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

The result was delete. Deleted speedily by NawlinWiki per WP:CSD#A7, no assertion of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Googoogame[edit]

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

Article is not notable. VegKilla (talk) 05:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete specifically without prejudice to a sourced recreation with greater assertion of notability. Daniel (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Buckley[edit]

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

Non-notable politician who ran as a Libertarian without much success in 2004. No other claim to notability made. Fails WP:BIO. Redfarmer (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails Wikipedia:BIO#Politicians. Kakofonous (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Far too many substantive articles on this person at Google News for us to delete. (Mind meal (talk) 01:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete per Kakofonous. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - counting google results doesn't establish notability, especially when some of them aren't even about this person. No indication of notability, unelected politician. -- Whpq (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most of the news links are relevant. Now, how does providing Google News search results not help to establish notability? I wonder if you could offer the logic behind that assertion? It seems to me that pointing other editors to multiple reliable sources covering an individual (as was the case here) assists the AFD process. Ralph Nader is an unelected politician, also. Why does he have an article? Oh, I know! Because reliable sources have written about him! Doh! (Yes, bad example with Ralph. He is known for many things. But, even still, I rest my point)(Mind meal (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

• delete no reference, not notable enough Logastellus (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neopets Faeries[edit]

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

Another Neopets game guide that is full of OR and gamecruft that is only of interest to the members of Neopets who play the game. Primarily WP:OR with a few minor sources that all come from the Neopets site. No real notability outside of Neopets. Send it to a Neopets wikia or something, but it does not belong on Wikipedia. Collectonian (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, no notability outside of Neopia at all, full of original research and gamecruft. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above + nom. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete OR and in-universe. "known to live until very old"??? Timmeh! 02:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Timmeh. Achromatic (talk) 05:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 02:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Timmeh and that big heavy whackey guy above. Soxred93 | talk count bot 02:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Boy Carlos D[edit]

Bad Boy Carlos D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable radio DJ, prod declined. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete only gets >2 pages of Google results, none with this biographical information (probable COI). Kakofonous (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability. The radio DJ work only shows up as program listing type entries. No articles feature hi as the subject. -- Whpq (talk) 10:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neopian Times[edit]

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

Pure unsourced gamecruft that is only of interest to members of Neopets who play the game, and Wikipedia is NOT a game guide. I can't even figure out where half this "information" about Neopets member newspaper comes from, and most seems to be pure WP:OR and probably made up. No real notability outside of Neopets. Send it to a Neopets wikia or something, but it does not belong on Wikipedia. Collectonian (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, one of the biggest cruft magnets I've ever seen. As a Neopets user, I agree that there is a bit of notability to the Neopian Times within Neopets proper, but none whatsoever outside of Neopia. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This says it all. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 02:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per TTN, hits are contained in blogs, neopets pages and dedicated fansites. Hits on reliable gaming sites are restricted to forums and/or FAQs.--Lenticel ^(talk) 04:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. recommend Transwiki to Neopets wikia as well since the wikia version isn't good and the article will be deleted anyway. note that transwiki is compatible with delete.--Lenticel ^(talk) 06:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As a member, I can (unofficially) vouch for most if not all of the content here, especially since I myself am a member of the NTWF. So...not made up.

As for relevance on Wikipedia...eh, I'd agree, but I'd like to see this FIRMLY ESTABLISHED on a Neopets Wiki first before it's deleted. This is much more up-to-date than other guides, like the petpage that's linked to. In essence, it's not harming anyone or anything...concentrate on other articles? Michelle (talk) 05:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete game-guide material without reliable sources. No objection to transwiki, but definitely should not be kept while we wait for someone to transwiki it (not sure if that's what the above user is suggesting or not) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Pretty much, that's what I said.

I think this is a decent article and would not want to lose it before it's transwikied...(if that's a word). Michelle (talk) 02:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neopets plots[edit]

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

Pure unsourced gamecruft that is only of interest to members of Neopets who play the game, and Wikipedia is NOT a game guide. No notability outside of Neopets. Collectonian (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, nothing but a game guide/ploy summary with no out of universe notability whatsoever. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia is not a game guide... - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 02:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. see my comments here--Lenticel ^(talk) 04:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki(*) to somewhere like (by a quick search) the Neopets Wikia. Obviously, since the last nomination, an overhaul or merge does not seem forthcoming. *To be honest, I'm not even sure if "transwiki" is the right tag for these sorts of things these days; do people transwiki things anymore? Second choice: merge. (Disclaimer: A courtesy notification was posted by a bot on my talk page.)

  I'd like to note that WP:NOT doesn't quite apply - it mentions "game guide" as in an instruction manual or how-to (i.e. not a encyclopedia article), but this is really an encyclopedic-form-factor article that seems to be a bit too niche. —AySz88\^-^ 04:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure if that Neopets wiki is the right place since it's only related to the guilds and not Neopets proper. I can't seem to find a wiki dedicated entirely to Neopets itself, so transwiki is probably a moot point. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC) On second thought, this wiki looks like a good place to transwiki to. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with the transwiki.--Lenticel ^(talk) 06:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or establish on another Wiki before deleting...if I have the time, I might edit it... Michelle (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki to the Neopets wikia per above RogueNinja_talk 09:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The page is NOT a game guide. Its a history of a gaming site, not a "how to play ". Page warrants retention somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sivvy1958 (talk • contribs) 05:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aspro[edit]

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

Delete WP is not a Greek dictionary. Leuko also means white in Greek - that there are two words for the same English concept may be linguistically interesting or even encyclopedic but alas this article doesn't even begin that journey much less go there. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not an English dictionary or a translation dictionary. Kakofonous (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It would actually be Lefko which does have a page, yet only for a disambig. I checked the history, it used to be redirected to Aspirin, anyone know why? Grk1011 (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Apparently it is used as a colloquial abbreviation for aspirin by some ([1]). Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and this barley as any context. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The History of the Galaxy[edit]

The History of the Galaxy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not published in English, author article also AfD Wtshymanski (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Russian-language literature is just as notable as English-language literature, other things being equal. --Eastmain (talk) 01:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - no valid reason given in Nomination Statement for deletion. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep invalid nomination, WP:SNOW? Fosnez (talk) 12:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Certainly invalid nom. BTW, Chronolegion has an undoubted contribution merit in this theme. --Brand спойт 14:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - So just what *does* get excluded from Wikipedia? Is any blood-and-thunder purveyor of rack-filler paperbacks also encyclopedia worthy? Now, I like SF, but it's not for nothing that Sturgeon's Law was promulgated by an SF writer. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wont comment for what others feel is in/out, but to me it is a lot about the Reason that something gets excluded/deleted. If something must go, at least make it for an acceptable reason. The reasoning in this perticular (and some other recent) AfD just does not reach even a basic level of reasonability. AfD is only the skelleton of a structure. The Nominator has to put the Meat onto it. The community gets to chew it over. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the rationales described above. John254 03:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, improving sounds good. Daniel (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrey Livadny[edit]

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

Not notable,not published in English, can't find any books by this author in English, Google hits are echoes of this article. Wtshymanski (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm not commenting on notability one way or another at this point, but it doesn't matter if his works aren't published in English; that's not an indication of whether or not he would be notable, because he could be very notable elsewhere in the world. matt91486 (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A prolific and notable author. The fact that he writes in Russian doesn't detract from his notability. --Eastmain (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No hits on Google Books, Google News or Google Scholar. Not notable according to Wikipedia standards. If reliable sources can be added, I could change my mind. (Mind meal (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
• Comment. Please see http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B9+%D0%9B%D1%8C%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87+%D0%9B%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9%22&btnG=Search for a Google search on his name in Russian. --Eastmain (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Prolific, yes, and a certain number of comments in Russian blogs. no evidence in that ruG list of any reviews or prizes. If there are, it will need someone more proficient in the language to find them. DGG (talk) 02:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as per above AfD - invalid nomination. Fosnez (talk) 12:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. IMO an established author, notable enough for inclusion. The fact he is poorly known in Anglophone world isn't a worthy reason for prodding. --Brand спойт 15:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep and improve stump Logastellus (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 Placebo Effect (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David "None of the Above" Gatchell[edit]

David "None of the Above" Gatchell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable former political candidate who ran as an independent in 2006 and was never able to get his name on the ballot. There was apparently a little news coverage over his outrage at not getting his name on the ballot but, other than one Associated Press story I found, it all seems to be trivial. Fails the politician criteria of WP:BIO. Redfarmer (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 23:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He was covered by at least two of Tennessee's major newspapers and was the subject of the above-mentioned AP item. Trivial coverage, maybe, but I'd like to see another good reason to delete than notability alone. Full disclosure--I am the article's principal author. · jersyko talk 00:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Nousernamesleft. — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 23:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge into another more notable article. This article on its own, however, fails to meet WP:NOTABILITY.--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 06:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 16:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emory "Bo" Heyward[edit]

