< January 29	January 31 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iatroculture[edit]

Dicdef, neologism. Delete. Limited supporting evidence. JFW | T@lk 23:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete used in passing in 2nd ref.; 16 ghits excluding WP; suspect WP:NEO. JJL (talk) 01:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost a db-nocontext. JuJube (talk) 07:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 09:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism. Nothing new in the concept. Mattisse 22:44, 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 merge. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 15:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rudd (Greyhawk)[edit]

Dungeons & Dragons game character with no out-of-game notability. Only sources are primary sources. Transwiki to the DND Wikia. Jfire (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge and Redirect to List of Greyhawk deities#Demigods. BOZ (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep etc as per BOZ shadzar|Talk|contribs 00:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ Web Warlock (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and prune per BOZ per norm. BreathingMeat (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and Delete per nom. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Boz. Edward321 (talk) 06:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to List of Greyhawk deities#Demigods. Freederick (talk) 16:04, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ideal Medical Practice[edit]

Neologism for a theory of health care delivery mainly espoused by one author. No secondary sources supporting this particular concept. Delete, unencyclopedic. JFW | T@lk 23:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NEO -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spamtastic. JuJube (talk) 07:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 09:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although it reads in an unencyclopaedic way and needs inline citations, there are independent sources that attest to the concept, such as this site and a book from the JAMA. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The AMA book is not about the concept Ideal Medical Practice. It just has a chapter titled that way. The website is, well, a website... JFW | T@lk 00:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, Gordon Moore is the subject of a Wall Street Journal article. How nice. But it is still Gordon Moore's show. JFW | T@lk 00:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pure spam RogueNinja_talk 08:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing new in the concept, just coining new term. Triage, medical software programs, Electronic medical records etc. already exist. Mattisse 22:33, 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 speedy delete by WP:SNOW as a racist hoax. Bearian (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcoganif's disease[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Sarcoganif's disease

Cannot find any references; appears to be a hoax. KurtRaschke (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 0 information turned up for Sarcoganif's disease in relation to Sarcogenic cells, which you would think there would be, if this racist nonsense was true. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No google hits, No yahoo hits. So its not true, a hoax, and doesnt exist. Speedy delete will be better for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pookeo9 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Likely that young "Dr. Ethan von Strasenburger" has an Asian fellow student whom he doesn't like. Symptoms include "a belief that the victim knows everything, loquaciousness, and an inability to follow instructions". If you're thinking of doing standup... don't. Mandsford (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - snowball close. Hoax, no supportive evidence on PubMed. JFW | T@lk 23:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Recommend speedy as attack page. For the curious, Sarcogenic cells are Myoblasts.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dumb. JuJube (talk) 07:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear hoax, but I also have a question: the article says this affects Asian immigrants, but Asian immigrants to where? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete ...? Red Zion^X 20:19, 31 January 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Common (language)[edit]

This article appears to be an in-universe plot repetition without any referencing or notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ , more for being completely unsourced, than for anything else. It's not much of a topic, a passing reference to a plot device that allows people to travel to new worlds and instantly talk to the people there, not much different than Star Trek's "universal translator". Kind of sad, isn't it? The common languages are called "common", "common", "common", "common", "standard", "basic" and (Tolkien gave it some thought) "Westron". Mandsford (talk) 23:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to lingua franca Will ^(talk) 00:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a nomination as "inuniverse plot repetion" for an article without one word of plot in it. It rather servesas a term for a common feature of many notable fictions. But at present it's basically a disam page, and really needs a considerable expansion. DGG (talk) 01:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Will; an article might be made about this but the current one isn't even close. JJL (talk) 01:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I know, "redirects are cheap" and all that, but the title of the article is not "Common language", but about 'Common', a name of a fictional language. It's possible that there's some link to this is in the article about, say Dungeons and Dragons, or Star Wars (I highly doubt it), but redirecting from D & D to a serious article about lingua franca would probably lead someone to create a trivia section about "linguas franca in popular culture"; and as trivia, this ain't that interesting. Mandsford (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect It would make this place a lot more easier.--Pookeo9 (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect then, if it would make for a more easier place. Seems like the most easiest solution. Mandsford (talk) 22:03, 1 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 improve (nomination withdrawn). Espresso Addict (talk) 09:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Garrick Club[edit]

No notability and no sources other than the club's website.Timdlocklear (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike its New York counterpart, there is no mention of notable/famous members, and – again – no sources. I just don't see why this place needs a Wikipedia listing. I can tell you small-town nightclubs with more action than this place seems to have, LOL! Timdlocklear (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - just cleaned up the nom for you. No comment to make on this AfD. Sting au Buzz Me... 23:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Not sure what happened with that... but it is my first AfD page... I thought I followed the directions right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timdlocklear (talk • contribs) 23:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A Google Books search turns up quite a bit of information about the club's history, its artistic holdings, and its more notable members. --Dhartung | Talk 23:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You're nominating The Garrick Club for deletion? I can only presume this is because of your unfamiliarity with wikipedia, given as you say it's your first nomination for AfD. The Garrick Club was founded 180 years ago and is one of the most famous private members clubs in the world, with any number of artists, writers and actors among its members over time. Did the nominator bother to do any research [1] on a topic which he clearly knows absolutely nothing about? As for famous members how about Charles Dickens, J. M. Barrie, Rossetti, Millais and Edward Elgar? It's also got a terrific art collection [2]. Nick mallory (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I just checked and a lot of people link there, I will give you that. The article definitely needs improvement. There is absolutely NOTHING exciting about the listing and it does not mention its notable members, history (much), or anything... again... really "notable." Perhaps someone can improve it. But, in its current form, for an American like me it just looks like some club owner created a Wiki page for SEO purposes, and it just slipped through the cracks. Timdlocklear (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for "not researching," remember something... this is an encyclopedia. When you read the entry, you should not have to do any further research (ie – all research should end up here). Without knowing anything about the Garrick Club, again, this just looks like some club fan or business owner created their own page for advertisement purposes (a POV which can be further solidified by the fact that the edit history says "Removed Advertisement.") Timdlocklear (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you're not just reading it, you're nominating this article for deletion. You absolutely have to research it properly before you make that decision, read the notes on the steps you should take before nominating an article on the articles for deletion page. Nick mallory (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to burst your bubble, but I've seen articles nominated for deletion for very silly reasons that don't even come close to the reasons here. All of that being said... at least with this, we will see some improvement in the article... I've already noticed edits (thanks) to assist in explaining the place. Timdlocklear (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super strong keep The Garrick not notable! au contraire mon ami, I'll have to pooh pooh that suggestion. But seriously The Garrick is an extremely well known club with a long illustrious history and many influential members. RMHED (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about this Let's remove the AFD tag and add citation and expert tags. I understand you are all saying it is notable and so forth, but the listing does not convey that by any stretch of the imagination. Also, anyone saying how notable it is willing to edit the thing? Timdlocklear (talk)

Comment The article asserted quite enough history and notability for you to at least do a Google search yourself, at which point a tag such as ((primary sources)) would have been appropriate. I understand you nominated in good faith, and this article is below referencing standards, but this was clearly not "some guy's nightclub". We delete articles that cannot be substantially improved. --Dhartung | Talk 00:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I fail to understand how you see the article in its current form as anything close to 'notable'. The first paragraph tells of age. Unfortunately, age does not equal notability. At 130 years old, the age of the club is in fact nothing extraordinary given the history of London and other businesses therein.

The second paragraph talks of favored clientele. While it mentions "actors," there are no names mentioned. If we mentioned every third-rate film-industry-oriented club in existence, Wikipedia would be running very low on server space.

The third paragraph is an improperly-cited copy/paste of a mission statement from the club's website – the only source in the article.

The fourth paragraph talks about a sister club in New York with no real tie-in to the London branch other than the exchange of membership privileges and a female patron refusal, which apparently is by no means the most notable event surrounding the club's history.

The fifth and final paragraph speaks only of the first women allowed into a "club talk."

The article ends there.

Add all of this to the fact that the article is written in British slang, severely deficient from Wikipedia quality standards, and it is easy to look at this as a work of fancruft or an un-notable addition for ulterior motives.

I'm glad that everyone rallied to save an important article from deletion, but you have to understand that the process worked... this is a damningly deficient article that – in my opinion – needs a total rewrite if it is truly as famous as people are claiming it is.

Perhaps I jumped the gun in the AfD, but I don't think so considering it sounds as if it were written by a 12-year-old. If nothing else, maybe some of the people complaining on this page will take the initiative to improve the article.

Timdlocklear (talk)

Thank you for delineating the deficiencies in the article. These can all be fixed by editing, since the topic is notable. But even an article "written by a 12-year-old" can be about a notable topic. --Dhartung | Talk 01:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. lets put the nominator out of his misery. Just stick a ref improve tag on it. Sting au Buzz Me... 23:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Edited) AfD Recommendation Withdrawn. However, I would encourage anyone that wants to scream and cry about how famous and popular this place is to avoid editing in sharp jabs here re: my AfD recommendation, and do everyone a giant favor by going THERE and editing in exactly why this place is so meaningful. As I said, reading the wiki page you would honestly think that it is some piddly little club whose owner got bored and decided to plug himself in Wikipedia.

Slow down mate :-) I've restored the AfD template. Please don't remove them until closing admin gives the result. Sting au Buzz Me... 23:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly one of the most notable clubs in in the UK. Does needs some work agreed but is a candidate for cleanup rather than deletion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I've done a little more work to the article. Nom has withdrawn so not much else to say really? Sting au Buzz Me... 05:39, 31 January 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 nom withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Yng varr 23:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sacha inchi[edit]

Keep How can a plant not be notable? If you're going to start applying notability to plants, you might as well delete 99% of them.. and why stop there? why don't we delete small towns? small animals? obscure scientific concepts??? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done some very minor work to article, set out what I hope to do in articles talk page, will have to leave for now, but this AFD is a ridiculous WP:SNOW nomination, so i can leave it for now. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Your first two reasons are not reasons for deletion. As for the third, non-notable, searching the scientific name (Plukenetia Volubilis L) appears to pull up more information than the "common" name. [3] [4]. That last ref also cites refs of itself. Yng varr 22:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as a species, it meets notability. I'm not sure how to better phrase that. matt91486 (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as scientifically classified species = encyclopedic. Sting au Buzz Me... 23:17, 30 January 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 as obvious hoax. нмŵוτн τ 20:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Face Baukchoice[edit]

Hoax. See Google. скоморохъ ^ѧ 22:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete WP:CSD Criteria 1 = HOAX. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle tells me CSD 1 is not to be used for hoaxes. Que pasa? скоморохъ ^ѧ 22:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HOw does 3. strike you then?? in the criteria for 1. though it does clearly state "hoaxes"? -- but so does 3. which seems to fit this article even better =) . Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1 says specifically not hoaxes, but you're right, in retrospect I should've 3'd it. скоморохъ ^ѧ 23:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, it will be deleted in good time anyway? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax. "Facebook choice", yeah, right. JohnCD (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable see [5]. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be a hoax. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete as hoaxalicious™. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dumb. JuJube (talk) 07:49, 31 January 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, which defaults to Keep. The article needs better sourcing though, could someone kindly add them and remove my tag? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed El Esseily[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Completing second nomination per request left on my talk page; no !vote from me yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Journalist whos only claim to fame is that he has been on TV/radio, no sources, no refs, just a link to his personal blog. Fails notability guidelines per WP:N & WP:BIO. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-per original nomination.--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 22:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. Article as is fails WP:BLP. Sting au Buzz Me... 23:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment. I've just dropped a couple of friendly notices to editors with an Advanced Arabic userbox who were active within the past couple of days. Not commenting on the nomination: for all I can tell this might be the Egyptian equivalent of Jon Stewart, but it might equally be a hoax or self-promotion. A name in Arabic script would at least enable a google search/translation, but without even that ... --Paularblaster (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep here's also an English profile published of him in an Egyptian newspaper under the spelling Ahmad El-Esseily: [6]. Searching in Arabic also gives a few hundred more GHits: [7]. cab (talk) 11:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cab. He may not exactly be the Egyptian Jon Stewart, but he is certainly notable. — Zerida 22:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep in light of the information and sources provided. --Paularblaster (talk) 19:04, 2 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) 03:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teensies[edit]

No assertion of notability, and as such is just an in-universe gameplay repetition of information from the Rayman game articles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 19:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources to establish notability and no real-world information. Given the level of detail of the article, the subject matter doesn't require an entire article for itself anyway. Una Laguna^Talk 06:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No out-of-universe notability. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 01:04, 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 no consensus but leaning closely towards redirect. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karasawa Genba[edit]

Delete article in no way asserts notability, only sourcing is a Geocities page, fails guidelines per WP:N Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment verifiable (see Japanese GBooks hits: [8]); don't know about notability yet as those are just brief mentions of a few sentences in length. There may exist better sources which are hard to find, as GBooks' Japanese coverage isn't very broad yet. Maybe redirect to Sanada clan? cab (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the redirect would make sense IMO, but I guess we can wait for a few more comments, see what others think. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sanada clan unless reliable sources can be found. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. I'm afraid I don't have access to any proper scholastic sources immediately at hand right now, but if you Google "唐沢玄蕃", you'll find that you get quite a few hits. Take your pick as to which you consider to be a notable, trustworthy source. (Or we could just redirect it to Sanada clan for now, since the content is so limited.) LordAmeth (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple mentions in Google books, as well as on these pages: [9], [10], [11] (review of a book with info), [12], [13]. He's also a character in Nobunaga's Ambition Online [14], a game which is strongly influenced by actual history. Hopefully the books have more, and hopefully someone has the books (or access to them). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sanada clan until someone collects enough material to justify a more complete article on him; no prejudice against recreating the article then. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:58, 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 Keep. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 09:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Montezuma's Revenge (music)[edit]

