supposed problems with the sources simply aren't. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Past reviews have mainly focused on the reliability or authority of the sources already in the article. Here we're focusing on the lack of significant coverage in third-party sources that assert a topic is notable. Punctured Bicycle 05:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jeffrey O. Gustafson's comments here those listed directly above.. TheRealFennShysa 18:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wow, we really need to re-examine the FA criteria...How did this article become FA, when no real notability is established? Its built up from posts from forums and usenet...Corpx 18:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks verifiable, third party sources. Current sources include USENET posts and the like (i.e., primary sources) archived on websites that we have no reason to beleve are particularly independent and reliable. Sandstein 18:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why are people trying to delete such articles? Just find "proffesional sources and it'll be fixed. Personally its not my sort of thing but the subject possesses real world notability as an aspect of Babylon 5 to people about which there is substantial out of universe information. If WP:FICT can be read as requiring its deletion, the problem lies with a lack of clarity in WP:FICT's intentions, not this article . Just re edit it. learly the nominator doesn't give a damn about peoples hard work ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 19:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm in no way meaning to sound sarcastic when I say this: If anyone finds "professional" sources (i.e. sources satisfying WP:RS), then please contact me via my talk page, and I will gladly change my above !vote. I'm not so hard-set in my ways that I can't change my mind when presented with new information. Until then, the "out of universe information" is not just uncited, but non-notable. -- Kicking222 19:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Who remembers the Nineties? Remember all the Spoo merchandise, all the Spoo toys, how those cute little spoos captured the popular imagination? No, me neither. We have a fictional food with 7 passing mentions in a TV series with 110 episodes, several TV movies and one spin-off. The alleged plot significance in A Tragedy of Telepaths is not even mentioned in that episode's article. There are no sources indicating out-of-universe importance, just a grab-bag non-B5 usages in violation of WP:NEO. It has not been discussed in any published reference work like The A-Z of Babylon 5. Spice (Star Wars) and Butterbeer are at least the equal of Spoo in terms of notability, but they're both redirects.