Emory "Bo" Heyward (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable former political candidate who ran as an independent and lost. All sources trivial or primary. Other claim to fame is being a member of a non-notable band. Fails the politician criteria of WP:BIO as well as criteria for musicians per WP:MUSIC. Redfarmer (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not notable. "Emory Heyward" only turns up 111 ghits, "Bo Heyward" only turns up 992 ghits, and "Emory Bo Heyward" turns up 497 ghits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuyler91093 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable per WP:MUSIC, just under regs on WP:BIO.--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 07:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. D.M.N. (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 Placebo Effect (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nino Gauthier[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Article does not assert notability. No (reliable) sources found on Google. Lea (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. (Mind meal (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete per nom. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, falls short of WP:BIO and has no references to verify statements within the article.--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 01:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 after improvements (sourcing). Fram (talk) 12:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cumberland County Jail[edit]

Cumberland County Jail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete contested prod; prod was removed because "places are inherently notable". Places, as in meaning settlements, towns, hamlets, villages, yes... Jails, houses, and every McDonald's franchise are "places", as are every room in such, and so on and so ont; but consensus here is that they are not inherently notable. Given that this "place" isn't notable, it ought to go - there are no doubt 1000s of county jails in the US of A, and many more city jails or the equivalent all over. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A jail can be notable, but there is no evidence that this one is. Places does mean geographic places, not buildings. DGG (talk) 02:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep With approximately 500 inmates this is a sizeable facility (by way of comparion, Stangeways prison houses just over double that). Comparing a jail to a house or a McDonalds is not meaningful, it is not the building itself that is notable it is what goes on there. Think of it as a village with 500 (unwilling) villagers. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 03:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - Equating the facility with a school seems to be appropriate. Please provide a list of notable inmates (AKA alumni) that would have made the facility notable through history. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC) * Keep - when Paularblaster's 4% makes it into the article, it will satisfy both WP:N and WP:V. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as insufficiently notable. Encyclopedic notability is not based on number of inmates or "what goes on there." It is established by non-trivial coverage of the subject by multiple, reliable, third-party published sources. — Satori Son 13:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Although entitled to his opinion, can the closing admin please note that Satori and I have been having something of a disagreement since I questioned his speedy deletion of Trium at DRV. At that discussion the deletion was overturned on the basis of a blatant misunderstanding of A7. He has since been leaving me messages about "interpreting criteria" and seems determined to show that I cannot interpret them in the same way that he misinterpreted A7. As part of this effort he seems to be going to every AFD of articles I have deprodded and !voting delete. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't flatter yourself. I have participated in a great number of AfD discussions over the last couple years. It's going to take more than some newbie trolling to get me to stalk you. — Satori Son 01:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, I haven't touched a nerve and caused you to harass me as this comment proves. It was perfectly reasonable for me to raise the incorrect deletion at DRV and I would have hoped for a more constructive reaction. Spamming AFDs with delete does not seem very constructive, why not try to be like the other editors who have spent time improving this article rather than just trying to delete it to prove a point (looks like you are wrong again). Perhaps the fact that this article looks like it may now be kept, along with Trium, might show that my actions are in good faith. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep There is no shortage of sources, to judge from google news, google books, google scholar - some (such as the report that this is one of 4% of US jails to receive national accreditation) certainly suggest notability beyond that of most jails (which are easily as notable as high schools - and in one way or another often function as high schools - but that's a discussion the google sources save us having to get into). --Paularblaster (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I found a secondary source without too much effort, and haven't yet looked through all of the google news archive results. Addhoc (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Plenty of sources that can be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taxman214 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. — Satori Son 22:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conti Contact[edit]

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

Delete unsourced article about nn product. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete utterly fails to establish notability, or anything elseBeeblbrox (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - notability, orphaned, context - what not, - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Hi. There are enough crappy articles that should have been deleted quite some time ago that it seems silly to be so aggressive deleting new stubs. They should be given a chance to grow. But fine, go ahead, I don't have anything invested in it really. I guess I'll do less starting of stubs and more waiting till I have real time to invest in an article (which will of course cut down on my contributions quite a bit). As far as notability, it is a well established product line, I guess, but I'm no expert. It is a chilling effect, by the way to require a lot of expertise and time investment before one can start an article. One need not be an expert to recognize the need for an article and start a stub, and it encourages readers to contribute. There are a lot more people out there who are willing to edit something they feel is wrong or incomplete than are willing to start a stub (and put up with this kind of crap) --Treekids (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• comment You are right, there is an incredible backlog of articles that need help/deletion, and we can keep that list down by stopping new non-notable articles. However, you don't need a lot of expertise, just a minimal knowledge of Wikipedia's notability guidlines. There are hundreds of different sizes and types of tires, and nothing in this stub to indicate why this particular variety is notable. Please don't take it so personally, it is not personal at all. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Victor A. Marcial-Vega[edit]

Victor A. Marcial-Vega (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Practitioner of alternative medicine who fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. A few unreliable Websites are cited, but there is no coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. Tagged since April 2007 for notability without addition of reliable sources. A self-published (?) book and set of DVD's for sale does not establish notability either. MastCell ^Talk 22:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Notable individual; sources presented and cited. Editors should not be in the business of attempting to remove articles about individuals with whose ideas or world views they disagree, as even physicians with questionable medical ideas, if notable, are worthy of coverage in our encyclopedia. Editor proposing deletion is known for this highly flawed, POV-motivated mode of editing, which we should eschew in favor of building the best, most complete encylopedia possible (even including articles on notable individuals with whom we, as editors, disagree). Badagnani (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How effective do you expect an argument composed entirely of personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith to be, I wonder? As to sources: what sources? MastCell ^Talk 23:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Two substantive Google Scholar hits (as a co-author of some papers) and one substantive Google Books hit; the other two simply list his address. These just are not enough to establish notability for me. (Mind meal (talk) 01:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

• There are somewhat more Google Scholar & Medline hits from "V Marcial-Vega", which appears to be used on some of his academic papers. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• delete One of the GS hits is a patent for a mold eradication spray; the other is coauthorship on a radiosurgery paper from 1992. Not enough for notability--not even remotely. DGG (talk) 02:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 09:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. RogueNinja_talk 09:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Google found little independent of the subject, save an FDA warning letter about his use of colloidal silver [2]. His single self-published book has an Amazon.com ranking of 1,234,842 [3]. A Medline search on "V Marcial-Vega" comes up with 10 research papers, of which the latest is 1994; none relate to his current field. A Google Scholar for "V Marcial-Vega" finds a paper on nasopharyngeal carcinoma with 105 citations, and one other above 30. I'm not sure that this single coauthored paper with reasonably high citations is sufficient to meet WP:PROF, and in any case this research isn't mentioned in the current article; he certainly isn't notable as an author. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Espresso Addict. Plus, according to the article, what has this man actually done, besided "promote" certain things. Getting various post-graduate degrees generally involves publishing dissertations etc. to satisfy one's major professor and it is not that hard to get one's name on a paper somewhere. Is he beyond this state of affairs and continuing to contribute substantially to his area of expertise or has he moved on to promoting? Until more information is provided, his article is empty of substantive claims. Mattisse 14:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Plainly fails WP:MUSIC. Black Kite 23:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinary Day (Nick Lachey song)[edit]

Ordinary Day (Nick Lachey song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article about a song that is not notable. Released on iTunes only, no charts, etc. Pharmboy (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I tagged for speedy, tag was removed by original author on November 30th. No noticable changes in article since then, so author(s) have had ample opportunity to assert notability, which it doesn't. Likely a potential speedy candidate as well. Pharmboy (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There's no valid speedy criterion for songs in general. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• well, by george, there otter be! ;) Pharmboy (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete When we don't have articles on the biggest selling singles by much more notable acts, why do we have this? Achromatic (talk) 05:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 Placebo Effect (talk) 14:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hana Vitvarova[edit]

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

A fairly nonnotable Czech adult model. `'Míkka>t 22:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; no reliable sources. (Mind meal (talk) 01:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete, a minor role, no significant coverage.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, falls short of WP:BIO, no reliable references--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 10:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Misguided nomination. By wikipedia rules, all settlements are notable. However the article looks like cut and paste from some tourist guide, and I am going to butcher it mercilessly. `'Míkka>t 22:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baykalsko[edit]

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

Notability not asserted. Essay-style article, contains opinions. No references, tagged since July 2007. Lea (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect, as little content & no relevant incoming links (closed by User:Anthony Appleyard)

Robin Kimissel[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BIO. Cannot find sources on Google either for "Robin Kimissel" or "Robin Kirmissel". Unreferenced since July 2007. Lea (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Danny Phantom per WP:MUSIC. --Asmodeus Samael (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Asmodeus Samael. D.M.N. (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge into Ember McLain, the character for which the singing voice is provided by this person. Gman124 (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep withdrawn. Neglected topic. Easily expandable.`'Míkka>t 22:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Highway beautification[edit]