Non-notable. No links going out, barely any leading in. No 3rd part sources provided to indicate notability. Drewcifer (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Note: I created the article) In- or outgoing links are never a reason for deletion. But more importantly: they are notable. Third party sources are missing, I'll spend some time on that. From the top of my head, they toured both the Netherlands and Germany extensively and have released albums that sold alright, both WP:MUSIC criteria. -- Pepve (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BAND unless independent references provided. JohnCD (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IF some reliable sources regarding that tour can be produced. Beeblbrox (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I dug up some sources and added them to the article. Is it enough? -- Pepve (talk) 05:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if any of these are reliable sources. I don't speak Dutch, so I'm not completely sure of that. But the ones in English appear to be blogs, which aren't considered reliable. Drewcifer (talk) 05:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of the two English sources, the first is a copy of an article in The Herald (I couldn't find the original). The second probably equals a blog in reliability, I kept it in because the number of English sources is quite low. The German sources are newspapers, the Dutch ones also, except the last one which is a press release. -- Pepve (talk) 06:21, 31 January 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 nomination withdrawn without contention by others. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kambrya College[edit]

Delete Utterly, N/N school, article doesn't assert notability in anyway, been tagged for notability since March '07, fails guidelines of WP:ORG Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Article is now a workable stub, most people seem to be agreeable towards the sourcing, I won't let little old me get in the way. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This school is non-notable, there is no way it meets WP:N but now, once again, the school inclusionists are weighing in and soon, a nice sympathetic inclusionist editor will come along and claim that the outcome was keep because of the reasons stated below. Which are crap, this was brought to because the notability was questioned, so your arguments of "all the other high schools are notable" is inherently flawed, but I can see the way this is going, and I'm not going to add another notch to your belt. In a little while, we can restart this with a clean slate. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the leap of bad faith anticipation of the future closing administrator. When consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of a "keep" decision, even a "deletionist" is likely to close the discussion as "keep" (this is currently looking like a snowball keep"). Most of the "keep" voters here are citing the reliable secondary sources about this school and not solely the "all high schools are notable" argument. --Oakshade (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, especially as we see the same thing happen at least once a week. Explain to me, I can only see one non-trivial source cited here, WP:N states that multiple secondary sources must be found to establish notability, that hasn't been done. So how does it meet WP:N editors keep saying that it has, but it clearly hasn't! then there is this inherent notability bullshit, grrr. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly has met WP:N. Firstly, WP:N doesn't used the world "multiple." Even if it did, there are three sources in this article that give coverage to this school that is well beyond the scope of "passing mention". I know those weren't in the article when you first nominated it, but I would advise doing research before nominating an article for deletion. If you truly still feel it doesn't pass notability standards, just keep the nomination. --Oakshade (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So why does it refer to source in the plural in every instance? and No, I think if you actually read the refs you'll find only one of them is non-trivial. Moreover, the source that isn't trivial is from the education liftout from one of the cities two major local papers, they feature a new school everyweek and find something good to say about each and every one of them! The source doens't really assert the schools notability either, it just doesn't mention them in passing thats all. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually read all references in detail and this school is much more than a "passing mention" in all three of them. There's nothing in WP:NOTABILITY about sources "asserting notability" of a topic. (That's a strange argument I've never seen anyone use.) The writers of WP:N are working with the principal that if a secondary source is about a topic, that in itself is the sources' indication of notability. I don't know why you're still arguing this after you withdrew the nomination. Renew the nomination if you feel this doesn't meet notability standards. --Oakshade (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong, the article about the strike and teacher's retention mentions the school in a trivial or passing manner, you couldn't say the articles were about the school at all. The other article, which is about the school states that yes, this is a school, it is surrounded by private schools, blah blah blah. I guess what i'm trying to say here is that although it doesn't mention the school in a trivial manner, or passing, and the entire article is devoted to the school, that the article itself is trivial, it is little more than a profile of the school. I believe somewhere WP:N says "use your common sense" which is what should be happening here, instead of the article being kept on the premise of a few faulty sources and some perception that all high-schools are notable. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three of the articles are much more than "trivial mentions" of this school. A teachers strike at Kambrya College is not about Kambrya College and only mentions it in passing? The principal of Kambrya College having to deal with budget cuts at Kambrya College is a "trivial meniont" of Kambrya College? And this last article about Kambrya College is not about Kabrya College or just mentions it in passing? You seem to have a severe missunderstanding of WP:NOTABILITY, particularly when it refers to "trivial coverage" and "passing mention" definitions .--Oakshade (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, The articles about the strike and teacher retention only mention the school in a trivial manner, the remaining article is trivial in itself, try to apply common sense in your interpretation of WP:N. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 02:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most people would think that an article about a teachers strike at Kambrya College is much than a "passing mention" of Kambrya College. Everyone here but you are using a common sense approach to WP:N --Oakshade (talk) 02:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most reasonable people wouldn't care what they think because the same people probably think that all high schools are also inherently notable no? Why don't you try reading the article? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're just assuming bad faith and attacking all editors (whom even you are terming "most reasonable people") who are choosing to keep this article, which so far is everyone who voted in this AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, perhaps you misunderstood me, please read my comments again.. Yes, i'm well aware of the sad fact, some people just don't interpret the the guidelines as literally as I do. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 04:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment two articles [15][16] from The Age, which is, admittedly, published in Melbourne, making it another case of the local metro paper covering a school in their own backyard and no one else taking any notice. cab (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, i'm not sure what you're trying to say here? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, the school is in Melbourne, so the question is whether a newspaper's coverage of education in their own metro area is enough to establish notability. The Age has a circulation of about a million and the articles seem to be intellectually independent of the schools in question (unlike some cases I've seen where the "journalist" clearly had a kid going to the school he was writing about), so maybe this isn't a concern. I don't know either way. cab (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No lol, I wasn't questioning "The Age" (I did however check that they weren't advertising features, editorials or blogs) I thought you were taking a jab at me =S... but you weren't. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah gotcha, sorry, I didn't mean to sound rude like the way it came out =). Cheers, cab (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Age is a major newspaper with an international reach. The fact that it has written about a local school is irrelevant; it is a reliable source because of its editorial standards. TerriersFan (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why something has to have international or non-local coverage to pass wikipedia policies... Ansell 05:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep The article is similar to many other school articles, lacking in independent references and making no attempt to assert notability (other than stating its existence). However, the sources provided by cab in this case actually make a case for notability. This is not a run-of-the mill State High School and it may be possible to write an informative, encyclopedic article on this school. Note: the fact that sources are available for this school has no bearing on the likelihood of sources being found for other schools and the the fact that this school is notable does not mean all schools are notable. All articles on schools need to be individually assessed against WP:N. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, after reading the refs, I would say that number 2 only really mentions the school in a trivial manner in relation to the larger problem of teacher retention. Source 1. goes into greater detail. Still this is probably enough to satisfy WP:ORG but I would like some more opionions. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

possibly we still need more non-trivial secondary sources, I don't think notability has been established. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The rule is sourceable, and experience has shown that all high school articles can be sourced if they are worked on enough. In the meantime its a valid stub.DGG (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a weak argument, this is an AFD, as in, the article has been nominated because it's not notable, and one of the reasons why it isn't notable because it is unsourced. Therefore you can't just say that all high schools are notable because theyre supposedly sourceable. This has been nom'd because it isn't sourceable, so your argument doesn't hold weight. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable school - two sources from Melbourne Age are both passes for WP:RS and therefore passes WP:V. I should add that The Age is lets say the Melbourne equivalent of The New York Times. The article is definitely a keeper in my opinion. Sting au Buzz Me... 07:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Being a secondary school in itself is an assertion of notability. Being "one of the largest single campus schools in Victoria" is a rather grand assertion of notability. Besides that consensus has consistently kept high/secondary schools, the sources, like that of The Age, confirm notability. --Oakshade (talk) 23:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please show me where consensus on the notability of high schools has been established. Using this argument in AfD discussions is circular, the articles are kept because they are inherenly notable, they are inherently notable because they are kept. Schools are no different than any other organisation and need to demonstrate that they meet WP:N. Simply stating that they are a school is not an assertion of notability any more than than stating "Sam's Quality Meats is a butcher shop" is a statement of notability. Schools have no special status entitling them to a run around Wikipedia notability requirements. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indication of high/secondary schools being kept is at WP:OUTCOMES. There is no history data regarding meat shops. --Oakshade (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:OUTCOMES "As these are not binding policies, the fact that a precedent exists should not be interpreted as prima facie evidence that a particular topic is entitled to an article" -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONSENSUS, which is policy and the basic editing principal of Wikipeida, has consistently kept high/secondary schools. You seem to be focusing on that point and ignoring the other arguments (is the subject of secondary sources, etc.) --Oakshade (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two points. Firstly, I have supported keeping this article (see above) because it meets WP:N. Secondly, I object to having the results of previous AfDs used as a reason to keep articles on schools. Notability needs to be established on an individual basis, not as a class. The ffact that sources can and have been found for this article says nothing about the likelihood of finding sources for all articles on all schools. As above, AfD discussions have been keeping articles on schools based on inherent notability and then using the fact that they are kept as demonstration of inherent notability. This is a circular argument and proves nothing except persistance from those editors determined to establish precedents. If you want to establish inherent notability of schools, get consensus to have WP:N modified to reflect this rather than try and impose it on the community through self made precedents. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not "self-made" consensus, but consensus based on broad Wikipedia consensus established by thousands of editors which my "self" had nothing to do with. --Oakshade (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thousands? Not even big things on this place have 4-digit, some are lucky to get 3-digit and I think this would be single-digit. Orderinchaos 05:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think thousands is an accurate estimate when it comes to the number of editors who contribute to the AfD discussions. There certainly have been hundreds (at least) of high/secondary schools nominated for AfD and at least 5 editors contribute to the discussion on most of them. Some lively discussions have over 30 editors in the discussions.--Oakshade (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Despite its recent foundation it's even been written about in books (well, a book anyway).--Paularblaster (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a major high school which, despite being relatively new, still has sources that meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:N easily with the "The Age" article. Assize (talk) 02:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with others that "The Age" article helps justify its status as notable. However, I disagree that any secondary school is inherently notable. Without "The Age" reference and possibly the strike mention, this article is otherwise lacking in notable elements - in particular, the section "Academics" is utterly non-notable and could be written with minor variations for most secondary schools in Australia. Murtoa (talk) 04:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs more context but definitely seems notable and reliable sources can be found on this topic. I also agree with Murtoa, though, that not all secondary schools are notable. Orderinchaos 04:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Have some queries about the particular text in the article but the subject passes all of my criteria. Ansell 05:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article has been replaced by an acceptable one by Dominus, but the title should be changed to one that is less pejorative and makes the new focus clear. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of mathematical blunders[edit]