This was/is used as an exemplary article on our fiction guidelines. It's no surprise that Wikipedia has mountains of fancruft when this is what to aim for.--Nydas^(Talk) 19:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I tell a lie. Spoo is discussed in Dining on Babylon 5. So where are our articles on Hot Jala, Jovian Sunspot, Flarn or Brivari?--Nydas^(Talk) 19:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Masamage ♫ 20:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point of Nydas's comment was not, "These articles don't exist, so neither should the spoo article." It was, "There's a good reason we don't have articles on these other things: Because, just as with spoo, these things are non-notable." Thus, OTHERSTUFF has little (if anything) to do with this. -- Kicking222 21:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate OTHERSTUFF, it's a fig-leaf for fans wanting to keep their articles whilst deleting equivalents from rival franchises. If we're going to have this, then we should resurrect Blood wine, Spice (Star Wars), Butterbeer etc.--Nydas^(Talk) 08:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep...it's a featured article, for crying out loud, one that has survived two reviews. Seems to me someone is trying to shop around here...they can't get it unfeatured, so they try and get it deleted.--UsaSatsui 19:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your forum shopping theory holds no water. See my reply to Fang Aili above. If you wish to keep, please make actual arguments in reference to the subject/article. Punctured Bicycle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Punctured Bicycle (talk • contribs) 13:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Jeffrey O. Gustafson. Notability is well established per sources, including - as mentioned above - the fanfic community and parodies of B5; and I too find it interesting that it is so soon up for AfD after successfully passing the challenge presented at the very recent FARC. The issues of content and sourcing can be addressed, so deletion is unwarranted. Dreadstar † 20:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no source in the article about the fanfic community. There is one mention of a spoof in one episode of a fan parody (not parodies), which is trivia at best. So no, notability is not well established per sources. Punctured Bicycle 14:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Issues of content can be dealt with by editing -- but to me, it seems to have sufficient sources, sufficient out-of-universe context, and sufficient notability overall. And for pete's sake, it's a featured article -- has a featured article ever gotten nuked before without being unfeatured? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 21:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You must have better reading skills than I do, then, since as I read it this article seems particuliarly uncontaminated by sufficient (or any) out-of-universe context, and sufficient (or any) notability. Eusebeus 22:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or transwiki an FA article should be somewhere, afterall, it shows quality. Is there a B5 wiki? Perhaps the Wikia Annex? 132.205.44.5 22:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's already an article at the Babylon 5 wiki. Punctured Bicycle 04:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Looks like there might be a conflict of interest here, coming so close in the heels of a FARC. Maybe renominate in a few weeks if the opinions for deletion are still the same and we can have a more open debate on the matter. MalikCarr 23:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your conflict of interest theory holds no water. See my reply to Fang Aili above. If you wish to keep, please make actual arguments in reference to the subject/article. Punctured Bicycle 04:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First, the nomination references WP:FICT, which very recently underwent a controversial revision and is the subject of real-time intense debate. I would point the closing admin here and here (with apologies for the length of these references; the WP:FICT debate is so hot it requires archiving every few days). Second, even the co-author of the revised WP:FICT guideline (User:Deckiller) has noted above that WP:FICT indicates deletion as a *last resort* and that the guideline has therefore been improperly cited in this nomiation. Third, even if you were to take an extreme deletionist read of the revised WP:FICT and ignore both the controversy surrounding the new guideline as well as the "deletion as last resort" factor, the fact that Spoo has featured recipes in a real-world published cookbook would clearly satisfy the WP:FICT out-of-universe/real-world reference requirement for establishing notability. Fourth, the fact that "Spoo" has been referenced in several other fictional universes/cultural sources as documented in the etymology section of the article indicates that the concept itself is notable from WP's standpoint, so that the strongest argument that you could possibly make here is that the article is too Babylon-5 centric and should be reworked to more strongly emphasize the multi-universe aspect of this fictional concept. But that's an argument for "fix" rather than "delete". In short, I don't see any valid reason based on WP policy/guidelines for this AFD to pass. Fairsing 00:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to your points, 1. I have no idea what the WP:FICT debates are about, but the guideline currently echoes what WP:V says, which is widely accepted official policy: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. . . . Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. . . . If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." 2. WP:FICT was cited almost word for word and I never eliminated the possibility of reducing the full article to a concise, sourced section within a broader article. 3. Dining on Babylon 5 is a cookbook published by Warner Brothers, the company that owns Babylon 5, so it is not third-party, nor does this single reference represent the significant coverage required of notability. 4. There is one reference to it in Straczynski's own work—not third-party. There is another reference in one episode of a fan parody—trivia at best. Punctured Bicycle 05:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that you don't have any idea about the controversey surrounding the newly revised version of WP:FICT is telling. Part of that debate is exactly what qualifies as a "third-party" source (by which I assume you really mean "independent"). Saying that a major publishing conglomerate that happens to be an ip-owner of a work of fiction cannot produce an independent reference *by definition* is one of the points of that debate, for example. Another point in that debate is that WP:SS specifically calls for sub-articles to be split out of a main article for style and readability reasons when the main article gets too long, which the new version of WP:FICT would appear to preclude, so one guideline contradicts the other. Fairsing 00:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep While it's true that a lot of this material might be merged as a section within Babylon 5, Babylon 5 fandom (were it to exist), and even internet meme summary style encourages us to take a section that has grown out of proportion in the main article, and convert it to a separate article. I think that Spoo could be regarded as such a summary article. To quote from WP:FICT, "articles about fictional concepts are notable if they contain substantial real-world content from reliable primary and secondary sources", and I believe this article qualifies. To me, the intrinsic notability of spoo comes from the way in which fandom latched on to a minor aspect of the programme, and ran insane with it. I would therefore like to see more citations (and more prose) on the fandom/meme aspect. (There must be articles in Babylon 5 fanzines and TV magazines that have touched on this topic, or one of the several books written about the series - e.g. pp86–88 of The Babylon File are about the spoo in-joke.) However, this is more of a content issue, rather than a cause for deletion. Bluap 00:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Currently, it doesn't qualify at all. There is very little real-world content of substance, and what is there is derived from unreliable primary sources found through original research. Someone has to actually come forth with substantial, reliable, third-party sources that establish the notability of the subject; presuming that the sources exist somewhere is not enough to keep the article. Punctured Bicycle 14:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - strongly notable in context, and a well known, significant and notable context. Georgewilliamherbert 00:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Jeffrey O. Gustafson and article's FA status. As Stan Lee says, "'Nuff Said". MikeWazowski 03:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regarding per Jeffrey O. Gustafson votes. Jeffrey's argument was "Spoo is a significant part of the Babylon 5 mythology, and has always played an even more significant role in Babylon 5 fandom." That may be true, but where are the reliable, third-party published sources proving it? The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Punctured Bicycle 03:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I count two books mentioned in this very discussion. Neither is by JMS; the one with page numbers a few lines up calls itself "The Definitive Unauthorized Guide" (emphasis mine). Which seems pretty third-party to me. --Masamage ♫ 04:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dining on Babylon 5 is a cookbook published by Warner Brothers, the company that owns Babylon 5. It is possible that The Babylon File has information about spoo, but it is unclear whether it would help establish notability, since the article currently doesn't cite it and its contents are unknown. An "in joke" does not sound very promising and this single reference would hardly represent significant coverage. Punctured Bicycle 04:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, Dining on Babylon 5 was not published by Warner Bros., but by Boxtree Ltd., which is part of the McGraw-Hill publishing group - which I was able to find out with only a minute of Google searching. Why not check your facts when trying to puncture anyone else's arguments counter to yours, and try to work to make the article better, as I have done? Thank you! MikeWazowski 15:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's an officially licensed product with Straczynski's creative input published on behalf of Warner Bros.--Nydas^(Talk) 17:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Why is it that other AFDs don't get this kind of a turnout? I think we should make participation in maintenance discussions a compulsory activity, a condition for an editor's ability to create and edit articles. The embetterment that would ensue would be well worth such a price of admission. Not to mention weeding out the undesirables. --Agamemnon2 08:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer Precisely because people don't want to see full detailed articles go down the drain. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 12:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Very famous concept in a very famous series. Well-written and extensive article. The article was even featured! Wikipedia certainly needs spooooo. JIP | Talk 12:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article: I was looking for hours to find exactly this article... as unbelievable as it might be. I entered a strat-game based on babylon 5 and the name of one of the 16 players: SPOOmun Complat. Looking for some background info... and here I've found it. Now I realize that the wiki is a superb place to find info about all the alternative worlds and that's fine. Spoo wouldn't make it into the Britannica but that's why I prefer wikipedia (nobody around to say what's worth mentioning and what not). And who is seriously considering deleting an article that is correct, made with much work and love and now dozens of people are busy discussing it... wiki running out of space? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.190.207.43 (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— 84.190.207.43 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep I believe this is the first time that I've ever seen a featured article nominated for deletion. A-fucking-mazing. As the principle editor/author of FICT said, quit using FICT wrongly already. Kyaa the Catlord 01:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Language man... Spawn Man 03:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I cited WP:FICT almost word for word and I never eliminated the possibility of reducing the full article to a concise, sourced section within a broader article. Punctured Bicycle 13:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I cannot believe how complete and accurate this article is. I was a GEI (Grid Epsilon Irregular), a member of the GEnie network's Babylon 5 group from the '90s, and I saw these posts by JMS with my own eyes. Spoo is an important part of Babylon 5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zrath (talk • contribs) 08:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't believe this was even nominated. I'm eating spoo right now because it is so darned notable. Yummy. (sakes alive, this is a FEATURED article-- have some respect for the consensus process, please). OfficeGirl 05:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Longstanding policies and guidelines represent consensus better than personal opinions like "I'm eating spoo right now because it is so darned notable. Yummy." I've grounded this nomination in two core policies, WP:V—as reflected in WP:NOTE and WP:FICT—and WP:NOR. Consensus is based on a system of good reasons, yet the people voting keep are not engaging my points and are giving unbacked opinions:
- 'The nominator has bad intentions' — Incorrect, assuming bad faith, and not a good reason for keeping an article on Wikipedia.
- 'The article is featured' — Notability is not currently part of the FA criteria, so this is irrelevant.
- 'Important part of Babylon 5', 'There is real-world notability' — Wikipedia does not care about what is important or notable; we care about what can be documented to be important or notable through reliable, third party sources. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
- 'There is substantial out-of-universe info in the article' False. There is little, and what is there is trivial and was derived from original research. The article makes incredibly feeble attempts to establish out-of-universe importance, e.g. "The question of what spoo is made it into the major Babylon 5 FAQ."
- 'WP:FICT is being applied incorrectly' False. I never eliminated the possibility of reducing the full article to a concise, sourced section within a broader article. Merge is an option for any AFD debate. Punctured Bicycle 09:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have certainly got enough sources for this subject for an article - maybe it shouldn't be featured, but it's certainly not AfD fodder. Seems like a WP:POINT nomination, almost.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove, no independent reliable sources, non-notable subject that happened to get far along in the process (not the first time that a non-notable article advances well into the Wiki hierarachy, see Good article, NPA personality theory at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony M. Benis). The argument that it passed FAC and FAR aren't relevant to notability; FAC and FAR are no more or less infalliable than the rest of Wiki, and the recent FAR defaulted to no consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—AfD shouldn't be used to stimulate discussion about merging. AfDs are for deletion—the last resort—not open discussion about editorial desicions. Discuss merges on the talkpage BEFORE AfD. Consider transwiki. If neither option is possible or logical, then AfD. WT:FICT is being slammed with comments because these people are applying WP:FICT incorrectly. I made the wording clear in WP:FICT, and if people choose to ignore it, then shame on them. — Deckill er 20:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't own the interpretation on WP:FICT, and you obviously have not made the wording clear. I don't see any difference between discussing a merge in an AFD debate and on the article's talk page, other than 1. the latter will not stick 2. the latter will have inadequate exposure to the community. You seem to forget that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Punctured Bicycle 02:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - He doesn't WP:OWN it, but you claiming that sentences mean something different than what the guy who wrote them says they mean is rather absurd. --tjstrf talk 02:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I actually claimed "You don't own the interpretation on WP:FICT." (And "own" does not mean WP:OWN.) Punctured Bicycle 03:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - So you're claiming Deckiller doesn't know what he meant when he said something? --tjstrf talk 03:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        No. I'm claiming that guidelines are open to interpretation. I'm claiming that even if we follow Deckiller's strict interpretation and I indeed made a minor procedural error, that does not invalidate the nomination, as Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. I will add that WP:FICT is not my only point, and this nomination could have been done easily without it. Why people keep obsessing over WP:FICT, while ignoring WP:NOTE and WP:NOR, is beyond me. Punctured Bicycle 04:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Punctured Bicycle, what Deckiller is saying is that you are ignoring the intent of the guideline and therefore applying it incorrectly. It is clear that the guideline as written does a terrible job of communicating its intent, which is one of the reasons why there is so much on-going debate on the new version of the guideline, so perhaps it is understandable you are misinterpreting it. But the intent of the guideline is to encourage streamlining of articles on fictional topics and serve as a guideline to be applied with "common sense" not an iron-clad rule to be blindly swung about like a sledgehammer. Deletion is supposed to be a last resort. Fairsing 00:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wouldn't say it does a terrible job in communicating its intent, as most scenarios have been extremely accurate. The wording is as clear as it can get, and the only thing I've seen being implemented incorrectly is the idea that deletion is a last resort (a statement clearly mentioned in the "nutshell" part, ironically). The thing is that people are only drawing from select aspects of the guideline, just like many guidelines out there; there are so many opinions involved WRT fiction, so any version of the guideline will be controversial to many. People only read or interpret what they want to interpret, and while adding less authoritative wording may be recommended, it will actually lead to additional interpretations. — Deckill er 02:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The in-universe sections of WP:FICT, which this article does indeed stretch, do not justify deletion; they may warrant rewriting, although a significant part of this article is from an out-of-universe perspective. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The real-world etymology of the word is mostly padding and original research, listing similar sounding words in a manner which is prohibited by WP:NEO.--Nydas^(Talk) 05:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per His Space - also it is a featured article.--JForget 23:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am not an author of this article. Spoo is very notable in the B5 universe and the article is too large to merge. Pocopocopocopoco 01:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. When one Wikipedia process determines that this article "exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work" and another process might be deciding that this article doesn't belong on Wikipedia at all, the idea that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy becomes quite laughable. DHowell 03:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Supported by reliable sources from the creators, meets the Featured Article criteria so it sure as hell meets criteria to have its own article! Judgesurreal777 20:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First, it's a featured article and there isn't enough presented to justify deleting one. Second, Babylon 5 is notable, and the subject is a significant part of it's ongoing narrative. That is the standard for notability of fictional things right? Horrorshowj 15:00, 12 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. Maxim_(talk) 13:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of domain name registrars[edit]