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

Dictdef. If anything on this, we'd need Highway Beautification Act. Lea (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep its a stub, but the subject is notable enough. --Asmodeus Samael (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • After googling for "highway beautification" -act, I agree. Withdrawn. -- Lea (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Electromagnetic Light Curvature[edit]

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

The result was Snowball delete, obvious hoax. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Electromagnetic Light Curvature (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No sources since July; fails WP:PROF. Lea (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• delete non notable theory, no google scholar results --Asmodeus Samael (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the Crackpot Special: NN, RS, OR, FRINGE. No evidence of the author's existence, much less his "widely debated" theory, in the literature or on the Web. Where'd he publish it, on a birchbark note thrown to sea? Bm gub (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- Y not? 05:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Starfleet ship classes[edit]

List of Starfleet ship classes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Minor elements of minor fiction should not have encyclopedia articles. This is a sterile topic incapable of being properly researched because the Trek writers will make up "facts" as they go along. This list is similar to another list of imaginary space ships and has not been merged although nominated for merge months ago. Star Trek fans have their own fora and need not take up an excess amount of space in the encyclopedia. You can't search for "sensor" in the Wikipedia without hitting many articles for "Star Trek", which obscures the real-world utility of the encyclopedia. How much fancruft is enough? Wtshymanski (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just re-read Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) which I think applies.--Wtshymanski (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really think in the spirit of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Proposed decision#Halt to activities this should be closed early. As for the space argument that is never an issue and the deletion of the page will not save us any space. -- Cat ^chi? 23:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Star Trek is obviously not minor fiction. The nomination just seems to be a rambling reiteration of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It almost makes a valid point about sensors but this article isn't actually about sensors - minor, fictional or otherwise. Colonel Warden (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is, appropriately, a list of the less important ships in the fiction. Articles on them would be totally out of place & I would have said to merge them. This is the right way to do it. Possibly should be written in a more tabular fashion, not a prose.-- might be clearer. I'm not sure such article are justified for every SF series, but for this one, yes. We shown cover the most notable series in more detail than the barely notable ones. its the extensive articles on details from almost unknown series that need to be removed, not the concise ones on the most notable. DGG (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't agree with your point about turning the article into a table. Editors seem far too obsessed with making lists which are bad style and discourage coverage of items which are sui generis. The article, in fact, contains good material which is not list-like such as the section on registration numbers. I think the article would be better titled "Starfleet ship classes in Star Trek" to discourage it becoming a pure list. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Very weak keep Given notability, I give some credence to DGG above. Only just over the line, though, an 'err on the side of'. Achromatic (talk) 05:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment — Shouldn't this be broken-out into individual articles for every fictional starship class and every individual (albeit fictional) ship of each of those ship classes? If the writers of this fiction went to the effort of dashing-off a gratuitous line of dialogue about some particular ship of whatever class, why shouldn't wikipedia have a detailed article on it? --Jack Merridew 10:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh heavens - No(at least not here). This is not the Trekiepedia. It's a total waste of human lifespan to spend time documenting imaginary spaceships that were dreamed up by some scriptwriter who needed a throwaway bit of dialog for a TV series! Is this the Pokemon principle at work? And for encyclopedia users who are NOT Trekkies or some other type of fanboy, it's very annoying to, for example, type in "sensor" in the search box and come up with imaginary spaceships. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  <non-sarcasm>Actually, I very much agree with you.</non-sarcasm> --Jack Merridew 11:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep obviously a split from another article. We should not be deleting content because it has been split from other articles because of its size. Fosnez (talk) 12:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Star Trek is one of the biggest and most well-known sci-fi franchises out there. While I wouldn't support individual articles on each of these ships (many of which would only be a stub anyway) I believe that they should have at least some mention here since they are a part (albeit minor) part of one of the most influential TV series ever made. The original deletion requester's justification that "It's fancruft" and "It's annoying when I try to search for sensor" seem to be just along the lines of the "I don't like it therefore it should be deleted" argument, which is NOT a valid reason for deletion. Some may find it annoying while others find these articles useful. Are the ones that find it annoying inherently better and more important than those that find it useful? By that reasoning, maybe we should consider eliminating all the articles on military weapons so they don't cloud my search when I look for a hunting rifle. the_one092001 (talk) 07:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just because I don't like it, doesn't mean the article isn't deletable. I probably haven't put my arguments in the most persuasive form, but exhaustive catalogs of fictional trivia to me don't seem useful for a general encyclopedia. At least all the military rifles are real things - which presumably have real histories, descriptions, uses - real-world impact, capable of being researched at least in principle (although the archives of the AK factory may be inacessible, at least they probably exist). But "Star Trek" spaceships are unreasearchable fantasy objects - they are made up off-the-cuff by scriptwriters to fill a bit of dialog or background and will *never* have more information made available about them other than the attributes assigned in passing. This is what I call "Sterile" - and unsuitable for a general encyclopedia. Now, the very many Trek writers may wish to impose some episode-to-episode continuity on their fiction but the place to look up ship names in past episodes is a concordance, not an encyclopedia. (Look how much human lifespan has been wasted debating Captain Kirk's middle name - a good concordance could have saved millions of person-hours over the last thirty years.) Yes, the last Star Trek movie sold mumblety-million tickets and made umpity dollars for its proponents -that's real, in principle suitable for an encyclopedia (on a rather low "Entertainment Tonight" or "Business Week" sort of level). But, say, Raskolnikov's family tree - that's pure fantasy. Encyclopedias should be about reality, not fantasy. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the_one. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 01:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and rename (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity bears[edit]

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

Came to this article through the main page FA. Basically, I don't see anything in this page, apart from the first subsection, The Great Bear of Burtonport, which doesn't have its own article, that isn't better covered by the individual articles linked from this page and the "famous bears" category. Thoughts? Seems like it could be a redundant list. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, rename, and improve. The presence of a category doesn't obviate the need for an article (per WP:CLS). The category is somewhat ill defined since it doesn't differentiate between fictional and non-fictional bears. Bears are a notable topic, so a List of (notable) bears is appropriate. Besides, "celebrity bears" makes it sound like the article is going to be about something totally different. Torc2 (talk) 23:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename as above. I've added a brief iparagraph on Pipaluk. There are no doubt considerably more that could be added. Grutness...wha? 00:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename as above. While I'd expected something about cartoon characters like Yogi and Bob Boo, this is about real bears that have been used in circuses, zoos, etc. To the extent that an individual bear is notable (anyone remember TV's Gentle Ben?), this would be it. Mandsford (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as above. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• How about renaming it to "List of famous bears"?--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I was thinking something like List of notable non-fictional bears. Typically we're supposed to avoid the word "notable" in lists, but I think it's OK here since there's already a list of bears for species. Torc2 (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 16:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ecosmart Home[edit]

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

213 hits for Google: "Ecosmart Home"; orphan-tagged since July, notability-tagged since September. Cannot find (good) sources on Google. Lea (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It looks to me like this is a term invented by home builders to sell "green" houses, no secondary sources to show any notability. Beeblbrox (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Beeblbrox & WP:N. D.M.N. (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator and no other users requesting deletion. Non-admin close. cab (talk) 03:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alakamisy, Fianarantsoa[edit]

Alakamisy, Fianarantsoa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Orphaned substub; notability not established. Lea (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Has just been moved from Alakamisy (now dab) to Alakamisy, Fianarantsoa; updated this AfD accordingly. -- Lea (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment copied from User talk:LeaW:

All geographical articles whether it is towns or mountains etc are inherently notable. The problem is often accessing enough information to expand them into decent articles but because they are sub stubs doesn't mean they should be deleted. I'm sure you've noticed that there are many such articles on wikipedia ♦ King of Baldness ♦ ^$1,000,000? 22:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• The article doesn't tell how many inhabitants the town has (and a quick Google search doesn't turn anything up) — I don't even know if this article is significantly expandable at all.
  I'm not clueful enough on place notability, and whether it's generally a good idea to keep substubs on towns, so I'll just keep this AfD open and let other people decide. -- Lea (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep lack of information in the article does not detract from the fact that as a town it is notable for inclusion. Agathoclea (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Exactly you don't even know. Have you never heard of systematic bias on wikipedia and inequality in information on the web, google included? ♦ King of Baldness ♦ ^$1,000,000? 23:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - All towns are notable regardless of size. It certainly exists. Certainly more information on this town exists too. There are over 12,000 non-WP ghits [4]. --Oakshade (talk) 23:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay — should have read Wikipedia:Notability (Places and transportation) more carefully. :-) Withdrawn. -- Lea (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator.   jj137 (talk) 00:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cerro del Quinceo[edit]