Abandoned list which was once proposed for deletion. The two items in the list are completely insignificant from a historical perspective. The list is potentially waaaaaaaaay large and will consist of silly anecdotes with no purpose other than the humiliation of the blunder's author. Pichpich (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing is sourced, complete original research, and what is listed is not notable. ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 21:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename. I think a rename would do this article good, as well. "Mathematical Fallacies", or something. We could probably lose the "List of" as it's not much of a list at this time. Just my opinion, granted. ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 16:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No sensible criteria for inclusion, can't see a useful article emerging. JohnCD (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, some misstatements, but no Gimli Glider or Mars Climate Orbiter? I think an article around that sort of blunder is possible but as to random public statements, I'm not sure how notable they ever could be. --Dhartung | Talk 23:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a list with criteria this open to interpretation serves no useful purpose and many blunders will never be notable - Dumelow (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh, the problem of posting an article before it has any content! If you take it down and work on it, lose the table and lose the attitude. People make mistakes. I remember TIME magazine once had an article that gave a figure for the amount of excrement deposited by dogs in New York every day; readers did the math and it worked out to each dog pooping 130 pounds worth. But that was back in December 1974, and of course, there have been no mistakes since then. Mandsford (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can imagine good article with this title but this in its present for certainly isn't it. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No objective inclusion criteria, current contents are not notable. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Assuming a little good faith in the list creator, it is non-obvious that there is "no purpose other than the humiliation of the blunder's author". While I don't think the current list has any useful or notable contents, I do think a list of notable, interesting examples could be created given some well-defined inclusion criteria. - Neparis (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have just been collecting examples of real mathematical blunders. For example (and this is one of many) Kurt Gödel claimed in 1932 to have a proof that the truth of a certain class of formulas was decidable, and this result was used by Dana Scott and others to prove other theorems, but it was shown by Goldfarb in 1984 that Gödel had been mistaken and that the class was not decidable. This is all well-documented and can be supported by multiple cites to the literature. I also have examples of blunders by Von Neumann and Cauchy. Many examples of lesser blunders are known. For example Alfred Kempe notoriously "proved" the Four-color theorem, but his proof was later shown to be erroneous. A fascinating article could be written about this subject. It is my understanding that a deleted article cannot be recreated until six months have passed. I think that would be a shame in this case. Would it help the situation for me to replace the content of this article with something more verifiable and encyclopedic along the lines I have just discussed? -- Dominus (talk) 03:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - why not ask the nominator on his talk page User talk:Pichpich if he would agree to withdraw the AfD nomination explaining that you can quickly replace the article with at least several of your most interesting referenced examples and bring it up to standard? - Neparis (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment well, I'm here and no, I'm not too keen on withdrawing the nomination. Not that Dominus' idea is bad. Really, it isn't. But it's not what this article set out to be. I can see an article being built around historical blunders by mathematicians: there's an interesting story to be told there (and I'll throw in another well-known one: Erdös stubborn stand on Let's Make A Deal and the Monty Hall problem). But blunders by the layman? Listen to talk radio for an afternoon and you'll get 2 or 3 of these and I really don't see how this can work out to be an article. Pichpich (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it matter what the article "set out to be"? Isn't the important thing here to get good articles for Wikipedia? -- Dominus (talk) 12:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Important comment - I have replaced the article with an entirely new article. -- Dominus (talk) 15:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Would you commit to expand it by adding further examples? - Neparis (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I won't commit to do anything. I may, however, expand it by adding further examples. At present I am researching Von Neumann's purported proof of the consistency of arithmetic, and a certain paper of Hantao Zhang which, if published in the STOC 2008 proceedings, would overturn a long-accepted result of Robert Tarjan regarding the time complexity of the union-find problem. It is likely that I would add these to this article. -- Dominus (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Very nice work. Sorry if the above seemed radical but by "what the article set out to be", I meant something more like "what the article's title suggests as development". I'd suggest keeping the article under a different name which accurately reflects its content, especially since "blunder" has a definite pejorative slant that is completely unnecessary. Any one have a good suggestion? Perhaps list of mistakes in mathematical proofs or list of mathematical arguments which were proved incorrect. Sure, that's not really the smoothest title but at least it gives a clearer sense of what the article is intended to be. Pichpich (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I see nothing by Zhang in the STOC accepts ~~nor anything about union find on Zhang's home page. Anywhere else I should be looking?~~ never mind, found it on your blog. I think the blunder is in Lemma 1: link first then find can speed up other subsequent finds. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Thanks to the good work of User:Dominus, the article now has completely different content which is a huge improvement over the article at the date of the AfD nomination. Diff [17] - Neparis (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dominus' new version. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the new version. JackSchmidt (talk) 04:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There may be a need to rename the article in order to address two concerns: firstly that it is hard to provide a neutral point of view on a list of "blunders", as a point of view is already implicit from the title, and secondly that a clear criteria for inclusion should be apparent, but the two versions of the article and the suggestions in this AfD are all very different topics. I think a reasonably good title could be derived from Published false theorems. Both the terms published and false are reasonably objective when applied to mathematical theorems, so the implicit NPOV problems go away. The scope of the article is also clearly defined, and rules out "engineering blunders" which are extremely interesting and important topic covered in books like "Fatal defect". I would have a hard time calling three published false versions of the O'Nan Scott theorem a blunder, but no trouble saying they were false. I have a hard time calling Thompson's forgetting about the Tits group a blunder (even though I have seen the error replicated in 21st century articles), but there was clearly a published false theorem. The Mars Climate Orbiter problem and others should be discussed *somewhere*, but I think in a separate article. JackSchmidt (talk) 04:08, 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 No consensus, which defaults to Keep. Please note also the WP:WAX argument in reverse (rare indeed!). If someone is more notable or accomplished than Mr. Sterckx, we should have an article on him or her perhaps as well? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roel Sterckx[edit]

This page was already nominated for deletion and accordingly deleted, but the original author simply came back and recreated it. The subject is a minor academic, not of encyclopaedic notabilityBaldeggboy (talk) 21:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, full Professor at Cambridge is notable (British usage), also a Fellow and president of an international scholarly organization. Recognized scholar[18]. I'll leave it somebody else to judge his publications, this seems sufficient for me. --Dhartung | Talk 23:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The position makes him presumably one of the top 3 or 4 scholars of Chinese in the UK. 3 =SOAS, 4, for whichever one I may not know about. (Professor at Cambridge=head of department, in the US. ) There's at least 2 more books . I added them, and the articles. Publications in English, French, German and Chinese. . There seem to be numerous reviews of one key book of his--I added the complete list ofthem to the web page. Author of one really impotant book, plus a good deal else. DGG (talk) 01:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Professorship at Cambridge does not of itself amount to notability. DGG - professor at Cambridge is not necessarily head of department; in this case Professor van de Ven is senior. Some Professorships are essentially administrative roles seen as distracting from academic work. I don't know which, if either, is nominally head of department (though as the department is the Department of East Asian Studies it may be Prof Bowring or Prof Kornicki - there are at least five professors in the department, perhaps more.) I don't know how you work out that he's one of the top 3 or 4 UK scholars, or what you mean by that (erudition? experience?) - are you just speculating? At Cambridge alone I would rank van de Ven, Yuan, Daruvala, McDermott plus a host of nominally retired but still active people like Prof McMullen higher than Sterckx in pretty much every way. Most of them don't have or need a Wikipedia page. Then you have scholars at Oxford, SOAS, Durham, Edinburgh, there may be people at Leeds and Sheffield too. And neither does writing a few books and articles of itself amount to notability. A minor academic with administrative responsibilities - there are hundreds of Cambridge professors with no Wikipedia entry.JaneGrey (talk) 12:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The department web site shows that there are two full time professors in the department, the other one of which is van de Ven who is Professor of Modern Chinese History rather than of Chinese. You may rank Yuan, Daruvala, and McDermott higher than Sterckx in pretty much every way, but the faculty doesn't - it hasn't given them professorships. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentOkay, let's get this straight. I was responding to the comment above which suggested that a professor at Cambridge is necessarily a head of department. This is not the case. In this case, as I said, the department is the Dept of East Asian Studies. The page linked to above lists only some of the staff of this department, as you might guess from its URL. The department currently has four professors and one Prof Emeritus. As for the difference in title; professorial titles are generally not duplicated. It does not follow that if there is a Professor of Something there is also a Department of Something of which he/she is the head. My point was simply that the argument presented above that x is Professor of Chinese; therefore x is head of a supposed Department of Chinese; therefore x is the most erudite, learned scholar of Chinese is a false argument. Wikipedia is not simply a listing of people who have achieved a certain professional rank or title; entry in Wikipedia requires notability. Above, I tried to make the point that professional rank does not correlate exactly to academic distinction. Neither does it correlate to notability. It seems to me that decisions about inclusion in Wikipedia should be based on facts rather than speculation, and therefore I attempted to clarify the true position.JaneGrey (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Are you seriously suggesting that professorships at Cambridge are awarded based on administrative ability rather than academic distinction? The fact is that Sterckx has been recognised for his work by one of the world's top universities with a professorship (and this is a proper professorship, not an over-inflated title as given by American universities); the speculation is that others who have not been recognised in this way are in some way more more academically distinguished than he is. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sterckx is an interesting young academic but not yet of encyclopedic notability. There are hundreds of others in Cambridge alone of equal or greater notability; there must be tens of thousands worldwide. Twenty years from now perhaps he will merit inclusion. Note to Comment above:There are four full time Professors and one Professor Emeritus in the Department of East Asian Studies, of these Prof Sterckx is the youngest and most recently appointed. DGG above wrote "presumably one of the top 3 or 4 scholars of Chinese in the UK" - this is a misapprehension; Professorship does not necessarily imply that one is a 'top scholar' but that one is willing to take on administrative duties in return for career advancement. It's my understanding, if we have to go into the details, that when Prof McMullen reached the retirement age and had to give up the full-time professorship (end of academic year 2004-5) then-Dr van de Ven was appointed to take on his duties in the then-Chinese Department. With the amalgamation of Chinese and Japanese into one Department, the title 'Professor of Chinese' no longer carries the implication of Head of Department but may imply a certain administrative burden. I'm not up to speed on all the internal politics, nor do I know the exact arrangemnts for sharing of duties but I can assure you that the idea that Sterckx by virtue of his title alone is somehow an exceptional scholar who merits inclusion in an encyclopedia is a misapprehension. I won't attempt a ranking of scholars as I don't understand how this can be done, but I think it's fair to say that, say Joseph Needham, James Legge, Thomas Francis Wade certainly merit inclusion, Jonathan Spence, Michael Loewe and Mark Edward Lewis may merit it and in some cases have it, but to include every successful young academic is to go beyond the purpose of this encyclopedia.JulieRudiani (talk) 09:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There may well be hundreds of professors at Cambridge who are notable, and tens of thousands worldwide. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so we can have articles about them all. I also need to repeat my reply to JaneGrey: Cambridge awards professorships based on academic distinction, not admistrative ability. They have plenty of non-academic admistrators to take care of that work. A Cambridge professorship clearly satifies criterion 6 of WP:PROF. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of academic-related deletion discussions. —Lquilter (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not at all my subject, so hard to judge his publication record, but Professor at a major UK university, elected fellow of national academic society, Secretary-General of European society, and textbook receiving widespread critical notice appears adequate to meet WP:PROF. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor academic. There are dozens of more notable people without pages. This is an Encyclopedia, not an an Omnipedia. Worrying that the page was apparently already deleted once and simply reinstated by the author. Also noticeable that all the keep votes seem to come from people who admit or demonstrate that they don't really know about this subject.131.111.164.246 (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly an ambitious young man, willing to do what it takes to get noticed, but as was said above, this is not an omnipedia.Quelcrime (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments above. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Expresso Addict. Dsp13 (talk) 02:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Being a "professor", in the UK sense of the word, in a top-rated department (RAE 5^* rating) at the top-rated UK university is strong evidence of high notability. - Neparis (talk) 03:19, 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. No prejudice against category creation, but I won't be doing it. If a non-admin needs access to the deleted material found here, let me know! I'd be happy to provide it for creating a category for the blue links. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of bands from Las Vegas[edit]

Another original research list. Full of redlinks for marginal bands. Best served by a category. Pichpich (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and categorise, agree with nom that this article adds little and is better served by a category. There is already a Category:Nevada musical groups which would seem useful, though one could perhaps be added for Las Vegas specific bands - Dumelow (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Make cat per nom. Lugnuts (talk) 08:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael P 02:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)This List was uncategorized at the time I first viewed it; I categorized the Bands by decade and added relevant List of Bands from the 1950's: Sam Butera, etc. and the pictures as shown. I also categorized the 1960's bands. I did not edit or alphabetize the pre-existing bands formed from 2000 to the present, which should be done. Granted, there are a lot of bands in the 2000 category. Perhaps all the myspace references, etc., can be removed and those bands shown in red can be edited to show black typeface such as the 1966-1969 grouping. I believe this is a relevant historical Listing site and should continue with the suggested modifications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mselinsky (talk • contribs)

Strong Keep it will be deleted if created as a category. Categories don't do red links. Categories are not able to retain the few words provided in the list for most of the bands without articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, categories don't do redlinks. On the other hand, blue links do have the advantage of filtering out insignificant bands which is an easy 80% of the 2000-2010 decade (don't let the blue links fool you, they're mostly to irrelevant articles). In any case, the list contains a lot of bands or acts which cannot reasonably be considered as "from Vegas": Sam Butera, Ted Fio Rito, Harry James, Vido Musso, Grade 8 (band), even Mary Kaye. As is, it is clearly original research. Pichpich (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that the list needs to be cleaned up. Again, not a reason to delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, lists like this are better served as categories. Funeral 21:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Las Vegas' List of Bands is deleted, it follows that other cities Lists of Bands should follow, for example, LA, New York, Cleveland, Nashville, Austin, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco/Oakland, Kansas City, and so forth. This should also hold true for international cities Lists of Bands: London, Paris, Barcelona....Where do you draw the line? My feeling is it's all or none. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.102.45 (talk) 02:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are interesting precedents here. For instance Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bands from Europe, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bands from Limerick, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of bands and musicians by letter, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States musicians (2nd nomination) in which all US-state lists were deleted. I'll concede that there's an existing list for L.A. (which should also go if you ask me) but as far as I know, there is no list for Paris, London or Barcelona (or are they under a different name?), nor are there lists for New York, Cleveland or Nashville (I did not bother checking the rest). Pichpich (talk) 03:04, 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. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 09:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PHProxy[edit]

Notability cannot be established -- Signed by Wolvereness^{t c} 21:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Non-notable software; merely port of something else called CGIProxy, which doesn't have an article either.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N, also the creator of software abandoned its development, so I do not see how this software could assert notability on future. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 22:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability, and I can't find any good sources. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 01:21, 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. John254 01:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beliefs and ideology of Osama bin Laden[edit]

DeleteThis looks like an attempt to fork the Osama bin Laden article and get some good old fashioned non-neutral jabs at him. Some of this is trivial and the rest belongs on the main article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this is not attempting fork anything. "the rest belongs on the main article" no, because the main article is long, and due to standard article size, this info cannot be merged in the article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep the article Osama bin Laden is at present 52 KB long. To maintain wikipedia's standard article size, i.e. around 32 KB, these huge info cannot be merged. I found no cause behind this nomination. What is the reason behind "fork", fork is not applied here. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Some of this is trivial" I got confused with such statement. There is nothing "trivial" here. The article documents the ideology of a notable person. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The main article is too long. If you take a look there is an Osama bin Laden nav box at the bottom which tracks all the branches. If you find the branch to have too much POV, then edit the branch, don't delete the branch. There are multiple constraints here, one of which is article size, the other is need to retain useful content, the third is to keep content NPOV. Deleting doesn't serve any of these objectives. Only editing the POV content serves this objective. Erxnmedia (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — it is not clear to me that this is an inherently POV fork of the parent article. It seems clear that, given the wide variety of scholarship on this issue, that one could write a neutral article on this topic. Current non-neutrality, real or imagined, is a reason for clean-up, not deletion. --Haemo (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If there is any contemporary individual who deserves an entire article to his ideology it is bin Laden. Complies with WP:SS, not a fork but a breakout of a substantial subtopic. It is possitlbe that not all the article is WP:NPOV or even fully WP:V, but that is editing. --Dhartung | Talk 23:35, 30 January 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 to delete, default to keep. Sandstein (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrity judoka[edit]