This article is a top 10 list which is copied from a website. It borders on advertising for both the source page as well as the registrars in the list. It may also raise a question of copyvio. Article history shows that attempts to change the format and function of the article have failed. Ham Pastrami 07:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm sure what to do in regards to notability, as I'm not familiar with the subject matter, but if the article is a copy vio, it should be deleted. Spawn Man 10:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What purpose does it serve? There are no figures or statistics listed for verification. As it stands it just looks like an arbitrary list of registrars. A waste of electrons let alone server space.--WebHamster 12:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - perfectly good list. GreenJoe 14:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A list of what? Arbitrary names? Why is #1 not at #10? The article does not demonstrate why, what criteria was used and what the actual figures are. --WebHamster 15:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per not yellow pages Corpx 18:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply copies information from RegistrarStats.com. Delete per WP:NOT Bfigura ^(talk) 22:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Useful organization of information; this is what lists are for. Not a copyvio since list is based on uncreative statistical rankings. — xDanielx ^T/_C 09:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per xDanielx. This list can and will be improved over time. In addition, there are red-links, including Moniker Online Services which has been deleted. John Vandenberg 23:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Remove the red links, and expand to include any notable registrars. Keep. • Lawrence Cohen 20:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete better cat than list for this, because no extra info is provided or likely meaningful. Carlossuarez46 21:29, 13 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. NawlinWiki 01:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Fish(band)[edit]

Same walled garden as Tropical Candy below: 4 albums in this case, no sources, no "Electric Fish" "Bone Fry" google hits whatsoever, as it seems. Heck, see the comprehensiveness of their own website. Duja► 07:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BAND. Moreover, a quick google search shows up no reliable hits for this band. It is also impossible to verify the contents of this article as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 08:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A band hosting its website with a freehoster almost per definition fails WP:MUSIC if you can't even aford the 1$ per month for a website just how notable can you be. 1redrun ^Talk 09:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator. Article appears to offer more than the band can deliver. No chart history, no press coverage. Truly non-notable. --WebHamster 12:20, 7 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. NawlinWiki 01:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Candy[edit]

Borderline A7: the band existed, recorded 2 albums for minor publishers, and disbanded. No refs, heck, not even Google = No article. Duja► 07:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quick google search shows up no reliable hits for this band. Fails WP:BAND as well. It is also impossible to verify the contents of this article as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 10:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Another non-notable band from the attic stables of Fat Man Records (a label whose article was recently speedily-deleted). Wouldn't meet WP:BAND if it was a Russian dating website.--WebHamster 12:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete already. Per all of the above. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 22:56, 7 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. DS 14:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sphere of Mankind[edit]

This looks to be about as good a example of OR as I have ever seen - I could be wrong though... Anarchia 07:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSD#G1, anyone? Duja► 07:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless adecuate references are provided, I read the article and it appears to be composed entirely of Original Research, I did a quick Yahoo! search [40] and the only direct result pointed me towards here. - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec'd x 2) Week Delete Google returns hits but only very generically. Per nom this is basically Original Research. I confess a bit of WP:ILIKEIT in the sense that one feels there should be something useful in this information, either for a standalone article or to add to Mankind. However I can't see a way of improving what is here due to the lack of unverifiable information. Pedro | Chat 07:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've heard of the trapezoid of mankind, the oblong of mankind and the triangle of mankind, but this "Sphere of mankind"? Simply fictitious! ;) Delete as WP:CSD#G1 patent nonsense. Spawn Man 07:38, 7 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. CitiCat^♫ 23:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rails Alley[edit]

This nickname is not verifiable, and even if it were, there is not indication that this area is as such notable. Sandstein 07:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WTF Delete - Geez, it barely makes sense. NN, possibly OR - Delete. Spawn Man 07:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not verifiable or notable. Could be just a way of getting the two links to companies in. Hut 8.5 08:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sandstein's nomination.Darkcraft 10:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Silicon Alley. As it stands now it's a neologism. Wl219 15:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a notable term, not even a likely search term. RoR is already so widespread as to make this sort of claim meaningless. --Dhartung | Talk 18:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable neologism Bfigura ^(talk) 22:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:22, 10 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 org. can later be shown to be notable, an article can be created. CitiCat^♫ 23:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Njjn[edit]

National Juvenile Justice Network, a nonprofit organization working with juvenile justice systems. Couldn't find any reliable sources to establish notability. Fails WP:ORG. If article is kept, should be renamed to National Juvenile Justice Network. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 07:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep for now, with article name change. It does seem to be a large organization, though I also couldn't find any acceptable sources, though there was some reference to it by other youth justice organisations. It is a fairly new article. Perhaps give the original author a chance to improve it, and revisit the AFD in a few weeks. Darkcraft 10:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable and unreferenced, mainly because sources do not exist it would appear. Nuttah68 20:25, 12 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 speedily deleted under WP:CSD#G1 by Anonymous Dissident (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin close cab 09:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New York Red Sox[edit]

Total WP:HOAX, couldn't find any references, plus the creator made two other articles that were deleted. Although creator is inactive, perhaps an account block is in order... edits to existing pages consisted of vandalism. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 06:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Speedy delete as WP:CSD#G1 patent nonsense. -- Spawn Man 06:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: CSD G3 definitely applies. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete tagged as nonsense, though vandalism applies as well. Hut 8.5 08:48, 7 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. — TKD::Talk 09:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magic (Inheritance)[edit]

Per WP:FICT, the article does not provide enough real-world information to justify notability. This is further reinforced by the lack of sources. Though the quality of an article is not solely a reason for deleting it, much of the content guide appears to be a how-to guide relating to this particular magic system, going into too much detail and hence violating WP:NOT#PLOT. Una Laguna^Talk 06:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Any notable real world information should be transferred to the main article and the rest deleted. Judgesurreal777 07:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:FICT. No real world converage to assert its notability. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' original research/no real world notability Corpx 18:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:24, 10 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 02:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mythical creatures in Harry Potter[edit]

The article is a recitation of other myths, coupled with plot summary from the Harry Potter books. The article basically says nothing, has no notability, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 06:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Although I've seen other articles like this which have been kept, most of the article consists of "Main article" and "See also". If there was major expansion, maybe things would be different, but there's nothing new here that isn't already written in the creature's main articles. Spawn Man 06:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't actually true. Because "...in popular culture" sections are being hunted down and killed right now, much of the information regarding mythical creatures in Harry Potter has been removed from other pages. Serendi^podous 08:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - You may want to add Minor Harry Potter beasts to this AfD or start up one for it - although it's written better, it's the same type of content as this AfD's article. Spawn Man 07:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you would start it that would be great. :) Hint hint. Judgesurreal777 07:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hint hint - no. Spawn Man 07:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm not going to. Judgesurreal777 19:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was kidding. Let's just see what the outcome of this AfD is eh? Spawn Man 05:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So was I LOL I already started it :) Judgesurreal777 05:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol! Great minds think alike. ;) Spawn Man 06:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In the Harry Potter universe, which must be classified as major, the presence of centaurs, giants, and leprechauns plays a major part of the books' atmosphere, as much as the spells and magical artifacts do. In terms of notability, each mythical creature has about the same individual notability as a minor-to-mid-importance character, and probably does not need a separate article, however merged lists are appropriate. Per WP:LIST, the page provides a purpose as as information, and perhaps more importantly, navigation. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Like much of the Harry Potter stuff around here which will never be deleted because of obsessed fan brigades, this article doesn't even come close to meeting the basic inclusion criteria for an encyclopedia, this one in particular. Complete lack of third party sources. This stinks of original research. Nothing in this has real world notability. Notability is not inherited, simply because the Harry Potter books are notable doesn't make every ghoul, goblin, and plot device from the novels notable. This is the real world. Someone needs to start a Harry Potter wiki now and get this nonsense out of the encyclopedia, in my opinion. IvoShandor 08:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useable material to Minor Harry Potter beasts. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 12:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is just an article of links to other articles and most of these creatures weren't created by Rowling. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge with Minor Harry Potter beasts into Magical creatures in Harry Potter. We don't need 2 separate lists, but the topic of magical creatures in the series is certainly notable and essential to the 7 book story arc. Wl219 15:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no end to this sort of thing. "Building in Harry Potter", "Fashion in Harry Potter", etc. It follows the form of a Wikipedia article without having the notable content necessary. Notability is not inherited. MarkBul 16:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Transwiki to Harry Potter wiki....List of characters in HP is sufficient, we dont need a list of everything in harry potter Corpx 18:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the creator of this article, I would say that. But no, I disagree with the original thesis that this article only repeats other myths. Many mythical creatures, such as giants, centaurs and merpeople, play important roles in the series, and this page was designed to discuss them as they appeared in the novels, not as they appeared in myth. Many young people asssume that Rowling created many of these creatures (I know this from previous edits I've had to revert), and this page was designed to end confusion. Serendi^podous 07:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point, but that kind of discussion would require sourcing, otherwise it is OR and synthesis, which doesn't look promising in this article. And if this article didn't exist, they would go to those articles and find out. Judgesurreal777 15:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean; what additional sources would be required? Serendi^podous 15:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that meets the requirements laid out at policy and guideline pages like WP:V or WP:RS, say, something not by Rowling.