Cerro del Quinceo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not quite sure here (don't speak Spanish to evaluate Google: "Cerro del Quinceo"), but notability requirements don't seem to be met; tagged since September 2006; substub. Lea (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• (In case the mere existence[5] of the mountain is enough to establish notability, I withdraw my AfD.) -- Lea (talk) 00:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (nomination withdrawn). Non-admin closure Whpq (talk) 11:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alto Trek[edit]

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

No sources (tagged for 1.5y), none on Google, "one of the first networked multiplayer games" does not assert notability. Lea (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - No sources on Google? IGN, Computerworld articles - they don't count? Achromatic (talk) 05:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you check them at all? IGN only mentions Alto-Trek peripherally and primarily talks about a port of Alto-Trek to DirectX. Computerworld only has "Alto Trek" in the subtitle, and in the dossier ("Epitaph of choice: “I developed Alto Trek [in 1972], one of the very first networked computer games. The things you do when you are young you take with you the rest of your life. So, on my tombstone: ‘Rick Rashid: He developed Alto Trek.’ ”), not in the article itself. Hardly "significant coverage" (WP:N). -- Lea (talk) 06:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 02:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep On the contrary, being one of the first multiplayer games is a big assertion of notability as a historical aspect of video games. The first 20 sites brought up from google in a search for "Alto Trek" brings up The NY Times, IGN, University of Rochester and Business Week. It may be that a merge is needed to Allegiance (computer game), but that's not a matter for AFD. Someoneanother 06:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ouch — withdrawn! (It seems that I searched for alto-trek, which did not turn up the NYTimes, Rochester, or Business Week article, when I should instead have searched for "alto trek" or simply alto trek. Isn't Google fascinating, every time.) -- Lea (talk) 06:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Google is a sod like that, the amount of times I've switched words around or grouped them together with speech marks then suddenly been presented with sources which just weren't there before.. anyway, being human beats being something else, especially as you've withdrawn the AFD. I'll try to do something with it when I get time but you could always propose a merge or what have you. Someoneanother 06:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melchizedek (band)[edit]

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

Guarda più in là (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

...E i libri saranno aperti... (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Adamo dove sei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Insieme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Quanto tempo durerà (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non così (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No evidence this band meets WP:BIO Travellingcari (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Added their albums to the nom. Delete all, not in allmusic, google knows nothing about them or their albums. Seemingly completely NN. Jfire (talk) 08:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, sources neither present nor found by me.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Oxymoron⁸³ 07:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best of both worlds (saying)[edit]

Best of both worlds (saying) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Mostly dictionary definition, does not meet notability requirements. Lea (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The fact that it has existed for almost four years in absolutely no way trumps Wikipedia is not a dictionary.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is no evidence that this article will ever accrue encyclopedic content. — Timwi (talk) 23:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. Achromatic (talk) 05:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Although the current version isn't very good, there are many worthwhile articles in Category:English idioms, and this belongs among them. The current text isn't so flawed as to make it irredeemable, and just about all of these things have historical and cultural resonances that mean they can be expanded. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There may be notable idioms, but it's not clear to me why this would be one of them. The article doesn't assert notability, let alone provide references to demonstrate it (tagged unreferenced since September 2006).
    Also, right now the article is only a dictionary definition plus one example (plus cruft). I don't see off the top of my head what encyclopedic content could possibly be added (no history [AFAICS] or non-obvious derivation, no controversial usage, ...). -- Lea (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I totally agree with Lea. It's English language cruft. Not encyclopedic, completely appropriate for a dictionary.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (talk) 04:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Vojvodina (closed by User:Anthony Appleyard)

Republic of Vojvodina[edit]

Republic of Vojvodina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Incomplete nomination. The nominator says: "Even as a strong supporter of the idea, this is just a program goal of a political party. If we would have article for every such idea, Wikipedia would have no sense. Further more, title is completely non-appropriate, as there is no such political or geographic entity. Jdjerich (talk) 12:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)" Procedural nomination; no opinion is being expressed by me. ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 21:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Vojvodina, the province in Serbia that isn't yet a republic. Mandsford (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to Vojvodina. I don't think there is any real information to merge. --Nlu (talk) 06:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to Politics of Vojvodina. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 05:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nothing referenced to merge. A redirect to Vojvodina does not seem to be warranted either, if at all to the politics article or to the party proposing it (if verifiable).--Tikiwont (talk) 09:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Vojvodina. D.M.N. (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 subject is mentioned in the articles on the Macmillans. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Macmillan[edit]

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

I don't think being the potentially illegitimate daughter of nobility passes WP:BIO. A google search returns primarily others with the same name. Travellingcari (talk) 21:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B is not a reason for a standalone article on A". Kakofonous (talk) 00:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Kakofonous Achromatic (talk) 05:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Moving comment from Talk: This item should be retained. There is a wider interest for the 1960s with the fickleness of Lady McMillan and Lord Boothby's friendship with the Kray twins. It is a fascinating era and all strands should be maintained 86.160.170.208 (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Travellingcari (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 selected content to Daisenryaku. Action to be taken by others. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daisenryaku Expert WW2 - War in Europe[edit]

Daisenryaku Expert WW2 - War in Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not meet WP:FICT. Has not been tagged unreferenced, but Google does not yield sources to cite. Lea (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:N applies instead of WP:FICT — sorry. Google: "Daisenryaku Expert WW2 - War in Europe" does not yield sources to establish notability in the first 20 results. -- Lea (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, no results for "Daisenryaku" on rottentomatoes.com (applies to the other three AfDs as well). -- Lea (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Lea (talk) 04:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Deletion. Salavat (talk) 02:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest merge to Daisenryaku. R00m c (talk) 05:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Concur: merge to Daisenryaku. The series of game can be shown to be notable, but it's not clear this particular edition is. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Either merge as above or transwiki to GamerWiki. Tim (Xevious) (talk) 13:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• MERGE and TRANSWIKI.--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 10:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to GamerWiki. D.M.N. (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Daisenryaku. Gman124 (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge what is verifiable/referenced. Mukadderat (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge only what is verifiable/referenced. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No concensus for what target, so this will be left to editor discretion. Therefore: Keep. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Daisenryaku: Europe no Arashi - Doitsu Dengeki Sakusen[edit]

Advanced Daisenryaku: Europe no Arashi - Doitsu Dengeki Sakusen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not meet WP:FICT; no hits for sources on Google; has been tagged for 1y. Lea (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Objections to this and the other three entries raised by Lenticel (talk) on User_talk:LeaW#Daisenryaku_et_al_Afd. -- Lea (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:N applies, instead of WP:FICT. Google: "Advanced Daisenryaku: Europe no Arashi" does not yield sources beyond short summaries and cheats among the first 20 results. -- Lea (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Deletion. Salavat (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest merge to Daisenryaku. R00m c (talk) 05:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• MERGE and TRANSWIKI.--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 10:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur: merge to Daisenryaku. The series of game can be shown to be notable, but it's not clear this particular edition is. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Either merge as above or transwiki to GamerWiki. Tim (Xevious) (talk) 13:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to GamerWiki. D.M.N. (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Daisenryaku. Gman124 (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Mukadderat (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Daisenryaku. Action to be taken by others. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Daisenryaku[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:FICT; no hits for sources on Google; has been tagged since September 2007. Lea (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems I mis-interpreted WP:FICT (which is only about fictional subjects), and WP:N applies here — I apologize for the mess. Google: Advanced-Daisenryaku yields no sources beyond quick summaries of the game among the first 20 hits. So unless someone digs up some source, I think this article still qualifies for deletion. -- Lea (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 01:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Deletion. Salavat (talk) 02:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest merge to Daisenryaku. R00m c (talk) 05:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Concur: merge to Daisenryaku. The series of game can be shown to be notable, but it's not clear this particular edition is. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Either merge as above or transwiki to GamerWiki. Tim (Xevious) (talk) 13:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• MERGE and TRANSWIKI per above.--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 10:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to GamerWiki. D.M.N. (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Daisenryaku. Gman124 (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Mukadderat (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Daisenryaku. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Daisenryaku. Action to be taken by others. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Daisenryaku 2001[edit]

Advanced Daisenryaku 2001 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not meet WP:FICT, has been tagged for sources for 1y, quick search on Google yields no reliable non-trivial sources (critical reception, etc.). Lea (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:N instead of WP:FICT applies — sorry. Google: "Advanced Daisenryaku 2001" turns up no sources beyond short summaries in the first 20 results. So I don't think notability can be established here. -- Lea (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 01:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Deletion. Salavat (talk) 02:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest merge to Daisenryaku. R00m c (talk) 05:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Concur: merge to Daisenryaku. The series of game can be shown to be notable, but it's not clear this particular edition is. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Either merge as above or transwiki to GamerWiki. Tim (Xevious) (talk) 13:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• MERGE and TRANSWIKI.--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 10:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to GamerWiki. D.M.N. (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Daisenryaku. Gman124 (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Mukadderat (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nom withdrawn and article reduced to stub (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Law in Star Trek[edit]