At the very least the title has got to change. But to a large extent, this is also original research and is a list with no clear rule for membership Who is a celebrity? Who is famous? How much judo experience do you need to have to qualify for the list? The list is fairly well referenced but still, it's a list with potentially a gazillion names and hardly seems to be worthy of an encyclopedia. Pichpich (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete — the intersection of "celebrity" and "does Judo" seems a indiscriminate trivial matter with very little encyclopedic merit. --Haemo (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The "potentially endless" (okay, maybe "gazillion" is a finite number) argument is never very persuasive. An odd topic, maybe, but it's well-sourced, and it does provide some discriminating information. Who knew that Yeltsin and Trudeau practiced judo? I agree with nom that the title has got to change. "Celebrity Judoka" doesn't work. I understand, persons who are well known for something other than their judo skills are on the list, but Celebrity Judo sounds like a bad TV show (visions of Charles Nelson Reilly flipping Brett Somers to the mat). And I get it, you judo enthusiasts refer to each other as "judoka". The rest of us don't know what the hell you're talking about. Mandsford (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok, never mind the gazillion argument but come on, the list currently includes Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt's son... What is he? 5 years old? The problem is that the choice is to either say "let's put down every name for which we have a reference saying that person X (who has a bio on wiki) is a judoka". Theoretically, I suppose that's possible although we all know how absurdly useless (not to mention uninteresting) such a list would be. Just applying this criterion to Japanese people on wikipedia would easily put a hundred names in there (and that's a conservative estimate). The alternative is what is currently taking shape there: a haphazard list of trivia about people whose face appears periodically in tabloids. It's trivial information and should be included in the respective biographies if it has any significance. It also most definitely constitutes original research. Pichpich (talk) 03:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The relevance of the five year old practising judo is is not in the child, but in that that sport was chosen by well known celebrity parents (Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt). It looks a little strange to have the five-year old in the entry; I originally had it under "Angela Jolie and Brad Pitt" with the explanation that it was actually their son involved but it didn't seem a proper way to form the list. --David Broadfoot (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that some of the names don't belong here. I guess I go by the theory that if the topic itself isn't completely inappropriate, then the laissez-faire system of Wikipedia eventually takes care of the problems with content. Another editor would come along eventually and take out silly references to Angela and Brad's child for the same reasons. (In fact, I'll do that now, and I'll be it doesn't get placed back in the article). I don't agree that it's trivial, since there is a certain amount of self-discipline that goes with judo. Finally, this could be sourced, even if it's not sourced now. Mandsford (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which, I suppose, is my point: if it's not trivial, then it belongs in the person's bio. If it's trivial (e.g. Simon freakin' Le Bon) then it doesn't belong period. This is not unlike a list of famous people practising Yoga. Wikipedia is not a tabloid and it's certainly not an aggregate of tabloids or human interests pieces. Pichpich (talk) 14:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re your "Simon freakin' Le Bon" job... why is that trivial? He has a fairly substantial Wikipedia entry; he and his celebrity wife both practice regularly at a very prestigious and well-regarded dojo in London (the Budokwai), and an article in the Telegraph was devoted to that fact, along with his fellow practitioners, William Hague and Kylie Minogue. Ahhhh... Kylie, I forgot to add the singing budgie to the list! --David Broadfoot (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The system works! Checking the reference, I noted that it said that Kylie "has had lessons" at the Budokwai. That is why I didn't include her on the list (not a strong enough association.) Same reason I deleted Mel Gibson off the BJJ list. Even though they are both fellow Australians. --David Broadfoot (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In many cases, it is in the person's bio. But it doesn't have to be in their bio to merit inclusion here because there may be to many more significant in the bio. Also, it may simply be a case of someone not getting around to including it in the main bio, where it in many cases night be included with consensus. There is a whole section on it in Putin's bio for example. As to your last comment, every bio is a human interest piece! --David Broadfoot (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete This is non encyclopedia, its a list of a trivial matter. The criteria for inclusion are vague and this list is just silly as a whole RogueNinja_talk 15:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep

"At the very least the title has got to change." - what do you suggest?
"But to a large extent, this is also original research" - I think it's mostly referenced, so it's not OR. It's a very new page so we haven't had time to improve the article with further references yet. Lists are definitely allowed on Wikipedia, and if you did not allow lists that were original in nature (what you are calling "original research here), then there would be very few lists allowed as lists are copyrighted (for example, telephone directories are copyrighted as a collection of data.) Therefore it would not be possible to obtain a list of anything from another source; unlike text, which can be sourced and rewritten, lists are copyright in themselves and therefore could not be used.
"and is a list with no clear rule for membership Who is a celebrity? Who is famous?" consensus will take care of that.
"How much judo experience do you need to have to qualify for the list?" Again, consensus will take care of that. For example, I removed Mel Gibson's entry from List of Celebrity Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu practitioners due to lack of experience and commitment to that sport.
"The list is fairly well referenced but still, it's a list with potentially a gazillion names" You could use that same argument to nominate for deletion all articles on Wikipedia - they all have the potential to grow to a gazillion words. Anyway, it won't happen. No-one has any interest in having an overly long list. As the list grows, less famous practitioners and/or those with less judo experience would be removed.
"and hardly seems to be worthy of an encyclopedia" Less worthy than List of Pokémon characters for example? Note that List of Celebrity Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu practitioners is a similar list that was also nominated for deletion and the nomination failed. There are numerous other similar lists of celebrity whatevers, and other lists that you might call OR but bring together well-sourced information into a cohesive whole. Whether or not it seems worthy is very much a matter of personal taste, of more interest to those who are interested in celebrities, and those who study judo (as is the entire judo article.) --David Broadfoot (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Jiu-Jitsu list was never the object of a debate at articles for deletion and I doubt it would survive. There is actually ample precedent for deleting these lists. See for instance Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of left handed people, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous bearded people, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous members of Mensa (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of men famous for being well endowed, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous smokers (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of iconic drinkers, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous people with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. I'm not a big fan of all the Pokemon stuff on the wiki but there are a few good points for it. One is that full lists of Pokemon can be created: it's clear what qualifies as a Pokemon character. There's a large but not unreasonably large number of them and the list on-wiki serves as a browsing tool for Pokemon-minded people. A place where it's easy to complete your understanding of Pokemon, if you so wish. This list does not help you understand judo. It's original research because by putting a name on it, you declare this or that person to be famous or noteworthy. Even if this is done by consensus, this is still the point of view of the consensus. Similarly, you're making a judgement call on Mel Gibson's commitment to Jiu-Jitsu by removing his name from that list. The problem is that the list is impossible to maintain without making arbitrary cut-offs for how famous/experienced/talented you have to be to make the list. It's also original research because it is an original aggregation of loose information. No such list of celebrity judoka practitioners exists (because, of course, the problems faced here would be faced by anyone). See the section in this essay about list membership criteria. Celebrity is inherently biased. See also this important part of WP:NOT: Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article. Pichpich (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The Jiu-Jitsu list was never the object of a debate at articles for deletion" - it must have been a less formal deletion motion; the deletion motion is referred to on the talk page for that article.
"There is actually ample precedent for deleting these lists. See for instance ..."' Those lists are not comparable. The effort and dedication required to be a drinker in no way compares to that required to be a judoka (W.C. Fields may be an exception!).
"One is that full lists of Pokemon can be created: it's clear what qualifies as a Pokemon character. There's a large but not unreasonably large number of them ..." By analogy, most articles on Wikipedia do not belong there because it is not clear which cited facts belong in the article, and which don't.
"This list does not help you understand judo." Well, the title of the page is not "Judo", and it does help people understand something about Judo.
"It's original research because..." All those arguments apply to just about every sentence in every Wikipedia article, and many other lists - that; not what OR means. You have also just made an argument against consensus on Wikipedia.
"No such list of celebrity judoka practitioners exists (because, of course, the problems faced here would be faced by anyone)." If I started a page called Celebrity Immigrants to the USA, you could make an identical argument about it, but I could point to such a list here. That list is just as impossible to create as the Celebrity Judoka list, yet it nonetheless exists (outside Wikipedia, on a reputable site.) Does it help you understand immigration? And you ignored my argument that if such a list existed, we would not be able to use it in Wikipedia. Catch-22!
"See the section in this essay about list membership criteria. "Celebrity" is inherently biased." "Celebrity" is defined in Wikipedia and in Wiktionary. Many terms are biased and just about every definition lacks concreteness, however, we still manage to use the language. List of atheists has been peer-reviewed and given B-Class status, yet they grapple with the same "bias" issue of what "notable" means. (Also, does it help you understand atheism?)
"See also this important part of WP:NOT: Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article." How is that relevant to the Celebrity Judo article? --David Broadfoot (talk) 08:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My advice would be to rename this "Notable persons who practiced judo"; describe it at the beginning as a list of persons who are well-known for other achievements, but who practiced judo; try to link a source to as many of the names as possible to clear up O.R. objections.

At he risk of not practicing what I preach, I'll add that whether you're arguing for a keep or delete, it's always good practice to avoid the temptation to go long on arguments. Whether it's a point-by-point rebuttal, or a long opening statement that anticipates every possible response, it inevitably backfires. Again, I think this is a worthwhile topic, the sourcing is good so far, and each article should be judged on its merits, not on "precedents" for similar lists that were kept or deleted. Mandsford (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks... I can rename it to something like that. I never liked the "celebrity" word anyway (I was just trying to be consistent with what others had done), as some of the notable people on the list are not what one would normally call "celebrities". "List of notable people who have learned judo" perhaps? --David Broadfoot (talk) 12:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —RogueNinja_talk 09:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and re-title per comments. Notable subject seems well sourced, and only to include people with articles, two good ways to keep any list from getting out of hand. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. JJL (talk) 19:22, 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. May be notable some day, but does not appear to be so now.--Kubigula (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamlike pictures[edit]

No significant notability asserted, nor any sources provided. Possible vanity. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, there is absolutely nothing here to establish notability. Beeblbrox (talk) 01:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I've moved it to Dreamlike Pictures, though, in case it comes back.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A few quick Google searches made it impossible for me to find any coverage per WP:N. It may be as a result of the name, but nothing suggests more extensive searching would result in any finds. SorryGuy Talk 21:25, 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 Transwiki'd to wikibooks. John Vandenberg (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

London Fog (beverage)[edit]

Totally unsourced and probably non-notable; badly-toned. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 19:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not sure about the validity of "badly-toned" as a deletion rationale, but the article is certainly unsourced and non-notable. Happy‑melon 20:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The information is in the main easy to verify without references. The article is, however, largely a recipe and would be better placed in Wikibooks. The beverage doesn't appear to have sufficient significance to make a clear case for an encyclopedia article.--Michig (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copy to the wikibooks cookbook. Think outside the box 14:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikify to cookbooks. SkierRMH (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikify. I agree with the two above me that this article probably does not meet our notability standards but that it is an appropriate topic for wikibooks' cookbooks. SorryGuy Talk 01:45, 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. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Dead Walk Diaries[edit]

Delete non notable per WP:BK Veritas (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The author isn't especially notable, and the only review I could find [19] is not from a reliable source, so it fails WP:BK Bláthnaid 21:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Bláthnaid 21:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Rather new, so not surprising that there isn't sufficient coverage yet.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:43, 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 keep.--Kubigula (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fank Edward Burnham Hughes (artist)[edit]

Delete as failed at WP:BIO and also WP:NOTE. A Google search returned absolutely nothing. Some off-line citations are mentioned in the article, but those citations are not enough to establish the fact that he is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 19:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, Surely it's FRANK not Fank! Whole article seems lifted from here http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:VULo2D7wtX0J:www.spook-software.com/hosted/wag/cat1.doc+%22Frank+Edward+Burnham+Hughes%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk, but maybe someone can find some more sources> i didnt have much luck either Vultureofbook (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article requires clean-up and a move to the correct title, not deletion. There are references embedded within ref tags that may not be immediately evident. Catchpole (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak, weak keep as there is some notability here but very few sources that I can find under any combination of his names (e.g. Frank E.B. Hughes). --Dhartung | Talk 05:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO; notability for creative professionals. It doesn't look as if his work has ever "been a substantial part of a significant exhibition" nor does it appear as if he is "represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries". If he does meet either of those criteria, I'd gladly change to keep.BWH76 (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Also exhibited 'Portrait by Lamplight' at the New English Art Club, unsure of year, but will find reference. Also illustrated published book covers. NEAC and the RA are arguably the most significant exhibition galleries in the UK.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Lquilter (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep Very new article. Not much so far, and estimates of £25-50 for small oils in the auction this week are not promising! (added - but see below)Johnbod (talk) 23:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's in the Dictionary of Artists in Britain since 1945 and I've added material and refs from that. Certainly not a major figure, but he seems to have achieved some repute. He's not just someone's favourite uncle whom the family want to commemorate. Article moved to Frank Hughes (artist) per naming conventions. Tyrenius (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems viable, per above. (The name change helps), - Modernist (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Johnbod, those sale estimates were smashed, most selling for around £300-£500. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.200.233.131 (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ok - fair enough. Johnbod (talk) 01:26, 1 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) 03:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Lost Tapes (Eminem)[edit]