IvoShandor 15:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would they need to verify? Everything is in the books themselves. This article makes no points, it draws no conclusions. All it does is say that these things are in the books. Serendi^podous 15:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You see, that's the problem. Imagine you couldn't say anything already in the books; could you talk about how Rowling came up with them? Could you talk about how audiences and reviewers responded to her use of myth in the books? There is none of that here... the article just tells us what's in the book, and that's not what wikipedia is for. Judgesurreal777 15:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But again, Wikipedia is riddled with lists like this. Some of them are featured. Many of them are entirely in-universe. What's the difference? Serendi^podous 15:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give an example of a featured one? I grant the other two points. Judgesurreal777 15:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the obvious example for an in-universe featured list would be Narnian timeline. Serendi^podous 15:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that list passes because the author helped construct the timeline and if you only read the book you wouldn't necessarily know a lot of that information, such as when events correspond and such...that's my guess...Judgesurreal777 16:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you only read the Harry Potter books, you might not know that many of the creatures in them are from myth and folklore. You must understand the ridiculous circumstances out of which this list arose. For a long time, Minor Harry Potter beasts was the only page on Wikipedia to gain any information on grindylows, despite the fact that Rowling didn't invent them. People were editing the pages of mythic creatures in Harry Potter saying how Rowling must have "got" the idea from monster X to TV show Y. It was insane. Serendi^podous 16:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's good that people found that out, but if there is something useful to say, why are there no references? Couldn't a sentence or two just be added to the mythic creatures themselves on their pages? Judgesurreal777 16:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was the original system we had in place, but then people started deleting pop culture references left and right, so Harry Potter references aren't safe there anymore. Serendi^podous 16:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you find anything that Rowling said about these fictional characters that doesn't come from the book, add it to the Harry Potter Universe article, that would be a good spot, since your right they can be strict about how many references from popular culture they have for those mythical creatures. Judgesurreal777 20:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. How would a few sentences added to the Wizard world article help kids understand which Harry Potter creatures are mythical and which aren't? Serendi^podous 11:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've added a quote from Rowling to the lead, illustrating the issue at stake. I doubt it will be enough, but there you are. Rowling is not and never has been a fount of information about her work. Serendi^podous 15:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When you read the book articles for example, you wont understand what some of these creatures are if they're not linked to this page, easy keep. And stop going on deletion sprees. just looks like a old case of the Dont likes. Chandler talk 21:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? No, it's not "I don't like it" at all. And your rationale is not in any way related to actual wikipedia guidelines. Judgesurreal777 21:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the informations to the other articles about the creatures in Harry Potter. Neville Longbottom 12:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look. To solve this problem, this is what I will do: I will merge this article with Minor Harry Potter beasts and Magical beasts (Harry Potter) to create a single, giant "beasts" article. Much of the information in "Magical beasts" can be ditched anyway. I will then pepper this new article with as many Rowling quotes as I can find. Fair enough? Serendi^podous 09:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now you've got the idea, that way wikipedia will have unique information and not just plot regurgitation. Bravo! :) Judgesurreal777 16:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Magical beasts (Harry Potter) into this one, and axe unnecessary ones. (A good deal) i ^said 23:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:FICT. How are mythical creatures as envisioned by Rowling notable? Axem Titanium 04:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not follow WP:WAF and doesn't independently meet WP:N. Notability is not inherited, and these topics don't have notable, reliable third-party coverage IIRC. bwowen talk•contribs 04:16, 11 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. — TKD::Talk 09:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Suicide Concert[edit]

Contested prod. Reasons for the prod were "crystal ball article, no references, no list of confirmed performers (invitations are meaningless), no google hits other than this page."[41] An IP editor subsequently changed 'invited' to 'confirmed', added a link to The Institute of Mental Resilience and a depression website, and removed the prod tag. I can find no mention of the Concert through these links, meaing they are not sources for the article, and throwing doubt on the "confirmed" edit. Pairadox 05:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, crystal ball. Also delete Daniel Montana. Mushroom (Talk) 15:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete crystal-ballery perhaps, but if there were advanced plans for a concert that would seem, judging from the names listed, to include the entire Australian enterainment industry on the bill, one would have thought it might have generated at least one Google hit. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When the article was first created, all of those were listed as Invited. Only after the prod tag did that change to Confirmed. Pairadox 00:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, crystal ball. Also delete Eden Montana-Caceda as the only claim to notability in his article is to have helped organize this concert. - Ttwaring 13:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Why am I not surprised that this latest was created by User:Nede? Pairadox 16:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. •97198 talk 07:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and also what's the date for that.--JForget 23:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Keb25 00:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources for dubious claims of notability. NawlinWiki 13:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not encyclopedic, not notable.--Grahamec 04:06, 12 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 and redirect to aftershock. — TKD::Talk 09:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aftershok[edit]

Non-notable university student who dances as a hobby. Assertion that he is "up and coming." No sources given. Creator of article has had no other edits on Wikipedia. OfficeGirl 05:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, he is not a dancer but a producer of "Hard Trance" dance music. I don't know the scene but these look like extremely minor or self-release labels, and there are no press reference, so fails WP:MUSIC. No allmusic entry. Should not be confused with a metal band from Cleveland of the same name. Delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bikeable (talk • contribs) 06:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no independent sources showing notability. NawlinWiki 18:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lacking notability Corpx 18:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as a plausible mispelling of aftershock. 132.205.44.5 22:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN gidonb 00:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. "Up and coming" violates WP:CRYSTAL and should never be used as a phrase to describe any person on Wikipedia, as it gives strong evidence that they're non-notable. Cite sources.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:26, 10 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 — Caknuck 20:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Access Tucson[edit]

Non-notable local public access television station. No sources given other than the station's own website. OfficeGirl 05:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quick google search shows up no reliable third-party hits for this television station. It is also impossible to verify the contents of this article from reliable sources as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 10:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources with substantial coverage can be found. Jakew 14:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:27, 10 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. — TKD::Talk 09:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of unique video game weapons[edit]

Where shall I start? Original research (because how could you possibly source that a video game item is unique?), unreferenced, listcruft. Just because this was requested on the Community Portal doesn't mean it deserves to live. Golbez 04:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research, trivial and very point of view. RobJ1981 04:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Need we say why? It's a nice looking list, pity the content is OR, NN, Trivial, and neverending. Spawn Man 05:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above comments. Una Laguna^Talk 06:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, original research, game guide content, and WP:NOT#INFO. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hut 8.5 08:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, what is unique is disputable, this is what you would call WP:CRUFT, WP:POV and maybe even Nonnotable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DBZROCKS (talk • contribs) 12:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indiscriminate list. shoy 15:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, original research, cruft, indiscriminate, hard to verify, you name it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 17:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, strong, strong delete I don't think I can add anything that isn't stated above. This one is pretty cut-and-dry. -- Kicking222 18:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OR. Hal peridol 23:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research and indiscriminate collection of info. Useight 00:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some games you can create your own unique video game weapons... Eg: The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. Wholly original researched listcruft. Serves no useful encyclopedic purpose - WP:NOT#INFO. --Eqdoktor 09:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless list, subject to POV and OR problems. Gamecruft too. JIP | Talk 12:46, 8 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. — TKD::Talk 09:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of video game power ups[edit]

A bit broad and unsourced. I also believe this falls under game guide content. RobJ1981 04:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Such information is normally game-guide level. Even if notable, without context this information is kind of useless. -- Ned Scott 04:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indiscriminate list. If these items are notable, we have a category. --Golbez 04:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Same as my vote for list of computer game weapons above - OR, NN, trivial and neverending... Spawn Man 05:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per this is stuff found in a game guide Corpx 05:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete nuke it from orbit Q ^{T C} 05:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the same reasons as stated here and at the AFD for List of unique video game weapons. Una Laguna^Talk 06:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Power-ups can usually be adequately in the article on the game, or even as separate articles if they are iconic through a long series (e.g. Starman (Nintendo) or Super Mushroom), but classifying different poer ups by "Strength-Related", "Health-Related", and so on, over a spectrum of different video games is something else. This classification scheme is, as far as I know, original, hence this article violates the policy on no original research. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete highly indiscriminate list. Game guide content. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indiscriminate list. shoy 15:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the same as above, indiscriminate list, gamecruft. JIP | Talk 12:47, 8 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 Keegan^talk 04:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where 'yat[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Where 'yat

Non notable neologism Q ^{T C} 04:41, 7 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. — TKD::Talk 09:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Python kiss[edit]

unverifiable content; likely WP:OR puff page as it was created by a User of the same name as the page. Maralia 04:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I cant find any sources to get it past WP:NEO, so I'm assuming the rest of the content is OR Corpx 05:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The information does not appear to be verifiable - for something related to classical works it should be easy to find information but a goodish trawl via Google resulted in nothing direct. Also per nom regarding the editor nick suggesting Original research. Pedro | Chat 11:49, 7 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. — TKD::Talk 09:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Auslogics Disk Defrag[edit]