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

Text of the article is entirely original research, with the only two reliable, independent sources in the lead. Consequently only a single sentence of this entire article is verifiable. Current text fails deletion criteria - "Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources". Verifiability concerns have been raised in a previous AfD and on the talk page since 2006, so no significant improvement seems to be possible. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - based on the general dissatisfaction with the state of the article below, and as an attempt to reach consensus, I will withdraw this AfD and reduce the article to a stub - by the deletion of the original research that relies on primary sources. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (no vote). The article is junk, a mix of plot summary and original research. However, somebody in the real world has addressed it as a serious topic.[6] Is there enough material out there for a rewrite that passes WP:FICT? I have no idea. • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - the article is not currently, to wiki standards, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be brought up to par. The topic IS researchable, there has been plenty written and published on the subject. I personally feel that it is a serious topic worthy of keeping, in the hopes that the article can be improved, that could be of interest to non-fans and fans alike, and even if the interest was mainly for fans, the 'star trek universe' is a significant and notable genre. Non Curat Lex (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete per nomination.This topic is un-researchable. Stem the tide of fancruft. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article documents a notable theme in this fiction. Not seeing the original research. Colonel Warden (talk) 02:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Take for example the section on "Death penalty", from a set of episodes an editor has divined that "planetary law and Federation law may be separate, analogous to the legal concept of federalism" the possibility of the existence of a "supremacy clause" and that the Federation of the 24th century has apparently abolished capital punishment. None of these statements are present in the original material, but this has been interpreted and synthesised by the author - this is original research. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Saying that the Federation has a federal system is a statement of the obvious. The examples of where capital punishment was or was not applicable are drawn directly from the source material. And none of this is a reason to delete since such content can be edited to taste. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is not original research, in which reliable source is the existence or otherwise of a "supremacy clause" in Federation law discussed? Which source discusses the distinction between planetary law and Federation law? Tim Vickers (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep another misguided attempt to reduce the coverage about notable fiction. This is a compilation of material sourced from the primary source in an obvious fashion, and thus not OR. There's real junk to get rid of, bit we should not be deleting articles like this. DGG (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Tim Vickers. Achromatic (talk) 05:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 11:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep i feel this nomination is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT, no offence intended. Fosnez (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• None taken, but you are incorrect. Also, it is better in these discussions to discuss the content of article, rather than making guesses about the motivation of the nominator. Tim Vickers (talk) 14:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Stubify Most of the "references" are Star Trek episodes. They are also referenced in a manner inconsistent with a general purpose encylopedia (listing TOS and assuming the reader knows what that means, as opposed to a proper ((cite episode)).) This article is a textbook synthesis of source materials. It is based on a series of "A and B, therefore C" (the section quoted above about the death penalty in Star Trek is a good example). If someone wants to write a new article based on secondary sources, that's fine, but this article needs to start from scratch or be deleted. --Phirazo 18:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree with Gene93k and Phirazo in that there may be a possibility the topic is notable (as evidenced by the book dedicated to it); but this article is wholly referenced to primary sources as it stands, and ultimately a synthesis of plot and original research and not an encyclopedic article. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 00:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article is entirely retelling of plot combined with Wikipedian interpretation of plot. If there are suitable secondary sources for writing an article, then what we have here is in the way of writing a proper article. Deleting everything we have here and starting from scratch is the best way to write a proper article in this case. Original research is that harmful, and there is a lot of it here. Jay32183 (talk) 03:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article is terrible; however, AFD is not article cleanup. But the claim at hand is that this is not a verifiable topic. It isn't? There is a whole book about the topic (Star Trek: Visions of Law and Justice, ISBN 0966808029). At least one chapter of that book (the one by Sharf) was originally published in the University of Toledo Law Review. There is further discussion of the issue in other scholarly sources as well, such as the article "Law and Film: Introduction" in the Journal of Law and Society 28 (1): 1-8 and even explicit comparisons with real world law and politics, including "On a Wagon Train to Afghanistan: Limitations on Star Trek's Prime Directive" in the University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review [2003]. Serpent's Choice (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that none of the text in this article is verifiable and the article has been in this state since the last AfD in 2006. I agree that the topic is in principle notable, but since no improvement is forthcoming, deleting this original research and allowing somebody to start again in the future seems one of the best options to me. If you think the article shouldn't be deleted, what do you think about the idea of cutting it down to a one or two sentence stub, but retaining the further reading and the two reliable sources? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wholly agree that the current text needs pared down sharply. When writing about fiction, the primary material can be used for statements of fact, but not for opinion, analysis, or assumption. As a result, a lot of material will need to go, pending revision and the inclusion of the third-party sources. But, even if that process takes the form of "stub and rebuild", it is an editorial action, not a deletion. Serpent's Choice (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It actually means trimming everything but the basic definition of Law in Star Trek. Deleting and starting over is better for the article and Wikipedia than allowing this mess to sit in the edit history for people to access later. Jay32183 (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Some of the primary references are statements of fact from the scripts. Many more, admittedly, are OR. But there are sources on the topic, and primary statements can be used to add context to second-party analysis; the fact that this article has a lot of work ahead of it is not cause to toss the current version, flawed as it may be, down the memory hole. That's just not what the deletion policy says. Serpent's Choice (talk) 22:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A database of fictional laws doesn't belong on Wikipedia and it is OR to selectively pick the laws from Star Trek to talk about. It can be original research simply because a Wikipedian chose an example to signify a particular importance. Jay32183 (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's why the material selected from the primary sources is used to support the secondary sources in a properly written article. We don't pick random content, the second-party sources do. But we can quote or summarize the primary source as appropriate to the context. And with so much drawn from primary sources at the moment, there's probably something that will be useful. I'd do more work on this article myself, but I don't have easy access to the secondary sources for this one. I'd promise to get to it, but I'm way behind on cleanup projects. Whoever wants to tackle it, though, please drop me a line and I'll do what I can. Serpent's Choice (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tim Vickers (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. A quick google search enables us to add to the sources noted by Serpent's Choice: P. Joseph and S. Carton, "The Law of the Federation: Images of Law, Lawyers and the Legal System in “Star Trek: The Next Generation”", University of Toledo Law Review 24 (1996), pp 43-85; and Bradley Stewart Chilton, “"Star Trek" and Stare Decisis: Legal Reasoning and Information Technology”, Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture 8:1 (2001), available here. As TimVickers just suggests, stubbifying would be a more appropriate way of dealing with the ramified OR (drastic as it is, it's less drastic than deletion). --Paularblaster (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep sourced, and a reasonable split of Star Trek which would otherwise be enormous. JJL (talk) 04:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's now got at least some proper reliable sourcing and is apparently notable. The quality of the writing is not a proper subject for an AfD discussion. - Dravecky (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the series is notable, and the concept of law within it is notable, so the article should be retained. With that established, it is sufficient to rely on primary sources for much of the material. I acknowledge that it could do with trimming. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, verify, expand... per Serpent's Choice. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 05:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This article is a prime example of both what Wikipedia is not supposed to be and ignoring all rules. Voting to delete would be meaningless unless most of Category:Star Trek goes with it, along with similar stuff like Category:Star Wars, Category:The Lord of the Rings, and other topics certainly worthy of articles, but not in depth examinations of topics like Category:Star Trek ships which includes vessels in its subcategories that appeared briefly in an episode. Many people who do not enjoy these topics consider articles like this to be useless information about a fictional subject, while those who support the article and others of its kind are simply doing what we told them to do. Anynobody 05:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:IAR is not a free pass and it is not all or nothing at an AFD. We can deal with articles one at a time. Jay32183 (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the theory; the practice is that in the meantime articles sprout like weeds while much learned consideration is given to AfD votes on an individual basis. You end up running to keep still. It would be better (I suggest) to come up with a blanket policy, let members of the various Wiki-projects put their articles in order, and then cull the rest. Piecemeal hacking at the undergrowth isn't the way to go.--Major Bonkers (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Article has now been cut to a stub-- Tim Vickers (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a perfectly good stub, with a reference to a law review article, for Jimbo's sake! It's better than most other law stubs! Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and as above, verify and expand. The Star Trek fictional universe is one of the most documented in recent history, and the programme itself frequently raises social and cultural issues which reflect the times in which it is made. It follows that an academic analysis of the legal frameworks created therein are worthy of description as a mirror or critique of contemporary societal values, which are exemplified, for example, by attitudes in the series to the death penalty in different fictional cultures. Whether this can be properly sourced, I cannot tell; but science fiction, in my experience, has an analogical propensity to tell us more about the way we are now than the way we might be in the future. Accordingly, I think that properly written, this article has great potential to focus on legalities and their limitations and should be allowed to stand. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Paularblaster. John254 03:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with the above that a stub is adequate, but an entire article is unnecessary. Jophus00 (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pedigree of Swedish monarchs[edit]