No reliable sources to prove that this actually exists. "Cover" in the article looks like a bad MS Paint picture. May not be a hoax, but what is there to stop someone from throwing their iTunes playlist onto the internet and call it a "mixtape"? DarkAudit (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cover is a bad MS Paint (or similar) image. Described as "eminem the lost tapes cd cover i made myself". This is someone's homemade mixtape, certainly not notable. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mdsummermsw Mr Senseless (talk) 01:45, 31 January 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 Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skycell[edit]

Delete unsourced article about nn local cell phone company. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN Mr Senseless (talk) 01:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:16, 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 Keep. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 10:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Business College[edit]

Article about a private career college that has been speedily deleted several times as spam. Although more objectively written now, still non-notable. Mr Senseless (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as all colleges are presumed notable. Bearian (talk) 02:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just providing a listing that it exists is not enough to assume its notable. I could be swayed if an attempt at satisfying WP:N happens (but in this case I doubt it will happen). Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as all colleges are presumed notable. This is a College with objective information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjaffery123 (talk • contribs)
Keep - accredited tertiary colleges have long been accepted as notable. TerriersFan (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - all colleges are notable, regardless of the quality of the article.—Noetic Sage 22:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —Noetic Sage 22:02, 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: already has been speedy deleted, non-admin closure. Yng varr 22:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alastair Rathie[edit]

Delete as fails at WP:BIO. Initially I thought to tag this article for Speedy deletion as per A7 but later I changed my mind as the author is claiming this person as one of the most well known photographers in the world, he may have some reasonings behind this claim. But, still this unreferenced article lakes extremely at WP:BIO, WP:NOTE and WP:Verifiability. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 19:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Complete rubbish, and I quote has never eaten a cherry bakewell which is evident from the popular youtube video "alastair rathie headboy" He hasn't banged Hannah yet. Def. an A7 candidate as it's obvious nonsence. Lugnuts (talk) 19:38, 30 January 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 (WP:SNOW applies fine in this case). --Angelo (talk) 11:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Thomson[edit]

Disputed prod, no assertion of notability per WP:BIO, no references, not a lot to go on as to why this should be in Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. Absolutely nothing on google to show he has played a game. Peanut4 (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is not named in the official squad and there is little evidence that he even exists. --neonwhite user page talk 19:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He fails WP:BIO, isn't on a major team and hasn't played a game yet. Hatmatbbat10,a proud Wikipedian (Talk) 19:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's contradictory to say that he plays for a team yet he's never played. Contract problems mean he doesn't even have a contract to play in the future. For now, it seems as though this is an article written by the subject himself (Chrisfdwc2008 (talk · contribs)) and he's maybe in the process of negotiating with the team. Non-notable. SWik78 (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, not verifiable. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. D.M.N. (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and thanks to the creator for wasting everybody's time in creating it. Robotforaday (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-per nom and per what is above.TrU Co ⁹31¹ 22:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let it snow! Let it snow! Let it snow! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:49, 30 January 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 21:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. Lawrence Carbonization Plant[edit]

Non-notable abandoned industrial complex. Article reads like someone's personal exploration log of the complex. Frankly, it doesn't make much sense and it certainly isn't encyclopedic. No sources at all, not much context. May be copied and pasted from another source. Numerou warning tags have been ignored. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Urban explorer's guide for a non-notable place. Fails WP:V for lack of WP:RS. Also fails WP:NOT#GUIDE. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Although I would like to see an Article on Carbonization Plant, this may not be it. My web-search cannot satisfy WP:V. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:49, 1 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, AfD ran its full 5-day course without any deletion vote.--PeaceNT (talk) 03:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EICASLAB[edit]

This article has been speedy deleted twice on January 10 under WP:CSD#G11 and WP:CSD#A7, as evidenced by the messages left on creating editor's talk page. The newly re-created article states in the edit summary The text has been deeply revised including article citations and references from reliable sources. The vast majority of these reliable sources in the article link to the company's website, ie the sources are self published. This article is still blatant advertising except that the creating editor took some time to make the article look a little more encyclopedic to possibly avoid a third deletion. SWik78 (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the creator of this article is Gabriella Caporaletti, the president of the company selling this product [20]. SWik78 (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal of nomination - The creating editor has made the effort to fix the issues in question (ie, the official website, external references) and has demonstrated the importance of the subject. I withdraw my nomination. SWik78 (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caporaletti (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Dear SWik78(talk), thank you for your comments about the article EICASLAB. I understand your indications. Before to make new modifications, I would like to explain my point of view and I would like to ask you a further feedback that can help me to go in the right direction. I confirm you that I work at EICAS Automazione (I am the Director, not the President) and that I was the coordinator of the ACODUASIS Project, the European Project mentioned in the article from which EICASLAB was derived. The project was judged by the Commission as a "success story" and for this results the results of Projects were included in the Commission ICT website. Of course I do not have any intention to put in wikipedia an article as blatant advertising of a product. The fact is that EICASLAB is a laboratory that is used by European companies and industries (I have put references on that in the wikipedia article) and I think interesting and usefull for the scientific community to summarize in wikipedia the main information about EICASLAB. Concerning the references, it is possible to check in the article EICASLAB that the on line links at the EICASLAB web-site are mainly related to the ACODUASIS workshop: One step Further in Automatic Control Design. This workshop has been promoted by Camera Commercio of Torino, Torino Wireless, IRC Innovation Network (European Commission), APLS Innovation Relay Center, Politecnico of Torino and Unioncamere Piemonte. You can have evidence about that at Camera Commercio of Torino website workshop programme at Camera Commercio di Torino website and Torino Wireless websiteworkshop programme at Torino Wireless website, in which the workshop programme is included. Now, I thought more interesting for a reader to have available the full text of the article (which is available at EICASLAB web-site) instead that only the title available in the programme. In addition, by looking at the wikipedia article "MATLAB" (which is a product of the same type of EICASLAB), I have seen that a lot references are related to the company that sells such a product. So, I am a bit confused .... More in general, I would like to point out that all other links mentioned in the article EICASLAB are related to International Conferences and website of the European Commission. Many papers are written by university professors and industrial researchers of companies that used EICASLAB and included in the papers their own achieved results. What do you think about that? Thank you very much for your help. Gabriella[reply]

Caporaletti (talk) 17:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Dear SWik78(talk), thank you again for your comments about the article EICASLAB. As first reaction to your suggestions, I have removed from the article the links to the official website included in the reference list section. Furthermore, I have also removed the uncorrect behaviour of the EICASLAB website that you have indicated (thank you for that!). Now you can check that if you click that link to read more about EICASLAB you are able to leave the site by clicking the BACK button [21]. Concerning the content of the article, of course I can review again it. For instance I can include in the text some indications about the mathematical methodology adopted (in any case all the indications are available in the links to scientific papers that I have included). My problem now is to understand if it makes some sense that I review the text if it is not acceptable at all the fact that I am the director of EICAS Automazione. In my first intention, please be sure that I inserted the article not just for introducing an advertising of a product: EICAS is a small company, the software EICASLAB is very specific for the automatic control design field and the fact of being or not visible in wikipedia cannot modify the chances of the company to sell it. The fact for which I introduced the article in wikipedia was because the laboratory is now used by industries and research institutes and other similar laboratories, like MATLAB, Mathematica, Scilab are mentioned in Wikipedia and people often ask why EICASLAB is not mentioned. So I just wanted to open an article on this matter, thinking that other people external to my company could co-operate to increase the quality of the text. On the contrary, if it is not acceptable that I introduce this matter in wikipedia, of course I will accept the rules. Thank you again for receiving your feedback, Best regards, Gabriella[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depression and Biofeedback[edit]

Contested prod - prod (and prod2) were removed by the entry's author without discussion or improvements to the article. This is an essay written in the first person, and is not encyclopedic. Delete. Dawn bard (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking at the edit pattern, I suspect a copyvio, though I couldn't prove it. -- RoninBK _{T C} 18:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - First person blog entry-type garbage. Not a notable subject for an article and nothing worth merging. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not an encyclopedic article. --Nepenthessss (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Smells of copyvio to me as well, although I was also unable to find the source. In any case, this essay is uncyclopedic. —Travis ^talk 01:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 10:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above per Mdsummermsw; nothing worthy in the article even if it were well written. Mattisse 22:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete-unknown fringe balls, article probably designed to promote a theory, or even sell a gadget. Merkinsmum 22:35, 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 and Userfy. The contents will shortly be available to the author on a subpage, per author's request. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Entertainers (NUFC)[edit]

This article is largely POV and ought to be merged into the history section of Newcastle United F.C. Peanut4 (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close as invalid Afd nomination (Article creator) Stated reasons for nomination are not valid for raising an Afd under the deletion policy. No attempt has been made to highlight POV issues or opening a merge debate before rasing this Afd. MickMacNee (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- NB - it should be noted that MickMacNee is the creator of this article. Qwghlm (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hence the (brackets) in included :) MickMacNee (talk) 13:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's already sufficient mention of this period in the main club article. - fchd (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, otherwise I would not have created it. As already can be seen there is a question over whether it belongs in the club article or the history article. By definition duplication exists between club and history articles, there is precedent for a degree of duplication where it provides context to the subject of the article. Please assume good faith before passing summary judgement, you could not possibly have fully reviewed both articles for 'sufficient mention' in 1 hour. MickMacNee (talk) 04:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I could review both articles in an hour, I think it's you that perhaps needs to assume a little good faith. Yes, some of games in the first Keegan era were entertaining. But there is mention of this in the main Newcastle United F.C. article, to what I consider is sufficient detail in relation to other periods of the club's (or any other similar club) history. That's without even going to the sepearate History of Newcastle United article (which is horribly recentist in my opinion) where there is a couple of paragraphs relating to the period in question. If the relevant information already exists in two places, why start setting it out a third time? Sorry, but I see no need, no need at all, for a stand-alone article. So, not even a merge !vote, still a Delete, now verging to a Strong Delete. - fchd (talk) 08:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen any mention of the term recentist in any policy. By the very nature of Wikipedia you cannot and should not impose equal weight to each period of history, determining that X number of characters per decade is 'sufficient' coverage. The only relevant test for any notion of sufficient coverage is notability and verifiability. And if you want to compare the issue of duplication against other club articles, review the list here for toher examples where club history's are covered in 3 places, for very obvious reasons. MickMacNee (talk) 13:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Much of this article constitutes original research or point of view material about the attacking nature of the team and of certain players. The main factual thrust of what's being said can be adequately covered in History of Newcastle United F.C., with a summary of the period in Newcastle United F.C. and Kevin Keegan. Robotforaday (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The attacking nature of this collection of players is quite easily verifiable and is not original research. MickMacNee (talk) 04:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - mostly a POV essay masquerading as fact, and unnecessary dupllication. A (more) neutral account of the club's history already exists and so this is totally unnecessary. A single sentence in that article can suffice for mention of "entertainment" if need be. Qwghlm (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you say the same about the Invincibles article about your own team? In the context of football it is hard not to take any view such as 'a single sentence would do' as not being POV. MickMacNee (talk) 04:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not terrible fussed about that article to be honest. There is a crucial difference is that being unbeaten in a season is an objective fact, while the question of entertaining is subjective. Qwghlm (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As below, the entertainers tag applies to a specific media usage, so any subjectivity is down to their interpretation, which is perfectly fine to be reflected in WP, even if it was wrong or subjective. MickMacNee (talk) 13:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~or Merge~~ - As mentioned, a History of Newcastle United F.C. article already exists. Pairadox (talk) 03:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is a default keep vote MickMacNee (talk) 04:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a vote at all, it's a discussion. But if you insist... Pairadox (talk) 04:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further procedural objection - Expanding, stated reasons for nomination are invalid, premature in the extreme (1 hour), ignore all established discussion avenues, and as it transpires look to have been made in bad faith as per these statements [22] and [23] by the nominator. Afd page header: "For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." Additionaly, I do not belive Afd is a fair, usefull or even a common sense starting point for a discussion on neutrality when it concerns a topic such as football. Requests to merge are in fact default keep votes, not delete; the article subject is modeled on those listed here as definitive entities, distinct from club or history articles (even though merging is an invalid Afd topic). MickMacNee (talk) 04:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not going to let these almost slanderous comments lie without a right of reply. Whatever my feelings on Newcastle, that was never my reason for nominating it for AFD. I simply don't see how they deserve such an individual entry, but I feel they are worth mention within a combination (if not all) of Kevin Keegan, Newcastle United, and History of Newcastle United. You can look through all my combinations, and you won't find any of my edits based on anything than a neutral POV. I put my feelings aside when I'm editing. This is nothing but an afront on my character. I don't need to provide examples, but I will. As a Bradford fan, I'm not the biggest Leeds fan in the world, not at all. Yet I didn't just support the Leeds United A.F.C. seasons but actually helped get it to FL through a lot of hard work and difficult debate. My reason for nominating, whether correct or not, but that's why I brought it here, were in total good faith. Peanut4 (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then perhaps next time you won't leave such blatant contradictory and incriminating comments in discussions about a listing you are about to make. Rest assured any offence you feel in having your own comments pointed out, from a discussion you don't even see fit to alert me to before dumping the Adf listing and sodding off, is more than made up for in bad feeling from the hassle you have caused me. If you can't see that raising an Afd 1 hour after creation of what is a decent work with references and precedents elsewhere, without first placing any of the more appropriate tags on the article or even opening the talk page, then I suggest you review the deletion policy, the header at the top of the Afd page, and the general policies behind discussion, and how your actions effect other editors in what is an effort to represent information, not a contest for how fast you can destroy articles. MickMacNee (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You were alerted to the AFD by a bot something like 16 minutes after I nominated it, as happens anyway. And as I've pointed out my comments were absolutely nothing to do with my reason for nomination. Whether incriminating or not. Maybe I should have tagged the article rather than create the AfD. The bottom line is I still don't see how this is relevant but this debate (not my own individual feelings) will decide that. Peanut4 (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not a word-for-word duplicate (which is what AP:AfD is referring to). As for POV issues - if an article is inherently POV in its title or outlook, making it impossible to provide a neutral point of view, then deletion discussion is a valid option. Qwghlm (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to History of Newcastle United F.C.#The Keegan Revolution (1992 - 1997). No need for a separate article here. BLACKKITE 07:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Qwghlm. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be a notable term used in RS. There's no reason why this article shouldn't remain, as it passes our notability criteria. It can and should be linked using the ((main)) template from the club's history article/section. --Dweller (talk) 11:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a parallel to this - the extremely notable term "The Invincibles", referring to the The 1948 Aussie cricket team. In that case, the term (if it wasn't a disambig) would redirect to the main article because there should be only one article on the subject and they exactly match, without overlap. This is, in my opinion, noticeably different, in that there is no such exact match. This article should contain information about a specific, defined period of Newcastle's history and should do so in more detail than either the main article or History of Newcastle United F.C. should do. As such, it's a totally legitimate fork, based (as I said above) on a verified sobriquet. --Dweller (talk) 13:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment ah, now then, the Invicibles were a precisely defined set of people who achieved a precisely defined set of results. The Entertainers here are a group of players (who some may say are more or less entertaining than others) who played during an undefined period (the 1990s) who some commentators, including me, found "entertaining". It's a little subjective for my liking, despite the obvious notability of the term. I believe anything useful here should be merged into the main article or a history of NUFC (should one exist)... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm. I see your point. The article could simply take as its defined parameters the period of Keegan Mk I, but that is a little POVish, as initially they weren't particularly entertaining, any more than any other bunch of players languishing in mediocrity. --Dweller (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Exactly, I specifically tried to distinguish when the notariety came about separate to Keegans return i.e. he started out with a very bad squad, with arguable Cole and Beardsley being the start of the process (but not necessarily a chronolgical start point) for the use of the term. Also, the term also covers part of the Robson era, and Keegan MkII (III?) era. MickMacNee (talk) 13:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - And I object to phrases such as "The notable attacking players in The Entertainers teams included..." - who says they're notable? Why? What's the objective measure of "entertainment"? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Verifiability determines notability, it would be quite easy to provide articles and sources for every player mentioned being associated with the term The Entertainers teams. One objective measure of the term entertainment would also be the many citations that could be made, some I already provided in this initial draft. Dumping a whole article into Afd because you are concerned about one or two sentences is not exactly a fairly weighted response is it? This is what tagging and talk pages are for. In fact, the sentence is attacking players, not entertaining players. There are no redlinked player articles, so I think notability of players themselves is already established. The Entertainers tag comes from a media label, not my own POV of what is or was entertaining. MickMacNee (talk) 13:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response to merge. I am have a hard time visualising how this article fits neatly into a merge with the 1992-97 section of the history article for the following reasons:

This is not an article about historical facts in the same way, it is an article describing the use and existance of a particular term, how it specifically came about, and it's usage over time. This is distinct to general historical facts such as those included in the history section. You would not preclude separate documentation of aspects such as the stadium expansion, just because the facts are mentioned in the history article.
- But isn't this an encyclopaedia rather than an almanac? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, this article is about a notable group of players, and their achievements. Had I had the chance to see people's perceptions of it before this nomination, I could have easily reformatted it into a list of players and results, with a historical timelime or narrative as a footnote, if included at all. Specific dates are not even necessary in the sense of describing the subject, whereas the history article is a date listed narratiive.
- Define their achievements quantitatively. They were "entertaining". The Rambling Man (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article contains general facts and events that are not relevant to the history of NUFC in particular, such as the details about BSkyB and success of other clubs such as blackburn, but which are relevant to the article at hand.
- It would easily fit in a subsection of the NUFC article. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article contains a list of players notable by their association with the article subject, howevere these players were signed at different times, therefore any grouping of this nature is confusing and counter productive if placed in a narrative timeline.
- You chose that list. What criteria did you apply? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article covers sections of information in more detail than in the rest of the history article, which would mean inclusion in that article without dilution would become unbalanced and difficult to read. This however is not against any policy if it satisfies notability and verifiability on its own, as presumably the similarly supposedly duplicative articles such as the busby babes, crazy gang and the invincibles etc.
The article actually covers 3 different periods in the club history, Keegan, Robson and Keegan again, and ignores sections of the history irrelevant to the article subject. There is no way you can keep the concept of the article by splitting it across 3 places with irrelevant info in between, such as the Doug Hall or Ruud Gullit controversies.
On the general issue of duplication, as can already be seen there is disagreement over which article this content would actually belong in if merged, the main club article or the history article, I think that demonstrates there is not simple consensus over the general 'this does not need to exist, it belongs here', idea.
I have serious concerns over the impartiality of anyone claiming an NPOV stance over the importance/relevance of this article, as per the original nominators bad faith, and the issue that all early participants are project football members, without sufficient distance from the subject at hand (again, this would be an NPOV issue which is not meant to be addressed in Afd as a first point of call), although the likelihood of sufficent numbers of impartial voters seeing this in the 5 day period is also a concern, to settle what is a merge debate (again not an Afd subjsect).
Finally, I have real objection to having to discuss these points about what is a first revision of an article, it goes against all principles of article development in WP, and is why talk pages and requested move procedures exist. I accept the article may have issues and need revision, but to start that process in Afd is extremely irritating, hard to structure to gain consensus, and against all common sense. I re-iterate the original bad faith and extremely quick nomination as well, I don't think anyone would be happy at having to have this debate in Afd before they have ever discussed the article anywhere else. In my experience Afd discussion is not usually an in depth debate about content issues, and are usually summarily closed specifically ignoring content discussion, therefore it should be closed as bad faith and not listing valid reasons for deletion. MickMacNee (talk) 13:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Well I tend to agree on this point, it wasn't a bad article, so the AFD was premature in my opinion. However, now we're here, there's no time limit so let's discuss it in a centralised location. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to discussions about this subject prior to the creation of the article? I don't see anything at the history or main team article nor at the project page, and I find the calls for discussion after the fact (and "concerns" about POV, and trying to get this closed on procedure) to be a bit disingenuous in that light. Pairadox (talk) 13:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy that requires prior pre-approval of article ideas drafts before an article can be created, what there are however are definite policies on how and why you list an Afd, and how you resolve issues of content, such as POV and duplication. MickMacNee (talk) 14:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, no.

One of the reasons for deletion include "content forks," which this arguably is. There's certainly enough editors here who feel that it is, hence the recommendations to merge content. Pairadox (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably not true under the headings Related articles, Articles whose subject is a POV and Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles of things that are not Content Forks. MickMacNee (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion[edit]

After a discussion on my talk page, I am coming round to an idea on how to proceed: An admin closes this Afd with no prejudice as a redirect, and dumps the current version on my talk page. I will then stubbify the article to establish it's basic facts:

Title
Media coinage of term
Basic eras (Keegan I, Robson, Keegan II)
Players
Notable results
Keegan quote

and re-create it with all statements sourced. I don't know how long that could take, hence the need to close this Afd with no prejudice, and let me draft the stub in user space in my own time. Then, if anyone wishes, they can Afd the new article to achieve consensus on whether it should exist at all, In the mean time I will leave a note detailing this decision and a statement of intent not to expad until consensus is reached, and the article stays or goes. I am averse to even attempting to get the nominators permission as alluded to, given his comments about his general opinion of NUFC. Any admins willing to do this please make it known, or be bold and just do it. I make this suggestion in good faith and out of an unwillingness to debate for 5 days irrespective of the final outcome, when I should or could be contributing elsewhere. MickMacNee (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support a good compromise. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sort of thing is usually called Userfication. Pairadox (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aware of that, thanks, but I'm just saying it's a good compromise! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was meant for Mick. Pairadox (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the article does get re-created further down the line, it needs a new title, as "NUFC" means nothing to a non-football fan...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support of course. I'd be even more keen on the idea if you welcomed input at your userpages from some of the skeptics. --Dweller (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see why this can't be properly dealt with in the History of Newcastle United F.C. article, but it's your userspace, so feel free to work on it there if you think it's worth it. Robotforaday (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For all the reasons stated above and more - it deals with 3 different time periods, with subjects not appropriate for a history article (and the reverse), contains related wikilinks you would never find or expect to find in an NUFC history article, contains a player list that would not be appropriate for a history article, is not necessarily an article that needs a chronological format at all (which the history article rigidly is), covers a subject that has precedent with other football club articles for being split from main club and history articles, and has as a subject that is probably recognisable as notable to a whole generation of sports fans, who care not a jot about reading about jackie milburn (no offence to the man) and not read the history article. It's a no brainer to me, but then I have been forced to think about this way too much now because of this nomination, literally my original justification was obvious notability and basic precedent, so get it done and put it out there to be commented on and developed, I thought I had done a good enough job to be able to prevent an Afd tag after 1 hour straight off the bat. MickMacNee (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice and userfy, as per above suggestion and agreement of nominator [24] —Preceding unsigned comment added by MickMacNee (talk • contribs) 12:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I totally agree. Cos I still don't see why this article shouldn't just be in the History of Newcastle United with other mentions at Newcastle United and Kevin Keegan. Peanut4 (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I've given adequate explanation above as to why this deserves an article, and why it is not appropriate for the history article. All I will say then is, if you can't agree with those points, then why do you think the same can't be said for any article listed in Category:Nicknamed groups of soccer teams? I know it's a golden rule not to point to the existence of other articles in Afd, but I've always thought that was nonsense in a case like this. It is frankly not justifiably to discriminate against this article and not those, without applying a POV. Anyway, the agreement I refer to above is the agreement to userfy and delete without prejudice (i.e not dis-bar recreation, as outlined under Suggestion above). MickMacNee (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a great reason to nominate but the article still is poor. Agree with proposals to userfy as an option. Stifle (talk) 11:14, 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 Keep. <insert bad joke here about how resistance to Trekkie pages on wikipedia is, without question, futile.> Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resistance is futile[edit]

I do not believe the content of this article to be notable. The article describes a catchphrase attributed to characters in Star Trek, a catch phrase already noted on the article on the characters themselves. The references given are simply there to create a list of quotes, with no notability noted from other sources Alastairward (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Borg article. Ham Pastrami (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that therefore be Assimilate? -- RoninBK _{T C} 18:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify: merge the Borg quotes to the Borg article. That eliminates the charge of cruft for this article (though if you want to delete the Borg article, that's another question). Ham Pastrami (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Arctle clearly mentions it's use outside of and prior to it's use in the star trek universe. Therefore a merge would not be appropriate. It's common usage in the media is very easy to source [25][26][27][28][29]. Thought the article could easily be improved to include these. --neonwhite user page talk 19:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree that a merge is not much use here, there's precious little to the article other than to state that it was used before Star Trek writers used it and has been used elsewhere. A redirect to the Borg might be more appropriate, the link for the phrase "Resistance is useless" in the article redirects to the "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" article. Is there any significance to the use of this phrase in the media? Only one of the links provided actually shows the phrase being used with reference to the show's characters. Alastairward (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point, the phrase does not originate from the show, it was popularised by the show/film and has now achueved common usage unrelated to the show. --neonwhite user page talk 02:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going on what was in the article when I nominated it for deletion. It was poorly referenced only included quotes from within the show. They could probably be pruned and replaced with more references from the media. If there was an article noting its use by media outside Science Fiction magazines that would be ideal Alastairward (talk) 10:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The quotes from the show could be selectively merged to the Borg article if you don't want it in the proposed article. Or they could simply be edited out. Deleting the whole article doesn't seem like a reasonable first line of action. Ham Pastrami (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at the very least the phrase enjoyed a brief flurry of use at the height of the 2003 invasion of Iraq (due to an analyst's quote, I guess, but some in the media made Borg comparisons or at least mentioned Star Trek). --Dhartung | Talk 00:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there are numerous Google Books results showing its use (and ample discussion) in contemporary writing on domains ranging from parenting to Manifest Destiny. --Dhartung | Talk 00:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - The phrase has certainly achieved real-world recognition beyond the Star Trek fanbase, and probably a lot of people who know the phrase don't know its origin. --Lquilter (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... If only I could find a non-blog article about the Girl Scout Cookies advertisement that just showed two scouts holding up a box with the caption "Resistance is Futile"... -- RoninBK _{T C} 10:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a known and notable phrase. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've ascertained that it's a phrase that people recognise, we're just looking for cites outside science fiction circles. Perhaps if you have some, you could add them to the actual article Alastairward (talk) 09:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very culturally significant; I'm going to go about finding a few examples of where it has been used in reliable settings (for example, TIME, NYT). Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 00:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good if we could have some cites before the end of the discussion Alastairward (talk) 08:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I understand the nomination, and truthfully, it is difficult to find the kind of citations that would really improve the article. What I find, and others have cited, is a huge number of headlines of articles and blogs that contain the phrase. By sheer number, I think there is some notability here, however, I have no yet seen any references that comment on the phrase and would improve the article. Still, I cannot ignore these results. Xymmax (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, would it be acceptable to use a link to a google search? I agree that it would probably be difficult to find an all encompassing link for everything Alastairward (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean linking to a google search inside of articles, then that would go against Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided, 10: "Links to search engine and aggregated results pages." Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I meant, if it goes against the rules then we can do without. I'll probably change my nomination of deletion now to a weak keep. It seems like a hard phrase to prove as with other articles as popular, but the arguments seem to indicate it's reasonably well known and we've provided proof on this page at least. I take it a link is kept to this discussion on the talk page afterwards? Alastairward (talk) 09:13, 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 Its not sourced, mostly original research and not encyclopaedic. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of mnemonics for star classification[edit]