Non-notable software. No third-party, reliable sources or independent media coverage. Only claim of notability is that it received "4.5 stars on Download.com." A Google search shows no independent sources to verify the article. Delete. Boricuæddie 04:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this article can be improved greatly. Try This search, without the underscores. There is a myriad of sources out there. Also, just to let you know, you proposed that this article be deleted, which means that you can't vote. Astroview120mm 04:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a vote, it is a discussion. Its generally assumed that the nominator is for deletion (unless they state otherwise), so explicitly mentioning it really has no bearing on the discussion. As for the article, all those myriad of sources are really just download sites. I went through 6 pages before I found anything other then a release announcement or a download page, and that was a blog comment. No reliable sources to be found, thus failing WP:N, and Delete - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 05:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Downloads.com merely lists this program, and does not review it, which is not significant coverage Corpx 05:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't find any evidence of notability. MarkBul 05:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also can't find any evidence of notability, possibly an advert? Darkcraft 09:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, no third-party coverage. Thomjakobsen 15:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Barely notable. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:29, 10 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. Mango juice^talk 22:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weather control in popular culture[edit]

Unsourced, trivial and cluttered list. Just because something is featured in pop culture, doesn't mean it should be a list here. RobJ1981 04:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely unsourced and trivial. --Boricuæddie 04:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. —Boricuæddie 04:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a list of loosely associated items Corpx 05:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The empty ref section at the bottom says it all. This is yet another of the IPC articles which doesn't deserve to stay. Spawn Man 05:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a combination of trivial mentions and obscurities - a dumping ground rather than a coherent list. MarkBul 05:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to talk. Few entries in this list are "unsourced"; for most of them it is perfectly obvious what the sources are. Weather control is in fact a widely used theme in various works of science fiction, fantasy, and folklore. The article would be incomplete if a way is not found to integrate some of this material. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if you can find sources, then add them. If you can't, then it fails WP:V, and, according to the deletion policy, the article should be deleted, no matter how "important" you claim it is. --Boricuæddie 22:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have been adding various cultural allusions to the article in chief on weather control. Many of mine come from classical mythology, but contemporary mythology should not be devalued either. Usually a reference to the work of fiction in which weather is being controlled ought to be sufficient. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable, well-organized list that does have sources now (see reference section at bottom of article that I just added; I am still looking for more). I agree with Smerdis; these sorts of discussions really need to take place on talk pages first and I strongly urge nominators to look for references before nomiating as well. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that the burden of evidence lies with the user who created the article and/or those who collaborated. Failure to meet WP:V is an excellent rationale for deletion. --Boricuæddie 22:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but that's why we have reference request tags, too. Anyway, though, it does have a reference section now. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as written. Trivial mentions aren't suitable for an encyclopedia. Merge major mentions to Weather Control if they aren't already there. shoy 15:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There really needs to be a Wikia for this kind of list. There's certainly demand. Ichormosquito 21:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have to agree. Why not a Wiki Popular Culture so everybody will be free to put up this kind of trivia-dump?--JForget 23:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - directory of loosely-associated items. No relationship exists between the items on this laundry list. Otto4711 22:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total junk trivia list, violates WP:NOT Dannycali 22:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per more trivia-cruft -= mostly unverified and OR.--JForget 23:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some of the above remarks are not exactly rational arguments: calling something trivia-cruft does not make it so. Calling it loosely associated does not make it so either, when the association is the common main theme of the work, as is the case for at least some of these. The other arguments either ignore the obviously appropriate soceability or assume that popular culture is trivia--its the very opposite--its one of the reasons why things are significant and encyclopedic. DGG (talk) 04:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FAN. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:27, 11 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. — TKD::Talk 09:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Auto Service & Tire Centers[edit]

Non-notable tire and auto service company. Violates WP:SPAM. OfficeGirl 04:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The source provided shows that one of the largest independent tire store chains in the United States translates to "tied for 80th largest". --Dhartung | Talk 04:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Far from a national chain, the notability (if any exists) is of an extreme narrow scope. Corpx 04:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:SPAM, failing WP:CORP. 1redrun ^Talk 10:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Fang Aili ^talk 15:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It has 14 locations, all in Arizona, and somehow seems to have (for nearly 20 years) avoided a trademark dispute with the 3,000+ store nationwide chain known as Advance Auto Parts. I'd vote keep if I knew how they accomplished THAT. However, this is not much of an article. Mandsford 21:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom as PR/advertorials like this should have no place in Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins 14:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:30, 10 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. — TKD::Talk 09:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alla Vinokurova[edit]

Non notable musician. There's nothing about her on google, other than this Wikipedia article. Barely any assertion of notability. No cited references of any kind OfficeGirl 04:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete even if verified (probably need a Hebrew speaker; Google gives nothing in Russian either), doesn't sound particularly notable, though I guess someone playing with a national orchestra might have gotten enough local news coverage to write a decent article about them. cab 06:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. cab 06:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found nothing about the musician in Hebrew or English. gidonb 02:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No google hits in English or Hebrew. Number 5 7 10:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:30, 10 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. — TKD::Talk 09:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henrietta (ヘンリエッタ)[edit]

This article is a spinoff from the main Gunslinger Girl character article, with no additional content or sources to back up the information. In addition, it does not follow naming conventions: there should not be Japanese script in the title, and the proper (scope) would be (Gunslinger Girl)—which already exists, since I moved and redirected this exact same article once before. Merging is not an option, since all the substantive information here is already in the main article; redirecting is not an option, since it is an unlikely search term (due to the Japanese script, which is just a transcription of "Henrietta" into katakana) that was once deleted under CSD R3; and proposed deletion is not an option, since this article under this title has been deleted once before, and the author seems likely to contest that process by recreating the article again; therefore, a proper deletion is the only option. —TangentCube, Dialogues 03:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can establish notability through coverage from independent, reliable sources Corpx 04:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weakest possible Delete I'm sure there is coverage out there, but I'm not willing to use my craptastic Japanese skills to go hunting. Nice pics tho. (I think this article COULD stand on its own if it received some work since Henrietta is arguably a main character and I think those can still have their own pages even after the clusterfuck of FICT.) Kyaa the Catlord 18:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the list. 132.205.44.5 22:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to merge and the Kanji in the title will not make this a valid redirect. --Farix (Talk) 22:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Farix (Talk) 22:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable character. Keb25 02:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gunslinger Girl if the information isn't already there, then delete. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no content to merge, and article has had no coverage by verifiable third party sources to satisfy WP:FICT. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all content found in List of Gunslinger Girl characters. -- Ned Scott 04:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as needless duplication of content at a really weird name (redirection hence being useless). There's no evidence of real world notability or helpful out of universe information here, and the existing character list is in no need of further subdivision. --tjstrf talk 07:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant. Not a plausible search term, so a redirect is unnecessary. Caknuck 06:20, 12 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. — TKD::Talk 09:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of young people in history[edit]

Fails WP:NOT#INFO, as this list is quite indiscriminate. These people have nothing in common, except that they were young, and therefore, I fail to see why this list deserves inclusion. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 02:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment List of fetuses!!! But seriously, Delete. Grab-bag list - dumping ground. MarkBul 02:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete About as indiscriminate as you can possible get. Delete per WP:LIST Bfigura ^(talk) 03:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per list of loosely associated people Corpx 04:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments Q ^{T C} 04:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - What happens when a young person is not young anymore? This lsit could incorporate practically every person in the world. It is completely stupid and pointless and unmanagable. Spawn Man 05:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thought that the fetus thing was a joke! Indiscriminate list on shaky foundations. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 05:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Indiscriminate list of minimal informational value. --Bongwarrior 06:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Any list that I could put myself on (yes I've been young, but that's long since history) has serious issues with WP:NOT#INFO. 1redrun ^Talk 08:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm, good point. I should add that to my list of AfD reasons to delete. Lets see, list of people with hair, list of people with two eyes.... I think I'm getting the hang of this. :) Spawn Man 09:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although the "List of fetuses" part is pretty hilarious. Everything but the kitchen sink in this one... Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A list that everyone who has ever lived could be put on is quite indiscriminate indeed. shoy 15:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perhaps mention it on List of Silly Things to Make Lists Of. Thomjakobsen 15:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indiscriminate information. Subjects have nothing notable in common. --Beloved Freak 16:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Save the Children! Well, categorize, anyway. This doesn't work as an article; it can't decide whether to list persons who didn't get a chance to grow up or persons were famous from childhood onward. For whatever reason, this is something that actually isn't served by a category... and should be. I was noticing that the infants Julia Drusilla and Claudia Augusta are in the category of "Roman women". Granted, they were born before any of us were, but they didn't live terribly long. Mandsford 21:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too indiscriminate list, definitions are too arbitrary and vague, subject to POV and OR problems. JIP | Talk 12:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOT#INFO. Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 23:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete loads of indiscriminate information. That one is brutal to say the least.--JForget 23:21, 10 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. — TKD::Talk 09:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Palmer Middle School[edit]