Pedigree of Swedish monarchs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The content of this article is not encyclopedic, it is simply a listing of ancestry. It is not necessary or encyclopedic to connect an incumbent ruling house to every since ruling house as a means of "legitimizing" them or whatever other purpose such an article would serve. It simply isn't an issue big enough in Sweden to render it encyclopedia worthy. See WP:NOT regarding genealogical entries. Articles on Wikipedia already discuss the importance of these various Swedish ruling houses in Swedish history. It is not necessary or encyclopedic to compile them in lists of ancestry as in this article. Source given is two pages in a Swedish language book and original research at a genealogical website. Charles 20:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Charles 20:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.   jj137 (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ezinma[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character. Article had already been deleted after PROD on 1st Feb 2008, but was recreated. One editor had requested a speedy delete using CSD-G4, but this was refused as recreated prod deleted articles don't qualify for speedy delete using that criteria. Proposed for AfD to ensure a 'correct' deletion (if appropriate) CultureDrone (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Correct Delete it is then, fails to establish notability of subject. Beeblbrox (talk) 01:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Things Fall Apart, protect the redirect should the article be created as a one-liner--Lenticel ^(talk) 04:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Already deleted. Doctorfluffy (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fram (talk) 12:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Tracy[edit]

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

Delete fails WP:BAND, not notable Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:BAND at least on criterion #6, and probably others if anyone's prepared to dig for references. The band features Pantera's ex-singer and have released several albums. Plenty of google hits, though not a lot of obvious quality.--Michig (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Michig. Bondegezou (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: contains ex-member of a more successful band. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{round of applause} 09:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Oxymoron⁸³ 07:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leet combo[edit]

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

Term is a neologism for Halo 3. No sources or any info to show why it is notable. Both CSD and Prod removed by author. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• delete the nom says it all Beeblbrox (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I get approx 160 hits for this term, none of which is a reliable source. Bláthnaid 19:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 03:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, obviously, as a protologism with no references or indications of notability. — brighterorange (talk) 13:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fram (talk) 12:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Marinaccio[edit]

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

I know he has the one book, but I truly don't know whether that passes WP:BIO. Otherwise, there doesn't seem to be much else Travellingcari (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest we keep the article

Granted, I am not an unbiased observer, since I created the article. But I am OK with keeping it in Wikipedia. Mr. Marinaccio has written two books (All . . . "Star Trek", and All . . "Star Trek: The Next Generation"). It is apparent that his fame/notoriety, such as it is, is based squarely on the familiarity of the Baby Boom generation with the Star Trek series, and as this familiarity fades, so will his cachet. Nonetheless, he HAS written two books which have been published nationwide, have been reviewed in newspapers on both coasts, and is an icon in the niche. I feel this is as much notoriety as football (I mean soccer) players achieve, and the Wikipedia is replete with entries for them. I vote we retain the article. Raymondwinn (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Considerable coverage in reliable sources, see http://news.google.com/archivesearch?tab=pn&hl=en&q=%22Dave+Marinaccio%22&ie=UTF-8 and http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&q=%22Dave+Marinaccio%22&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=np (Mind meal (talk) 01:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep I was skeptical about his one, but the multiple reviews Raymond found are fully sufficient. Not all of them deal strictly with the book, so the author as well as the book is notable. DGG (talk) 03:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Life Extension Foundation[edit]

Life Extension Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Likely to be controversial, but I wanted to bring it here. I tagged it for speedy since it was at that point nothing but spam. There have been some references added but 3/4 are from the org itself. It's mentioned in the NYTImes article, but I don't know that that is significant coverage so I'm bringing it here. I'm leaning toward delete. Travellingcari (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the one secondary source listed has only trivial mention of the Foundation, not enough to establish notability.Beeblbrox (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the question of notability should not be based on the sources. The Life Extension Foundation is undoubtedly the largest seller of nutritional supplements in the world, and publishes the largest and most authoritative magazine covering the subject of nutritional supplements. The depth of information on the LEF website should give some indication of the size and significance of the organization. There are not likely to be independent organizations certifying the largest supplement seller nor the largest and most authoritative magazine published on the subject, but I think that there should be SOME burden of proof required for those who deny notability. -- Ben Best (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment However the notability guideline says, A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Travellingcari (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: How would one go about proving something isn't notable? --Explodicle (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Life Extension Foundation is undoubtedly the largest seller of nutritional supplements in the world, and publishes the largest and most authoritative magazine covering the subject of nutritional supplements." If we can find sources to demonstrate either of these claims, then I think that will suffice for notability. --Ronz (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the largest, by a long shot. But it is pretty big. The Transhumanist 00:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A quick search shows that it's been mentioned in The Guardian, FOX News, USA Today, and others. --Explodicle (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need better than those to show notability. --Ronz (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If The New York Times, The Guardian, Fox News and USA Today aren't up to your standards of notabilily sources, what would be up to your standards? --Ben Best (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I see is that none of these articles are about LEF, but just mention it once in passing. --Ronz (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a notable organization, is a leading source of anti-aging information, is at the center of the legal fight for health freedom, and has played a major role throughout the history of life extension. Its monthly magazine has a circulation of over 100,000, is available at many bookstores and grocery stores across the U.S., has over 70,000 subscribers, and the magazine is a reliable source cited in articles throughout Wikipedia. In addition to its role as a publisher, a funder of anti-aging research, and a dietary supplement lobbyist, the LEF has been a major supplier of nutrition supplements via mail order for decades. It's one of the few organizations reported in the bestseller "Life Extension: A Practical Scientific Approach". The Transhumanist 22:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd only provide sources for these claims, then I think we could agree that it's notable. --Ronz (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's coverage in the book I mentioned establishes its notability even without the rest. The Transhumanist 02:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The number of subscribers is required by law to be printed in the magazine. If the number of copies is as large as stated, then it's certainly more notable than a lot of other organization with wikipedia articles. Keith Henson (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the sources cited above are adequate for notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I keep hearing about them. Bstone (talk) 01:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Personally, I think them very close to pseudoscience, and this and the walled garden of related articles need a careful examination for POV, nut they are notable. Maybe they're even right. DGG (talk) 03:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not just the NYTimes & above sources that mentioned LEF, it's the Miami Herald, Tri City Herald, Portland Press Herald & more: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22life+extension+foundation%22+herald+-alcor&btnG=Search+Archives&num=50 Edwardmorrill (talk) 06:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup. The outside sources establish notabililty but the inhouse sources need to be replaced with reliable sources.Capitalistroadster (talk) 06:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep certainly notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Traderb (talk • contribs)

"Keep" The LEF is an important, actually the preeminent, facility for obtaining nutritional supplements and information on all life-enhancement technology. Its roots extend back to the time of Durk Pearson and Sandy Shaw's Life Extension opus. With the whole life-enhancement industry full of so many different points of view and different arguments about whether this technology or that one is the best, LEF provides THE standard of excellence to measure all against. When we look back on this period in the vitalist movement, LEF will be one of the major foundations that enabled us to live vigorously, indefinitely.Bwisok (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkhenson (talk • contribs) [reply]

Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Explodicle (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• comment The new sources mentioned here do verify the existence of this organization, but not why it is notable. Since it's existence was never in debate, I don't see how that helps. A lot of people seem to feel passionate about this subject, which is fine, but again, not enough to establish notability.Beeblbrox (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The book I mentioned above presents the LEF as a supplier of nutrient supplements. That provides a why. The Transhumanist 23:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice - I've emailed the LEF, asking them for some references that verify information about them. If anyone knows where they've been covered by the news media, they do. The Transhumanist 00:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think people are confusing "notable" with "widely known". The Life Extension movement itself is not very old or widespread, but LEF is well-known within that field, and has been since the Pearson/Shaw book was published. I disagree that the news articles establish their existence. A phone book establishes their existence. Their name being repeatedly mentioned in most news articles about Life Extension supplements (including several in the NY Times) proves their notability. There is no known third-party publication establishing the revenues of LEF versus any other vitamin-seller, again because the field itself is still a small enough niche that no one's bothering to do that. But here are some figures about the magazine and web site: Amazon.com currently ranks Life Extension magazine as #846 in "Magazines", and #35 under "in Magazines > Health, Mind & Body > Health", one place below FLEX magazine. Alexa currently gives lef.org a traffic rank of 45,833. --Zhmort (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Ben Best is a notable figure in the life extension movement. That makes anything he writes about the LEF a reliable source, right? I found this by Ben Best: http://www.benbest.com/polecon/fdalef.html The Transhumanist 00:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

www.naturalnews.com/z021791.html ^{[unreliable fringe source?]} Here's a news report about the FDA raid on the LEF] - The Transhumanist 01:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interview of LEF's co-founder and directory William Faloon about the LEF - The Transhumanist 01:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a news story that includes the LEF - The Transhumanist 01:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Life Extension Foundation deserves a Wikipedia article not only because it is notable (which I think has been established by previous Keep votes) but because there are things about it that are not immediately obvious — someone might wonder what it is and want to look up more-or-less-authoritative information about it in one place, which is what an encyclopedia is for. The article needs to be cleaned up and expanded (include details such as those on the Wikipedia pages for other magazines, such as Time Magazine or Reader's Digest or Men's Health (magazine). In addition, the Buyer's Club deserves its own subheading (though likely not its own page) to more clearly distinguish it from the Foundation. — Kennita 11:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennita728 (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. — Satori Son 22:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Marshall[edit]