Ok some of them are pretty funny but the page is totally unencyclopedic and nothing is, or could possibly be, referenced. Has to be deleted. Greatestrowerever (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to agree with GRE's nomination. This is completely non-encyclopedic, vio.'s WP:NOT and WP:V. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the creator of this article. The verifiability of this list does not seem to be applicable. Ask yourself: Is this a mnemonic for star classification? If so, it is! Verifiability with external sources would be more applicable for a list of French monarchs as it would not be self-evident. I did re-read the "Wikipedia is NOT" page and did not find the clause you are referring to. Does encyclopedic content mean "Does Encarta have a similar article?" If so, I would like to point to the fact that Wikipedia currently has 25 more times articles than Brittanica (the next biggest English encyclopedia). Stellar mnemonics, by the way, are taught in any introductory astronomy course, and I would have no objection to similar lists. Would you? cprompt (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I posit that you do not need to verify a mnemonic and that the content is not unencyclopedic. EvilTeaCup (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)— EvilTeaCup (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete — this appears to be a completely non-notable subject, and has no sources verifying any of these terms, or asserting their notability. Contrary to the above assertion, such sources are required to prevent original research — such as my newly coined meme "Oh Bad Articles; Forget Getting Kept, Methinks Lovingly". --Haemo (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but discard what is not sourceable. Some of these have a long history, others are WP:NFT. The page may have originated as a variation of this. --Dhartung | Talk 23:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Old bullshitters and fucking goofball kids...Merge to mnemonics. Every good boy does fine, may I have a large container of coffee, my very elegant mother just sat upon nine... never mind, Pluto is not a planet anymore. There is probably one that was the original, and all the rest are one-upsmanship. Worth an entry in the main article, but all the variations on OBAFGKM are not worthy of an entire article. Mandsford (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is encyclopaedic and there are an infinite number of mnemonics for star classifications, the important factor is what is the criteria needed before they can be placed on the list, until a firm criteria is present I'm for delete. --Sin Harvest (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as criteria goes, how does this sound? Mnemonics related to "current" events are removed (no more Bill and Monica), and the list is kept short, with no more than 40% of the mnemonics unsourced. cprompt (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmmmm No that doesn't sound to good (having said that this is beginning to delve in to personal opinions). It doesn't "cut it" for me because the current events criteria only determines what doesn't belong there not what does belong there. The 40% unsourced thing helps thing along as that mean that the majority of the mnemonics is referenced but I have a strong feeling that you will end up with heaps of stupid/unnotable/etc mnemonics sourced from textbooks that authors strung up on the spot. --Sin Harvest (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the "original" mnemonic is very notable[30] and should be mentioned in appropriate articles, most of the mnemonics on this list seem just made up. --Itub (talk) 17:26, 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. Only one source provided, and it is not in depth. John Vandenberg (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Kopta[edit]

May be locally notable, but not to the level that warrants an encyclopedia article. One local newspaper story and a couple of YouTube videos are insufficient evidence of notability per WP:BIO. DarkAudit (talk) 17:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete isn't notable on a national scale, doesn't deserve an encyclpedia article. Hatmatbbat10,a proud Wikipedian (Talk) 19:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I went looking in WP:BIO, thinking surely I have missed the area where it talks about national notability required, and lo and behold, it's not there. Instead, what's there is information about independent sources. This person has them, so therefore, meets WP:BIO. Local history is still history; we write about the history of cities, neighborhoods, streets, and so on, even if the streets have not been heard about "nationally". If I'm missing something here, please feel free to point out the appropriate policy; otherwise, this appears to be keep based on multiple independent sources that are included within the article. --Lquilter (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Multiple? Where? The admitted source for the article was a single Post-Gazette story. YouTube is generally not considered a reliable source. If there is a more reliable repository for these videos than YouTube, than I'll reconsider. Until then, there is a single newspaper story as the basis for this article. That does not meet WP:BIO guidelines. DarkAudit (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Strong Keep. If the story is lacking in sources, then there is an appropriate tag for articles that appear to be from a single source. I'm at a loss to understand why the article wasn't tagged as such. I also disagree with DarkAudit's assessment of the YouTube videos. This was one of the few times Pat was captured on video. In the case of a person who is missing and presumed dead, I think you must take that into consideration. This was a notable person that THOUSANDS of people knew about and ran into every day, and is an notable part of Pittsburgh city history. I recommend that this article not be deleted - and that the single source tag be added to the article (which is what should have been done in the first place). NickBurns (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Like I said above, if the videos had a different source than YouTube, like say one of the local TV stations or the Carnegie Library had a copy. Beyond that, it's still one story from one paper on one day that is the primary source. People go missing every day. It's a tragedy, but not encyclopedic. DarkAudit (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment But you don't delete an entire article because it only has one source, especially when that source is a reputable, verifiable one. THIS IS WHY WIKIPEDIA HAS A SPECIFIC TAG TO ADD TO ARTICLES THAT SAYS, "THIS ARTICLE APPEARS TO COME FROM A SINGLE SOURCE". The first action that you should have taken in reference to this article is to add that tag. To jump right to deleting the article is, well, deletionist. Also, this was not just a person off the street. You appear to think that Ms. Kopta's notability is related to her disappearance. Much of the point of the article is that she was a notable figure in Pittsburgh for many years. NickBurns (talk) 12:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Keep This should be tagged as coming from a single source and not deleted. Whether the videos are or aren't considered a reputable source (I feel as though they are), their content does suggest that she was notable in the region, and there's nothing in Wikipedia's policies to indicate that "national notability" is a requirement; from that point on it's a matter of opinion.VertigoXpress —Preceding comment was added at 15:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It does require multiple sources, however. A single source like the one PG article does not meet WP:BIO. Tagged as "single source" or not, it still does not meet guidelines. An AfD will attract many more eyeballs to an article than a simple tag would. Who would even know that the article existed if it was merely tagged? If not for the random article button, I would never have found it myself. DarkAudit (talk) 15:34, 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 Keep - nom withdrawn (non-admin close). —Travis ^talk 01:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cunduacán[edit]

Delete. It's a small town consisting of 10 villages. Article doesn't have any indication of notability or importance. A Google search results with some maps and minor information but there is no such significance that allows this town to have a standalone article on WP. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 17:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All towns are notable. --Eastmain (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or prehaps even Speedy Keep All towns are notable and this one has a population of over 80000.--Greatestrowerever (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2008 (GMT)
Keep - - "It's a small town consisting of 10 villages" is actually a reason to keep the article. Towns/villages are inherently notable. --Oakshade (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Oakshade. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question:Do you (who went with a keep) think it should have a standalone article? -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 18:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. Thanks for participating in this lively discussion. Cheers. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 19:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article in the Spanish Wikipedia at es:Cunduacán has a lot more information that could be added to this article. --Eastmain (talk) 19:23, 30 January 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aks (Producer & DJ)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Aks (Producer & DJ)

Delete as per WP:BIO. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 16:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not establish notability. Content looks like a self-contribution or other conflict of interest. Also, the wiki markup is very broken, though that could be fixed. Ham Pastrami (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've fixed the markup, but could find no significant coverage, or other evidence of notability.--Michig (talk) 22:16, 30 January 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 Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BabyDevelop[edit]

Stub with no references or assertion of notability. Article has had less than 50 edits since creation in Oct 2006, and no discussion. Has been tagged with Template:Notability since Sep 2007. Ham Pastrami (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable third party sources and I can't find any either.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:18, 30 January 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 dictum de omni et nullo. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC) (note: I also created a redirect for Dictum de nullo.) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dictum de omni[edit]

Delete or Merge with an appropriate article. An unreferenced and unconventional research/observation. It seems like an original research of the author or at least partially. Notability is questionable. So, as per WP:NOTE, WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:OR nominating this article for deletion. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 16:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge, tending towards keep. Plenty of reliable sources exist if you want to look for them (Google Books, Google Scholar maybe?). It doesn't look like original research to me in particular either, so I'm going to have to say that I don't understand the rationale for deletion used by Niaz. Perfectly reasonable topic for inclusion in an encyclopedia.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I have done philosophy academically, so I do understand how stuff like this works. For comparison with an article I created before I became an experienced Wikipedia editor, dispositional and occurrent belief, yes it may be obscure outside that particular field but there are plenty of academic citations that could be used to make it pass WP:V and WP:N, same as this article.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am really sorry if I hurt you by saying unreferenced or unverifiable content. Actually, I am not from this background and don't have enough specialist knowledge to understand them. As WP says, Wikipedia is not truth, is verifiability; as a user's point of view I have to say it doesn't verify its content. It would be really nice if you kindly add some proper citations, may be off-line, as there is no hard and fast rule that all the citations has to be on the world wide web. In addition, I think it should be written properly otherwise some other Wikipedian may tag it for AfD. And last but not the least, I am not against this article or its content. If it really deserves to be here, it will. At the end of the day we are working for the betterment of Wikipedia. Cheers. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 19:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since when is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy not a reliable source? This isn't some web page a student slapped up. --Dhartung | Talk 23:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The content for the entry Dictum de omni has been moved over to that of Dictum de omni et nullo. --Burket | Talk 13:05, 31 January 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. John Vandenberg (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manissery[edit]

Delete as per WP:NOTE. A small town famous for a movie shooting (unreferenced) can not deserve to have a standalone article on WP. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 16:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Places (at least towns) are notable irrespective of size. See WP:OUTCOMES. I understand that there may not be much to write, but we keep these articles. Xymmax (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All towns, villages, and municipalities are notable. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and the nom should consider withdrawing this. I will assume that he was acting in good faith, but he seems to have nominated some fairly valid articles for deletion, such as Dictum de omni and ~~Bango (cannabis)~~.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - h i s, with due respect to your activity I have to say you are not playing with good faith. Just go and see what I wrote just few min back at the entry of your loving article. You became desperate and commenting keep wherever you are finding it suitable. Unfortunately there are some articles (nominated by me) where you can easily place a delete but you didn't. Moreover, you tried to mislead people's concentration by providing wrong information that I have nominated Bango (cannabis) for deletion which is not true. I didn't expect this behavior from the person who receive AfD Burnstar as the first Wikipedian. Cheers. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 19:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise about the bango (cannabis) error.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do also apologize as I found you at one of my nominations voting for deletion which actually proved me wrong to some extent. Let's forget everything and SMILE. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 19:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article would be better with improvements, but it meets notability as a place. matt91486 (talk) 01:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per Xymmax and Tim Q. Wells. BWH76 (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as this alleged town has no entry in the 2001 Census of India, is entirely unreferenced, and is believed to constitute a hoax. John254 00:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, note that a search for "Manissery" with the "Population Finder" dialog on the current Census of India website likewise produces no results, which supports the contention that this supposed town does not exist. John254 01:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are several references to a Manissery in Kerala on Google here, and several more if the spelling is altered to "Manisseri." I haven't listed those since I'm not absolutely certain it's the same thing. I do, however, see references to phone codes for Manissery and address listing including it. I find nothing surprising about a small town not receiving its own census listing - presumably those people were counted as a part of a larger unit. Is the census data the only reason you think it's a hoax? Xymmax (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Xymmax above, I see no reason to believe it is a hoax. And seeing as it is not a hoax, it has automatic notability. SorryGuy Talk 21:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Rives[edit]

Potential WP:HOAX. Googling only yields 55 hits; article makes claims of a great deal of notability, but cites no sources. Also, Amber Rives(Model) redirects to this page, and it too should be deleted. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: redirect created by page move. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I know, I just wanted to make sure that it gets included here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Typically redirects are found by the admin deleting the original. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided... Keep for now?- elements look hoax like, but most of the claims to fame appear to stem from association with Aliyah, the rest could be discounted as meaningless cameos and so on, except the "Billboard top 100 song", which I am not familiar enough with to know if it should be on the net, or if it's noteworthy... could there be a spelling error in the name, or can someone try a variation search with Aliyahs name? I would just like some evidence before it gets toasted.JJJ999 (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

add on- I note here Amber Rivers is a model, could this be the confusion? http://www.smoking-models.com/volume_22_preview.htm JJJ999 (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Googling for "Amber Rives" Aaliyah yields only one hit, which is some social networking site. Anyone who has written songs for the huge list of performers listed under "Music" would yield more than 55 hits, don't you think? It also says that she starred in a handful of movies, but there's no IMDB listing for her. On the IMDB listing for "How I Met Your Mother," there's no one listed with the first name Amber or the last name Rives. As for your last addition, Googling for that name alongside Aaliyah yields three hits, none of which have to do with anything. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more inclined to believe a skewed sense of noteworthiness than a hoax per se... some friend of Aliyah's desperately trying to assert noteworthiness... which may not exist, and could justify deletion, however I'd really like the author to explain themselves... because google is not the be-all and end all, and there might be something if the exaggerations they've obviously made were removed. I know a few would be celebrities who massively exaggerate their supposed careers, this smacks of something similar.JJJ999 (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I think that this is a hoax. "In 2007 alone after earning around $30 million, it is reported that she donated more than 60% to various charities"? Had she either earned anything close to this amount or donated approximately $18 million to charities, she would be all over the internet, newspapers, magazines, tv, etc. Also, "In 2007 Amber Rives received an honorary award for her achievements in songwriting after a record 12 of her songs went to number one on the Billboard Hot 100." She has not had ANY Billboard Hot 100 hits in either 2006 or 2007.BWH76 (talk) 16:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeh, it's looking bad... I'd still like to hear from the author...JJJ999 (talk) 04:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: JJJ, it's been a few days now, and still no word. Thoughts? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Kill it.JJJ999 (talk) 02:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Rives is a model,she was in music videos for Bobby V,Tracy Byrd& Justin Timberlake,but I'm unsure how to use references,is it just a http:address that you put in.When I entered youtube video of her it rejected it?Asia'h E (talk) 15:05, 23 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 Chuck (TV series). I will copy the material over to the parent article in the appropriate section. Anyone interested (not me) should trim it down to citable material. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural references of Chuck (TV series)[edit]