This article is about a middle school which does not have any notability nor those sources that assert it. Delete JForget 02:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lots of edits - the page never seems to change. Or improve. Not notable. MarkBul 03:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable here. Bfigura ^(talk) 03:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not yellow pages/directory of middle schools Corpx 04:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't assert notability. Spawn Man 05:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Chris 12:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Fang Aili ^talk 15:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per yellow. Twenty Years 08:20, 12 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. — TKD::Talk 09:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knoxdale Public School[edit]

Even though I'm from the region of Ottawa, I do not see how this public elementary is notable - there is nothing that asserts it, just like many other elementary school. The notability tag has been there since April Delete. JForget 02:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't see anything notable here. Bfigura ^(talk) 03:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete middle school lacking any notability Corpx 04:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't assert notability and uses slang for the vice principal - "...the vice's name is...". Delete. Spawn Man 05:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Fang Aili ^talk 15:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Twenty Years 08:20, 12 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. DS 14:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kēlen[edit]

Article was given a prod tag which I removed because it had be prodded before. Appears to fall under Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day CitiCat^♫ 02:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to lack independent sources according to the article's talk page, but please confirm this lack. — Rickyrab | Talk 02:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of any notability. Does anyone except the creator give coverage? Corpx 04:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article does not establish notability by citing nontrivial references to its subject in reliable third-party publications. -- Schaefer (talk) 05:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dchall1 05:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT. 1redrun ^Talk 08:53, 7 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. — TKD::Talk 09:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WWE The Animated Series (Adult Swim)[edit]

Contributer is a vandal who has added plausible sounding, but fake information to Wikipedia more than once. There is no WWE The Animated Series coming to Adult Swim. Madlobster 01:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you confirm that there are no reliable sources out there referring to WWE The Animated Series, or that this is a hoax? If so, how? While contributor may have been a vandal, he might have also added more plausible info in the past, so check his user record carefully. — Rickyrab | Talk 01:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One Google hit does not establish notability or verifiability. Vandal or no, unless someone can show this meets inclusion requirements, out it should go. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okeydokes, then, delete. — Rickyrab | Talk 01:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A quick look at the user's contributions scream definite vandalism. Thomjakobsen 02:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possible G3 for vandalism. Total hoax. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 02:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On a scale of one to hoax, it's an infinity. -- Kicking222 18:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources, no Ghits, no credibility. NawlinWiki 18:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like a hoax to me. •97198 talk 07:19, 10 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. — TKD::Talk 08:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7th Heaven (band)[edit]

Delete WP:N (especially WP:BAND) not satisfied. Article is in desperate need of cleanup and wikification. Of the 4 band members 3 are bluelinked, but two of those seem to be to wrong bio articles. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain Needs more proof from independent and/or reliable sources to meet notability criteria. To the contrib: can you provide us with some? — Rickyrab | Talk 01:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete51 Google hits for+" Richard Hofherr" +" 7th Heaven" including Wikipedia. Review at Chicago Gigs.com does not suggest notability. Allmusic page does not have any info asserting meeting WP:MUSIC. Alexa rating for web page not in top 100,000. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I guess this is a good reason to delete(although I doubt that only 100,000 causes or phenomena are notable, so I tend to discount such things as Alexa ratings). But this can be combined with other reasons, as you have, to make a good case for deletion on acct of non-notability. — Rickyrab | Talk 02:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even the article makes no assertion of meeting WP:MUSIC, so it is really speediable unless there is a notable connection through one of the band members.. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete And delete the band member page that's linked - he's not notable either. MarkBul 03:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:33, 10 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. — TKD::Talk 08:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Browning[edit]

Contested expired prod, with concern of non-notability. Nihiltres^(t.l) 00:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spamcruftisment created by spa. Non-notable individual with overtones of coatrackery ("Browning remains open about his faith in God, despite industry pressure for journalists to keep all personal views private")Bigdaddy1981 01:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bfigura ^(talk) 01:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Evidence of nonnotability? — Rickyrab | Talk 01:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather, lack of evidence of notability. Nihiltres^(t.l) 02:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 81 Google hits I do not see anything that establishes notability. It was originally tagged for speedy deletion. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:02, 7 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 all. --Core desat 03:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hampshire Music Service[edit]

These groups are talented, I'm sure, but they're not notable. It seems to be the equivalent of a high school band and/or orchestra group in the U.S. Some have been created, speedy deleted, then recreated more than once, and there should be a central debate about all.

I also nominate these articles:

Hampshire County Youth String Orchestra was speedy deleted a moment before I was going to list it here; if it shows up blue again, I'll include it here. - KrakatoaKatie 00:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 to all, may need salting if they're re-created again. No notability to be seen. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 00:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete all. I was considering A7 tagging these, but I wasn't completely sure. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 01:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What criteria for nonnotability are you guys using here? just curious. — Rickyrab | Talk 01:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSD A7: No assertion of importance or significance. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 01:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, and salt any that come back or are on their second creation already. Pretty much classic A7/non-notable groups. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete all Seems rather clear-cut. Pass the salt please Bfigura ^(talk) 03:41, 7 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. — TKD::Talk 08:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Rodenburg[edit]

Musician who asserts notability but there are no references/citations per WP:N, WP:BIO or WP:BAND. 155 ghits. Author removed prod, no reason offered. Reason for nomination: non-notability WebHamster 00:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Shalom ^Hello 00:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Good presentation of reasons to delete on account of nonnotability. — Rickyrab | Talk 01:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The problem with such a good nomination is you could only write "per nomination" or repeat what was said to begin with... - Delete per nomination. :) 1redrun ^Talk 08:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No info at www.allmusic.com Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bfigura ^(talk) 21:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are many claims to fame (notability) in this article, all appropriately tagged with ((fact)) tags. I searched and searched for even a miniscule hint that any of them could be verified by a reliable source. If I'd found any, I'd be here shouting out, "KEEP!". but alas, I came up empty, without even a dubious source. Sorry, David. Neil916 (Talk) 07:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:35, 10 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 due to lack of non-trivial coverage in third-party reliable sources. — TKD::Talk 08:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Youn Wha Ryu[edit]

No sign of notability or reliable sources here or on google. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The above claim is false. All of my sources are properly cited. Any sources not cited are the result of the authors before me. As per my research, I can neither confirm nor deny their claims beyond any reasonable doubt. Clear stone 00:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Clear stone[reply]

I note that all but one source is primary & that seems derived. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no signs of notability. MarkBul 00:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is entirely notable, as it is entirely relevant to anyone practicing or considering practicing Youn Wha Ryu. Clear stone 00:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Clear stone[reply]

Clear stone. Can you explain how this picture is relevant to the article you are defending now? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nominator--WebHamster 00:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To understand the relevance of the image, you must understand the current controversy regarding Youn Wha Ryu. The purpose of this page is to state the 'facts' of both sides of the issue. The image is proof that the claim is not just made up. Clear stone 00:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Clear stone[reply]

comment not to burst your bubble or anything, but on the picture there are no search results for this subject. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 01:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment That was the entire point of the image. If you had read the article, that would be clear. Clear stone 01:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Clear stone[reply]

Ok. Now it is deleted. Please read File storage areas. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear stone, every bit of information in the world is useful to someone. See WP:USEFUL. If wanted to learn how to do a back flip a guide to doing back flips would be useful, but is it encylopedic? the answer to that is no. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 01:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To DBZ: The article is not a guide on how to do anything. It is a compiled item of research regarding the history, training techniques, people involved, important dates and events, and current events of Youn Wha Ryu. That is in my opinion entirely encyclopedic. There are similar articles for thousands of other martial arts of the exact template. If this isn't encyclopedic then none of the others are either and should be on the chopping block. Clear stone 01:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Clear stone[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N, no reliable sources. Also, I'm puzzled by the author's claim both here and on the article talk page that "uncited information is due to other editors trying to get it deleted." On the article history, it appears that he's the only editor to have added any text there. Am I missing something? Thomjakobsen 01:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment The only sources aside from the Youn Wha homepage and it's sections sources are the author of the guide that I mention and a third party source regarding Tae Kwon Do. The reason that I am the only author is because the page was deleted earlier today by one side of the issue. I started it up with a previous version I had saved. Clear stone 01:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Clear stone[reply]