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

I don't think it satisfies speedy, but I'm not sure where to start. The only ghits are for someone else with the same name. Even searching with he and his alleged wife, which should come up with something if the article's content is true, comes up with nothing. Hoax? I don't even know. Travellingcari (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete probably imaginary. his wife's murder should have attracted considerable news coverage, but there doesnt seem to be any, either as Charlieson or Marshall. DGG (talk) 03:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as a hoax. It is entirely unverifiable. -- Whpq (talk) 13:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete- obviously imaginary... there are no sources found in any new outlet. Rigby27 (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Oxymoron⁸³ 07:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 double album[edit]

2008 double album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Badly written and unreferenced (unless you want to count an unnamed interview and link to Youtube), this album has yet to be given a title and has no planned release date. PC78 (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as crystal-balling Beeblbrox (talk) 19:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. If there is sourced information about an upcoming album out there, it can be mentioned in the Paul Weller article. Bláthnaid 19:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL Doc Strange (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mascotte (band)[edit]

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

I cannot find any evidence that this band meets WP:BAND. While I agree that it could be a language based search issue, the article itself doesn't indicate any notable accomplishments. Travellingcari (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. —Bláthnaid 20:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment—I was unable to find any sources. I looked at Google News archives as well as a library database of newspaper and magazine articles. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I spoke too soon. A simple Google search at least turned up this one article in the Belgium daily De Standaard. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. With lack of WP:RS, fails WP:Music. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Cricket02.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 07:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (nomination withdrawn), by JJL. Non-admin close.

Tom Sotis[edit]

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

non notable, the martial art that he founded was just deleted for being non-notable. Prod was removed because of the claim that "spetnaz claims require an AfD" RogueNinja_talk 18:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —RogueNinja_talk 18:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it's irrelevant that AMOK! was deleted. Spetsnaz and other claims supported in at least one well-known martial arts magazine [7]; ghits attest an active and international seminar schedule; he and his art have an article in Masters of the Blade [8]. JJL (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAX doesnt apply. I am saying that since it was decided that the thing he is notable for is itself not notable, he is not notable. RogueNinja_talk 21:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Regardless of the fact that the other article was deleted, the spetnaz claim seems sufficient for notability. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the claim is nothing, it needs to be backed up by Reliable Sources. If there is none, the claim needs to be stripped out fo the article, and what is there left after that? - fchd (talk) 09:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Very well, I withdraw RogueNinja_talk 02:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Black Holes & Revelations. Only an album track, even if the article actually had any content. Black Kite 02:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hoodoo (song)[edit]

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

Delete nothing more than an album track, no indication why this song is notable Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This song wasn't released as a single, and is not notable. Bláthnaid 20:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the album per precedent with these types of articles.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 08:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete

Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels[edit]

Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits than this article. Nothing substantial found on google, seems to copied from here. I'm sure a worthy cause, however Self-promotion are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Beeblbrox (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the Steering Board includes members from WWF, BP, Shell, Dutch Ministry of Housing and the Environment, World Economic Forum. --Salix alba (talk) 08:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Notability of the organizations the members of the steering board represent does not establish notability of the subject itself Beeblbrox (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No evidence of notability of the organization. notability is not contagious. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. — Satori Son 22:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna's upcoming Best of Remixes compilation[edit]

Madonna's upcoming Best of Remixes compilation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete this article has been blanked a number of times because it's just a rumor and it didn't materialize. So how long does a wishful rumor about a future album get to pose as an encyclopedia article especially when the rumored date of the album has come and gone? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The album has been canceled 2007. --Red-Blue-White (talk) 11:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:NOT#CRYSTAL-- what would we do with this article were the recording released? Mangoe (talk) 12:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An editor with the IP of 84.172 has come along at least twice to remind the world that the year 2007 came and went without the release of an album, then blanked the article. Another editor then wiped the thing clean except for the non-sentence "The album has been canceled 2007". The approach by Carlos is a lot more appropriate, which is to nominate the article for deletion. I hasten to remind the editors not to blank an article while the deletion discussion is in progress. Otherwise, people can't figure out why the thing was nominated in the first place. I'd add that there are very few occasions where taking the law into your own hands, and blanking the page, is merited. It's childish, and it's easily reverted. Somehow, we can figure out that it's now 2008 without your help, thank you anyway. Mandsford (talk) 13:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL. If the album does materialize in the future an article will certainly be created then. DanielEng (talk) 01:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. How many times must we point out: compilations are not per se notable. Please find proof from good sources to show otherwise. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- this isn't notable enough to have its own article, but it could be included in Madonna's main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rigby27 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 10:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Puttin' On The Hits Lip Sinc Talent Search[edit]

Puttin' On The Hits Lip Sinc Talent Search (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Already a "Puttin' On The Hits", same subj. Rapido (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the other article. Neither of them is sourced and some of the text is verbatim, but on the whole the other article is better. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   jj137 (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A perfect example of WP:COATRACK. Note how they describe the 1984 show such an anal and overdetailed way (do we really need to know at NAPTE '84? Really, do we care which station groups picked up the show and why?), when suddenly the writer throws us a curveball...So you ask, why would a Lip Sync music variety show be successful in 2008?, which leads into a description of a revival of the show, format, sets, judges and all. No need for a merger at all because this is an advertisment for a show which right now is in a foggy ball of glass. Nate • (chatter) 02:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete useless textdump. JuJube (talk) 02:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (provisionally), the article could be good with a lot of work, references, and third-party citations. If the author (or anyone else) cares to clean it up (a lot), I would consider changing my vote! However, this or the other Puttin' on the Hits needs to be deleted. Sallicio (talk) 03:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Sallicio[reply]
• Delete -- Exact copy of Puttin' On the Hits, plus miscellaneous extraneous material. -- azumanga (talk) 04:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is a good example of how elapsed time seems to help. The "play" is still talked about, nullifying the NOT#NEWS arguments. As time goes by, the keep opinions far outweigh (and outnumber) the delete opinions. That being said, Wikipedia is not in the business of "coining" new terms or catchphrases. "Scramble and Gamble" will be deleted as a redirect until it is a proven (in reliable, independent, verifiable sources) term used to describe this play. Besides the unverifiability of the term, it is a highly unlikely "typo" in that it includes quotation marks and an ampersand (&), making it an unlikely search term. Right now, the article is titled Eli Manning pass to David Tyree, which is not the best title, but is better than anything I can come up with. No prejudice against renaming/moving in the future once this is properly nicked in a similar way to The Catch or The Drive.

I am also closing the article titled The Catch (2008) as merge. However, I will not be merging any content as closing administrator. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Scramble & Gamble"[edit]