Would someone show how the thing is non-notable? Judging from a survey of the 1000-odd Google hits, there appears to be an organization in Missouri or something, and I am unsure of whether this is truly non-notable or not. An encyclopedia is supposed to contain a wide range of information; that is what an encyclopedia is there for - and this includes topics that some or even many may not find notable or relevant to their lives. The burden of proof ought to be on the lack of notability on something, not on showing how something is notable. — Rickyrab | Talk 01:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Props to Rickyrab. Clear stone 01:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Clear stone[reply]

proof that sources aren't reliable? — Rickyrab | Talk 01:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the organization is actually headed out of Texas, if that would help your Google fetishes at all Clear stone 02:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Clear stone[reply]

Comment Rickyrab, it's actually the other way around. Notability has to be established for all articles. WP:N explains the guidelines, including: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. So far, we only seem to have the official page of this thing, which isn't independent and reliable as to the topic's notability. Thomjakobsen 02:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:This is exactly what's wrong with Wikipedia today: the Wikipedia community puts too many restrictions on the concept of notability. The burden OUGHT to be on proving that the topic is non-notable. What's the problem with a phenomenon becoming notable via Wikipedia, anyhow? What's with this uptightness about notability? — Rickyrab | Talk 02:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apparently, MySpace is good for that sort of thing. Thomjakobsen 02:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a recipe for cruft. Notability via Wikipedia is tantamount to Astroturfing; "Hey, it's in WP, so it *must* be notable". Now, if you'll excuse me, I have an autobiography to write :) - Alison ☺ 02:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Am I missing something? How would you prove that a subject is non-notable, since any reasonable documentation (e.g., a newspaper article) would tend to speak to notability? This is an extremely silly standard. Wikipedia isn't here to publicize non-notable subjects, but to document things that are already notable. bikeable (talk) 06:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment :I agree with that statement. In America, citizens are innocent until proven guilty. Not that there is a direct comparisson, but subjects and sources should be considerred notable until proven otherwise. Clear stone 02:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Clear stone[reply]

Delete: The burden is on the author to clarify that the article discusses a subject that has notability. In this case, the author has failed to do so and has succeeded in recreating the article despite my initial deletion(s). From what I can tell, this article does not support that its subject is notable for encyclopedic inclusion, and the arguments of the author (Clear stone) that the fault is on the initial writers is baseless, as he is the only individual writing it and solely linking to younwharyu.com as his sources. This article should have remained deleted as I initially intended, and it is obvious that it will be deleted, again.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment : I am the only author of this current version. The previous version, before I had edited it at all, contained nothing but propoganda and was never considered for deletion. I more than doubled its' information, even out the sides, and added two sources outside of Youn Wha(check the sources). If imporiving an article means it is deserving of deletion, then by all means delete. But I recommend that if it is to be deleted that it should be forever be a banned topic of Wikipedia to prevent the spread of Youn Wha propoganda. Clear stone 03:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Clear stone[reply]

Delete - no significant attempts at assertion of notability - Alison ☺ 02:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT User talk:Rickyrab and Clear stone. Pleae read WP:N. That is the guideline for notability, establihed through consensus. Instead of complaining about what is wrong with Wikipedia, why don't you read WP:N and then go to those 372 UNIQUE google hits and find sources that show the subject is notable. That would be more productive and is the only way to save the article Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment The sources (http://www.dojang.com/z-plist.html) and (http://www.faqs.org/faqs/martial-arts/newbie-guide/index.html) are not related to Youn Wha. That's half of the sources in the article. Clear stone 03:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Clear stone[reply]
My mistake, one third of the sources. Clear stone 03:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Clear Stone[reply]

Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. satisfied Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive.satisfied

"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject are a good test for notability. satisfied as they are all available and considered the foremost authority on the subject "Sources," defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred. satisfied as three are secondary "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. satisfied as 1/3 are sources independent of Youn Wha Satisfying this presumption of notability indicates a particular topic is worthy of notice, and may be included in the encyclopedia as a stand-alone article. Verifiable content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for merger with another article. satisfied simple by the sheer number of pages devoted to Youn Wha Ryu Clear stone 03:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Clear stone[reply]

Delete Non-notable, and apparently, despite long arguments to the contrary, unverifiable. All the references I see are either point back to the subject of the article, or to faqs.com (which is a little too Web 2.0-ish to be reliable) Bfigura ^(talk) 04:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I do see a moderate number of hits (about 200 excluding younwha.com and wikipedia) and some of those appear to be listings of trainings, etc -- but many are also conversations in martial arts message boards asking about YWR or replying that it appears to be made up. Some external documentation (e.g., in books or magazines about martial arts or in non-trival news media references) might push this the other way, but for now it really looks like an extremely non-notable technique. bikeable (talk)

DeleteI've made a couple of attempts to clean up the page. Added a controversy section. But the whole page falls into the not-notable category. Unless someone can find a significant series of news entries or websites other then the home site that detail the history, that I have not been able to find. I did a search on Amazon and I cant find any books about this style. I will do some more searches on newspaper sites to see if I can find anything. But nothing is coming up. --Clausewitz01 20:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as MA orgs go not that big & unless its sourced NN. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. this has already been deleted (I assume a speedy) as NN once. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The two links offered above as "independent" (at faqs.org and dojang.com) don't seem to contain any mentions of Youn Wha Ryu. Thomjakobsen 12:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They don't mention Youn Wha Ryu, but are relevant to the article. Facts gives the criterion for McDojo's and the other gives information on the patterns in Youn Wha. Clear stone 03:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Clear stone[reply]

Comment But they don't help establish notability. We need reliable third-party sources that give significant coverage of YWR. At the moment all we have is the official website. When we've asked for these third-party sources above, you've pointed to those independent links but they're not relevant to notability because they don't mention YWR. They may be useful for other parts of the article, but they're no good at showing notability of YWR itself. Thomjakobsen 12:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions. -- PC78 18:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That an organization makes false claims about itself it not a sufficient cause to delete an article dealing with it. Scientology is a prime example. That a martial artist makes false claims about himself or herself is not a sufficient cause to delete an article. Ashida Kim is a prime example. Most martial arts have little mainstream publicity and many koryu JMA articles could be deleted if a restrictive notability guideline is applied to all martial arts. (RookZERO 20:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- WP:V is a controlling policy in the sense that if there really is no reliable published material on something then we shouldn't have an article about it. If there is no mainstream publicity, we should delete the article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they had been shown to be a fraud by a newspaper expose or similar, like Kim, then they would be notable & the criticism would be sourceable, right not its not possible to prove either way so needs ot be deleted it. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 08:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the counter arguments over the last few days. I would change my vote to Keep. if the first line of the article were changed to:
- Youn Wha Ryu is a martial arts system which perfectly exemplifies the McDojo style of club. It combines techniques from several martial art styles including Taekwondo, Hapkido and Judo. [citation needed] --Clausewitz01 21:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Except it can't be changed to that, because calling it a "McDojo" is libellous. Thomjakobsen 21:35, 10 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 sources given are trivial mentions though, if that isn't fixed, the article can be renominated for deletion. Thanks. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 02:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Nestor[edit]

~~Doesn't meet requirements at WP:BIO.~~ Shell ^babelfish 00:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, doesn't achieve WP:BIO. Has only played around Ireland. -Lemonflash_{(do something)} 00:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable amateur athlete. As an aside, I note that a SPA created the article - likely COI. Bigdaddy1981 01:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteApparently nonnotable, given his extreme provinciality and minor status. — Rickyrab | Talk 01:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN. (Though that shot of him morose with the piece of steak is classic!) ;) Spawn Man 05:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BIO is clear for sports people - to be at the top of their sport at a national level or notable regional level. This is not the case. However per Spawn Man the inevitable loss of the picture accompanying the article will be sad. I think it's a sausage he's eating but it doesn't look too appetising....! Pedro | Chat 07:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lemonflash's remark that Nestor has "only played around Ireland" is irrelevant, unless we change the guidelines to apply difft criteria national sportspeople in difft countries; there are hundreds, if not thousands, of articles on American sportspeople who are unknown outside America.
WP:SPORT is somewhat Amero-centric, with many America-only specific guidelines, and in particular no guidance on amateur athletes other than the amero-centric college athletes, which includes college athletes who have won football, baseball or basketabll awards. Nestor has won regional regional awards for gaelic football (Mayo Sports Star of the Year 1995), which is marginal wrt to notability, and the coverage of his career doesn't quite meet WP:BIO, so I'm not going to argue for a "keep" unless someone finds more substantive coverage of him ... but he has played for the Mayo county team, which is pretty near the top of the game. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With that information and the fact that the Mayo award is sourced to what looks like a reputable publication, I'd have also lean towards keep. It looks like his games with Mayo received some coverage in a number of other newspapers as well [42], [43], [44], [45] and while they articles aren't more than nominally about him, he gets several mentions in each, which is typical for notable sports figures. Not sure if this is the same guy, but it looks like he may have gone on to play for Ballinrobe [46]. Shell ^babelfish 15:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Given Shell's links and those below from Flowerpot, I think that notability is established, since he clearly has played at the top level of his sport. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above.. - Kittybrewster (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - This is an athlete who's (apparently - I know sod all about the GAA so I may be misinterpreting their league structure) played at the highest level. Do we really need to have an Irish re-run of the "I live in America so I've never heard of this Pakistani cricketer" wave of AfDs last year? — iridescent (talk to me!) 16:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He has played Gaelic football at County level, which appears to be pretty much the top of the tree for Gaelic sport.Nigel Ish 17:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Playing inter-county Gaelic football (at senior level) is the pretty much the top of the tree in the sport and he played at that level for Mayo. (And here's a couple of links from the BBC andRTÉ FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did some work cleaning up this article a few weeks ago. I had some concerns about the subject's notability, so I'm pleased to see some other views. Just a note: I requested semi-protection because of ongoing, low-volume, mostly harmless vandalism, by one or more IP/new editors. If the article is kept, the vandalism is likely to start up again when the semi-protection is lifted. --Kateshort forbob 14:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:37, 10 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 keep. — TKD::Talk 13:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don Stone (ice hockey)[edit]

Player does not meet notability requirements of WP:HOCKEY in that he has played less than a full season in a fully professional league and the majority of his experience was in semi-pro leagues. Djsasso 18:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletions. —Djsasso 19:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP those are all pro leagues and RHI would probably the highest level of pro roller hockey (right?). passes WP:BIO ccwaters 19:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You are correct, I did not think of the RHI when I put this player up, but there is much debate about how far fully professional stretches. Alot of these leagues are not fully pro. The link above shows the hockey projects stance on it. In that they have to play 5 years or 100 games in a high level minor league like the AHL or ECHL. Or have won pre-eminent honours in a low level league like this player has played in. --Djsasso 19:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Djsasso: I was there when those informal guidelines were constructed: and they were meant to be an agreement on the creation of new articles, not a license to clean out already existing articles (its in the wp:hockey archives somewhere). Its not meant to supersede WP:BIO. ccwaters 19:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are correct. I am not advocating going through and deleting every possible player that fails them. I only put up 3 who I saw that are so far down in the minor leagues that it is really rediculous that they have articles. That being said they are currently I believe being used in a proposal (along with other sports) to revamp WP:Notability (people)--Djsasso 19:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has played five years of hockey at a professional level, so that part is easily verifiable. Also, with RHI, he has played at the highest competitive level of roller hockey. -- JamesTeterenko 19:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn Nomination due to forgetting that he played in the highest level of roller hockey. --Djsasso 19:30, 7 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. CitiCat^♫ 22:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Belecki[edit]

Player does not even meet the rather lax WP:HOCKEY notability guidelines in that he has played less than 5 seasons in a high level minor league and has not even reached 100 games. Most of his playing experience comes from the lowest level of pro/semi-pro hockey. Djsasso 18:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletions. —Djsasso 19:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP professional hockey players pass WP:BIO ccwaters 19:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But there is much debate about how far fully professional stretches. Alot of these leagues are not fully pro. The link above shows the hockey projects stance on it. In that they have to play 5 years or 100 games in a high level minor league like the AHL or ECHL. Or have won pre-eminent honours in a low level league like this player has played in. --Djsasso 19:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He has played seven full seasons of professional hockey. ECHL, Central Hockey League, American Hockey League, and UHL are all professional leagues. With this, this information is easily verifiable. -- JamesTeterenko 19:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: The problem is that even within the project, we never gained consensus for use of that criteria as cause to AfD an article; the only consensus was as a rule of thumb to gauge whether a certain player merited one. Even if we had, we've no authority to override WP:BIO. I'd like our criteria to be able to be used to AfD, but it'd be disseminating to claim that we'd signed off on it. Ravenswing 19:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is true. I mostly meant I was using that criteria as my reasoning instead of typing it all out. --Djsasso 20:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I believe there should be a moratorium on these AfDs until something more accurate passes with league athletes. This person meets WP:BIO but is quite obviously not notable. Smashville 06:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Which won't happen. There've been a few attempts to tighten up notability criteria for athletes, and consensus hasn't been remotely close. Too many sports, each with their own factions and their own notions as to what is notable or not; heck, just compare and contrast the relative importance of minor leagues in hockey, baseball, football and soccer. There's no hope at all for Wiki-wide change unless the say is devolved to the various Wikiprojects. Ravenswing 14:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:Notability (people) for athletes: Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports. Junior career included winning 1998 Memorial Cup posting 2.68 GAA, .916 pct in 3 round-robin games. Canuckle 18:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That being said the Memorial Cup is not the highest level of amateur play. The World Junior Championships, The Olympics or The World Championships are the highest level. --Djsasso 18:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Granted. but WP:HOCKEY also says eminence in WHL is okay. Bilecki won top goaltender and WHL playoff MVP award that year...1997-98_WHL_season#WHL_awards. I don't know if all players who won the Memorial Cup are notable, but some consideration should be given to those who achieved notice in winning the CUp. Canuckle 18:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I missed that he won that award. Should move that info over to his article. --Djsasso 18:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added it. ONly stumbled on the fact from the WHL season recap. Playoff MVP is listed as a sign of "preeminence" on WP:HOCKEY. Canuckle 18:56, 10 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 — Caknuck 20:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Sakic[edit]

Player WP:HOCKEY notability requirements for hockey players. Has played less than one full season and only 51 games in a high level minor league. Most of his experience comes from extremely low minor/semi-pro hockey. His only real claim to notability is being the brother of Joe Sakic which is not good enough. Djsasso 19:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletions. —Djsasso 19:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP professional hockey players pass WP:BIO ccwaters 19:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But there is much debate about how far fully professional stretches. Alot of these leagues are not fully pro. The link above shows the hockey projects stance on it. In that they have to play 5 years or 100 games in a high level minor league like the AHL or ECHL. Or have won pre-eminent honours in a low level league like this player has played in. --Djsasso 19:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think there's any debate as to whether the CHL, or CoHL/UHL/IHL are professional or not ccwaters 19:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No but there is debate on whether the leagues are high enough for a player to be notible enough to be in wikipedia. This is no different than the lower level of soccer and baseball which is not considered high enough to be included on wiki. --Djsasso 19:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He has played seven full seasons of professional hockey. ECHL, CoHL, Western Professional Hockey League, and UHL are all professional leagues. With this, this information is easily verifiable. -- JamesTeterenko 19:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, was a prolific scorer in junior AND a first round draft pick in the NHL. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 19:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Umm he was a 5th round draft pick. --Djsasso 19:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Correction oops sorry, I combined Joe with Brian to make this guy a 15th overall pick for the Washington Capitals. My Wiki-brain has been ticking oddly recently. Strong Keep withdrawn.
Delete. His only claim to fame? Joe's little brother. GoodDay 21:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If fame is your criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia, how do you measure it? I would think that most of the people born in the 18th century are even less famous than Brian Sakic. Have you ever heard of Chief Blackbird or Bolek? Do you think they have more fame? -- JamesTeterenko 22:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I hadn't heard of Brian Sakic either ('til this Afd); I never noticed him (weren't notable). GoodDay 14:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one season in the majors is more than enough to be Notable. Passes WP:BIO. Bearian 20:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, but he even played one game in the NHL. Much less a season. Smashville 06:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was going to say Merge with Joe Sakic however, he did win the 1989 Memorial Cup, in overtime in the first all-WHL final in the first Swift Current Bronco Memorial Cup win. I don't know if every member of a Cup-winning team is notable but it's something to consider. Canuckle 19:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Okay, ummm.... how is being the WHL's all-time point leader with 591, not notable? Don't believe me? See this Only Patrick Lefebvre stands above him in the whole CHL! Definitely worth keeping. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 22:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yup that would do it. --Djsasso 22:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wouldn't doubt you at all. Good add and looks like a snowball Keep now. Canuckle 20:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Did play in the ECHL which is a pro league, which does passes WP:HOCKEY/WP:BIO. Otherwise, it can be merged if deleted to Joe Sakic.--JForget 23:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by virtue of being the WHL's all-time scoring leader and second all time in scoring in Canadian Juniors. Smashville 19:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as all-time leading scorer in Western Hockey League. Skudrafan1 00:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think his outstanding junior career is more than enough to justify the article, not to mention his WHL record. LeorgeWBelch 10:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leorge W Belch (talk • contribs) [reply]

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