The "Scramble & Gamble" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NOTE - This article has been moved to Super Bowl XLII Manning-Tyree Pass. Torc2 (talk) 05:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE 2 - Deletion debate is here on yet another article on this one play. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 14:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE to closing admin. The article that is under discussion here has actually changed multiple times to do mergers and redirects. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is absurdity, stretching the concept of "notability" beyond all human recognition. At best, this non-notable phrase should be a redirect to an article on the football game in question. Orange Mike | Talk 17:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge The author is a professional sports journalist and respectfully suggests that this article be kept at least until an official name is given to the play, much like "The Catch" or "Immaculate Reception" or "The Drive" or "The Play" or "The Comeback" are names given to sporting events by sports reporters. Several sports news outlets (incl. Fox Sports, ESPN, Yahoo! Sports, and CBSSportsline.com) have all raised specific commentary on this single play ranging from it being the greatest catch in Super Bowl history to simply the greatest play in NFL history. Since other single plays are known by nicknames, this article is a place which allows for similar honor SteV1der (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • N.B.: I've struck out your recommendation here because you superceded it with a "delete" below. Powers ^T 16:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete never asserts notability, seems to be an essay. Maybe a redirect to Super Bowl XLII? On an non-deletion note, the article cites Wikipedia as one of the references Doc Strange (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to main SB article for now. Strong keep - There's no question that this play was notable (and even if not, why move straight to AfD instead of tagging?), and has already been specifically called out in several articles. It is questionable whether it is sufficiently notable to stand alone right now, and there's no reason to think the name given will stick. Torc2 (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply - there's no speedy tag for this. I put a Prod tag on it, and it was immediately yanked by the author (who seems to have a personal investment in this particular phrase). --Orange Mike | Talk 21:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • reply - I didn't mean speedy tag it; I meant tag for ((notability)). The editor's possible COI for the name only means that the article could/should be moved, but the event itself is notable, possibly even notable enough for a separate article (a la The Catch (American football) or the Immaculate Reception, as noted above). The information in the article itself seems valid, so at the very least it should be merged. Torc2 (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • reply - The event itself is clearly notable and the author's naming of the event is subject to it catching on in American parlance. Questions of notability were raised and rather than debate, the journalist in question will allow public discussion and to judge validity, but perhaps it is best to simply delete this article. Author composed it and searched for additional sources since no other standalone article on the subject existed. With respect to wikipedia reference, article inclusion is as footnote. SteV1der (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • query - Do you wish to support the deletion yourself, SteV1der? If so: since you were the initial creator of the article (and primary editor), if you blank the page and summarize the edit as "Blanking by author pursuant to deletion consensus", an admin will then delete the article without prejudice in case the phrase does become notable later. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • comment - I think that would be an exceptionally bad idea. It's clear now that the play is sufficiently notable to have a stand-alone article ([9], [10], [11], [12], [13]) The only question is the name. Maybe we should just name it Manning to Tyree until something more established comes along. Torc2 (talk) 01:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with strong prejudice. No need for this. As an American football fan I know everything that needs to be said about this play belongs in Super Bowl XLI. The title is a hideous neologism that will never gain currency. No redirect. Quale (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Pssst...wrong Super Bowl. Torc2 (talk) 05:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete & Delete Changing vote to go with what seems to be the consensus. One of the best Super Bowls ever, and someone's ruining the memory with an article called "Scramble & Gamble" Mandsford (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Is there any rule preventing the article from being renamed now? It's obvious people are judging only the name rather than the topic itself. Torc2 (talk) 02:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - go ahead and merge this thing with whatever becomes the accepted name, if it isn't Scramble & Gamble. Not everyone has to like the name for it to be called what it ends up being called. I've deleted all references to the name in the article itself to make it easier. All nicknames require someone to publish work first, then receive the criticism or praise, but there's always a first person to read. I would think the Giants will take an official position at or after the parade through the Canyon of Heroes (and the article and the name, along with I'm sure MANY others, has been submitted to the team for evaluation. I have not received word one way or another and do not expect to, judging by the unfavorable response. However, the article is not entirely without merit. SteV1der (talk) 02:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Once there is a name, and it becomes accepted, it makes sense to have a separate article, as there already is on The Catch and The Drive. But to create a title and hope that it becomes the name is backwards. As it is, the play is already referenced in both the game and the player's (David Tyree) page, so it's not necessary to have a separate article until there is an established phrase. --Diogenes00 (talk) 02:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Neologism, if it becomes widely used, maybe a mention in the main article. MBisanz ^talk 05:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Moved and rewritten. Please revisit this. It clearly has independent notability established and absolutely should remain as a separate article, regardless of name. Torc2 (talk) 05:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Torc2 (talk) 06:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - there is also a duplicate page; see Eli Manning Pass To David Tyree.--Diogenes00 (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is far, far, far, far, far too early to accurately judge the notability of this one play, and Wikipedia should not become a source of notability (nor should Wikipedia be responsible for promoting a coined name for this play, although that error seems to have been mostly rectified (pending deletion of the redirect)). Powers ^T 18:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On what do you base that comment? There is no minimum time required for notability to be established. The play happened, and the next day there were multiple articles specifically about that one play and how critical it was. I watched The Daily Show last night, and Jon Stewart even talked specifically about that play. Torc2 (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lots of plays get talked about the next day, even dissected in detail. A week might be enough time to judge this accurately. Two days is not. Powers ^T 03:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not fading away. Of all the plays in the game, that's the play featured on the Late Show, that's the one still being written about by the AP, that's the one being called the play we will never forget. Can you name a single individual play in football history that generated this much press and didn't get remembered? Torc2 (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just how would I be able to name such a play if it wasn't remembered? You've set me an impossible task. Powers ^T 16:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as news (for now). Of course there will be coverage of the play. It was a significant play in this particular game. But will it remain as something discussed in the future. That cannot be foretold, and such it is just sports news. -- Whpq (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• comment - More references establishing long-term independent notability of this specific play here, here, here, and here. Torc2 (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• There's no doubt that it's notable. But notable enough for its own separate article? I doubt it. It's the key moment in the 2008 Super Bowl, just as the Immaculate Reception was to what might otherwise be called 1972 Steelers-Raiders AFC Divisional Playoff Game. Unlike the 1972 playoff, however, the 2008 Super Bowl game already has a name. I can appreciate that someone will want to be the one who gives the play a name that goes down in history. It's not always so. The Jets' upset of the Colts probably had a lot of would-be nicknames back in 1969, but the only one that stuck was "Super Bowl III". Mandsford (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, there's "The Guarantee", which would be its own article if there was enough material on it, as there is for this article. Torc2 (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Plenty of attention has been given to this particular play, and for good reason: it was the definitive play of one of the most improbable upsets in Super Bowl history. The sources that have been provided would seem to bear that out. It isn't going to suddenly become less significant tomorrow. This article needs to settle on a proper name, and it needs to be merged with its duplicate, but these problems can be solved without deletion. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - One of the greatest plays in history. Deserves its own article. Mrprada911 (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - an important and memorable Super Bowl play. If Wide Right and The Tackle can have their own articles, this play should have one, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.34.217.222 (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wide Right (Buffalo Bills) is notable because of its long-lasting impact and recognition, but the article we have on it is pitiful. It's unreferenced and does nothing to exhibit what it's meant to the city of Buffalo for 17 years. The play from Super Bowl XLII, on the other hand, has no such long-lasting impact and recognition because it only happened three days ago. Powers ^T 13:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Super Bowl XLII - not notable enough for it's own article. JPG-GR (talk) 02:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge - see WP:NOT#NEWS, Wikipedia:Recentism. This doesn't seem to me yet notable enough for its own page; hence, it shouldn't have its own article unless there's some evidence of long-term notability. A merge into the main Superbowl article might be best, as that way it can always be moved out again if it becomes independently notable. Terraxos (talk) 03:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per User:JPG-GR above. - fchd (talk) 09:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge per PowersT and Terraxos. It was a great play (the Eli avoiding sacks part, the pass was OK), but I am not convinced that it (or most plays) deserve their own articles. TJ Spyke 13:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep/Merge. The play will, in all eventuality, carry the exact same notable and historic context of any other number of plays in NFL history that have their own pages. The only problem right now is that 1) it has duplicate pages right now, and 2) it has no official name. To demand all deletions of this article is to be prejudiced to the opposite side. The precedent has already been set that extremely noteworthy plays in NFL history get their own page. To disallow the page to continue merely because it doesn't YET have historical relevance is the definition of stupidity. By acknowledging that it one day will, but does not now, you are saying that Wikipedia should never create ANY articles until we know of their exact relevance in history. This is why we have editing capabilities in the first place: to expand or shrink articles in accordance with their perceived historical relevance. To rid of it entirely is to not only ignore precedent, but to call into question the creation of ANY article shortly after the event in question takes place.President David Palmer (talk) 14:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. But now The Catch (2008) needs to be merged into this one as well. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 14:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and purge all versions of this article. It will certainly be part of NFL Lore, but for now, it should exist in Super Bowl XLII. When it achieves a commonplace name, and it becomes a burden on the Super Bowl XLII article, then split off. So no separate article for the time being.—Twigboy (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Super Bowl XLII, which seems to be the alternative suggested by people who are saying keep or delete, and the same with The Catch (2008), which hasn't been nominated. I find it interesting that the author, Stev1der urges that the article be kept because he is "a professional sports journalist". Without knowing who he is or where he works, that can't be verified. It makes 1 1-der. Mandsford (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge my original article...links to my original post were deleted early into this process in order to facilitate merger, but my nine years experience in Texas and degree from a university in the state of Florida both support my 'claim' as a professional sports journalist...just to assure your 'concerns' over that 'verification'SteV1der (talk) 02:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge into Super Boal XLII. Not enough notability for a separate article. You can also merge it into David Tyree, as he only had a few catches the entire season. 199.125.109.135 (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Super Bowl XLII. At some point it might need it's own article, but for now, it's just one part of a Super Bowl upset. Take the info and fold it into SB42, then spin it back off again if in the future, it becomes notable. The Catch wasn't immediately notable, if San Fran had lost that first Super Bowl i wouldn't be remembered by the general public at all. Snowfire51 (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]