Original Research, uncited claims ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 16:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Merge as context doesn't have enough notability to have a standalone article on WP. A redirect pointing towards the original article may solve this issue. Cheers. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 16:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Merge into the original article with a redirect per above. Totally NN as a stand-alone. Doc Strange (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the whole section is trivia, uncited, non-notable, and original research. This belongs on a fansite, not Wikipedia. ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 21:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear God, please don't let "Chuck" be the next "Family Guy" or "Simpsons". We don't need any more shows with sly cultural references. Mandsford (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Chuck episodes rather than to the TV show article itself. That seems the most obvious solution, since this is about specifics in each individual show. No need to delete the information, just redistribute it. I commend the fans of the series for not trying to create individual episode articles. By comparison, fans of Family Guy and the Simpsons don't have that type of self-control, resulting in (not kidding here) a reference to the Simpsons in an article about Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany, or to Family Guy in a reference to Feodor Dostoevsky. Spin offs can come as new seasons develop. Mandsford (talk) 12:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Burn with cleansing fire - completely indiscriminate list of meaningless trivia. "This one time on this one TV show this guy said this thing" is not the basis of an encyclopedia article. Otto4711 (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think someone used up our last batch of cleansing fire the other day, but some more will be delivered some time tomorrow afternoon. Mandsford (talk) 17:22, 31 January 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Crook (Uk)[edit]

A non-notable reserve team player. Has never played for the first team of a senior club. JD554 (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok i understand but he has been included in the squad twice and trains with the first team i feel he will break into the squad shortly

however i am creating this page for a homework project so if i t can stay i would be grateful! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajonic (talk • contribs) 16:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete contestant for prod. Totally fails WP:BIO Peanut4 (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet any form of notability requirement. And disbelief that schools are apparently setting the creation of WP articles as homework projects........... ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (non-afd related tangent) - you'd be surprised... (and yes I checked there that this is not an official School/Uni Wikipedia project) Nanonic (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unfortunately reserve team appearances in a minor cup do not count for notability. Sorry but there is no reason Wikipedia should have an article on this player yet - Dumelow (talk) 23:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia at this time per [WP:BIO]]. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ok delete for now then untill he starts playing even tho hes on bench tonight! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.168.1.245 (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until he makes his full professional debut, King of the North East 20:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just a kid. Punkmorten (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, nothing cited, fails WP:BIO ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 13:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom BanRay 16:27, 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 Withdrawn by nominator. -Djsasso (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Crook[edit]

Non-notable reserve team player who has never played for a notable first team. JD554 (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. The article of a notable US football (soccer) player had been overwritten (Diff). Original article now restored. --JD554 (talk) 16:03, 30 January 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 tag refimprove. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sholf[edit]

Non-notable game; article created in order to promote a company's product (see talk page). Article's creator Phauber (talk · contribs) shares a name with the company's contact person (Paul Hauber). While not written as an advertisement, the article is only here to promote the product. Precious Roy (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could only find one reference to Sholf other than online shops, and that was from the Hudson Reporter[31], which is fairly local to where the game was invented. It needs more coverage before it can justify an encyclopedia article.--Michig (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Precious Roy wrote: Article's creator "Phauber" shares a name with the company's contact person
I'm not trying to hide that. I disclosed that here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sholf
Michig wrote: It needs more coverage before it can justify an encyclopedia article
How about an entire 1/2 hour television show[32] devoted to Sholf and the good it is doing to the community? It isn't 20/20 but still :-).

Either way... Ya'll know what's best so I'll understand. I respect your work and will try again in the future.
Best, Phauber (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The TV show may help, but verifiable details of the channel that it was on and when it was broadcast would help. Some coverage outside of NJ would help too. If the coverage is out there, I would be happy to support keeping the article.--Michig (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response. The TV Show is called "Spotlight NJ." It is a show on the NJ version of News_12_Networks. The show is hosted by Della Crews[33]. This can be verified by seeing the News 12 logo after the first 6 seconds of the video[34] (and that is probably all you'll want to watch, for it is a borefest if I do say so myself). Verifiable details of when it was broadcasted can be found doing a browser search of "sholf" on this page[35] (Dates: July 14 & 15, 2007). Don't have coverage outside of NJ just yet, but should soon... so like I said... I'll try again for a wiki page in the future if this isn't sufficient. Regards, Phauber (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Notability in this case sucks as a criteria for inclusion. It has had some third-party coverage (enough? - I don't know). I'm for giving it a chance and tagging it with ((refimprove)). The sources you found need to be added to the article by the way (otherwise, it's a delete). Enviroboy^Talk_Cs 03:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response from the game's and article's creator: I'm for giving it a chance too :-). I added my (limited) third party references to the article (i hope my formatting is correct. I've tried hard to follow the standards). Are they enough? I'll let ya'll decide. I use and love wikipedia much so I wouldn't want to an article not meeting the criteria to be here. So do the right thing. Please provide more feedback. Thanks - Phauber (talk) 06:51, 2 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. I was a participant in this AfD, but given the unanimous agreement as to this outcome, I went ahead and closed this out. Non-admin close. Xymmax (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attichitcuk[edit]

Article on a NN minor character written up like a biography. No references, particularly no discussion of this particular character in reliable, third-party secondary sources. Fails WP:FICT and our most basic content policies in every aspect. I wouldn't want unilateral redirecting to the appropriate articles or lists, so I decided to set up this discussion. Please note that deleting (or redirecting) would mean salvaging verifiable information from the current articles as appropriate, with no prejudice to future creation or splitting off iff third-party sources can be found to reference necessary real-world context that is currently missing from all of these articles. User:Dorftrottel 10:47, January 30, 2008 10:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This debate is meant to also include the following articles which have the same basic problems.

A

B

C

D

E

Exar Kun

G

H

Hermi Odle

I

IG-100 MagnaGuards

J

Q

Queen Jamillia

K

L

Luminara Unduli

M

P

Q

Quinlan Vos

R

Revan

S

T

U

Ulic Qel-Droma

V

W

Y

As far as I can tell, all of these are articles about characters of low to zero real-world notability outside of fan circles. But I'm not an expert, so please point out any erroneous inclusions as well as missing inclusions. I decided to leave out some articles like e.g. IG-88, Jango Fett or Kyle Katarn where despite their shortcomings efforts have been made to include at least some real-world perspective and thereby justify the existence of a separate article. This list was assembled from List of Star Wars characters, sorted by first letter of article name. Also note that I personally tagged some of these back in September 2007, without much effect. And although there is no deadline, it seems very unlikely that any of these can be rewritten as proper encyclopedic articles. The main overall problem I see here is that some fail to see that while we're trying to assemble an encyclopedia of all human knowledge, we cannot achieve this by recreating and mirroring the inner logic and semantic connections of a fictional universe.

Please note that I purposefully didn't mark the other articles as up for deletion, because the compromise to merge and redirect them into the appropriate main articles or lists appears far more viable and capable of winning a ~~majority~~ consensus. User:Dorftrottel 12:41, January 30, 2008

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep By default. There's simply too much here to be decided by one Afd. Possibly some of these could be merged into the various list articles that already exist, but I doubt any of them are strong candidates for outright deletion, and the notability levels are distinctly uneven: a nomination that includes both a random stormtrooper (TK-421) and a major character (Count Dooku) is fundamentally unworkable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. Per above, absolutely no way to fairly consider the merits of approx. 75 pages at once. Xymmax (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons given above. I decided to check one of the entries at random, TK-421, and much to my surprise, it does have a discussion of the cultural effect of this character outside the original movies. --Itub (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for the love of gawd, Relist separately! (launches a volley of snowballs at the nom) -- RoninBK _{T C} 19:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- and, for now, bureaucratic keep -- I struck Saul Karath since I redirected that article; I think some of these others can similarly be redirected, and I'll make a point to spend some time continuing to do that. I agree with the other comments that there are too many here with too much disparity -- movie or EU appearance? merchandised or no? protagonist or background character? -- to effectively examine. I suggest redirect and prods for those that the nominator deems appropriate, and encourage separate AfDs (not necessarily individual, but a little more discerning) for the stragglers after prod expiration. --EEMIV (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, three of the articles listed above and "nominated" for AfD do not have an AfD tag on them. No way they can go through this process without those tags. --EEMIV (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then. Withdrawn by nom. User:Dorftrottel 19:59, January 30, 2008

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah B. Harwell[edit]

Article looks like a self-promotion (and as such, a conflict of interest), as it was created by Adobepalm. The account's only post was creating this page thus far, and it states in the text the Deborah Harwell is CEO of Adobe Palm. I am uncertain if this meets notability guidelines; article says she's a "television personality", but I can't find anything to that effect; she does air on a local talk radio show at WRNN 99.5FM in the mornings, but it's only local, not national, and I don't see wiki articles for her co-personalities. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no attribution of notability to independent sources. Note that her company is this and no relation to Palm, Inc. or Adobe Systems. --Dhartung | Talk 00:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not see any reliable sources that lead me to believe that she passes WP:BIO. SorryGuy Talk 01:34, 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 John Vandenberg (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Summers-Dance Dance Dance[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC: compilation album with no claims of notability. Wyatt Riot (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got a few edit conflicts but I thought that everything went through. My apologies. Wyatt Riot (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - compilations are not per se notable. Bearian (talk) 22:34, 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 Merge John Vandenberg (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chicago Bears starting quarterbacks[edit]

Not enough context and does not show relevance. Should at most be merged with Chicago Bears Jdchamp31 (talk) 02:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - That's because it's under construction. The full list is being added as we speak. These lists are not uncommon among NFL team articles. Please see List of Indianapolis Colts first-round draft picks, Kansas City Chiefs starting quarterbacks, and New England Patriots seasons to name a few. Pats1 ^T/C 02:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Should be merged with the Chicago Bears (NFL) team listing because it is directly relevant Jdchamp31 (talk) 02:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Totally agree with Jdchamp31, this article needs to be merged with The Chicago Bears. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 03:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Chicago Bears players - There's already a more complete and detailed starting QB list in the article. --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 04:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think it should be merged to the Chicago Bears. Burner0718^{(Jibba Jabba!)} 23:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pats1, those articles you just listed should be merged too. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 04:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which would create an unnecessarily long main article, then causing the articles to be split off again. Quite simply, these types of articles have been common practice for quite some time now. See History of the New England Patriots and New England Patriots strategy and Indianapolis Colts draft history too. Pats1 ^T/C 12:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about merging them with the main article. Create a template then add them to the List of Chicago Bears players page. And do the same with the other examples on your list. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 14:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the examples I'm citing aren't just traditional lists - they're full-fledged articles. You can't make templates from those. Or, in the case of Indianapolis Colts draft history, the template would be way too long. Pats1 ^T/C 23:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You got me there. But I believe that in the case of this article there is a clear consensus for this article to be merged. Oh, BTW, get a combine and we'll go race the Amish. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 23:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I've seen you say that before. Pats1 ^T/C 23:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Pats, please check RC's dictionary on his userpage. :-D Burner0718^{(Jibba Jabba!)} 23:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now that I think about it, in kansas city's case, a template would do rather nicely. I'll have to talk to conman about that. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 23:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, now that I look, we do have that template. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 00:17, 1 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, no need for further input, this satisfies WP:CSD#G11. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 10:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remote Shopping Event[edit]

Appears to be WP:Spam in clever disguise; see the bottom ~~two~~ sections of article for details Pgagnon999 (talk) 04:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Walks like Wikipedia:OR, talks like Wikipedia:OR, quacks like Wikipedia:OR. Additionally I know it is not official policy but when you get to reading the whole article as a unit, Wikipedia:VSCT is a term that I believe applies here. --Darkprincealain (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:40, 30 January 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, which defaults to Keep. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Predator technology[edit]

Article lacks references to secondary sources. Lacks any information about real-world notability, or even development, special effects, critical reaction, etc. At its best points, this article is simply plot summary; at its worst, it contains synthesis and original research. --EEMIV (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —--EEMIV (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki to a more suitable location (wherever that may be). The article is unverifiable/unnotable fancruft, but at least it's very well-written fancruft.... --jonny-m t 16:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per EEMIV and Jonny-mt. Also, the article is overloaded with images, which I've tried several times to delete, but other users keep wanting to add them, but I didn't want to bother with a dispute. — Enter Movie (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I'm working hard on this. Justs needs more references and cleansing of fan-crap.Dark hyena (talk) 11:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While your recent edits are improvements, the article is still in-universe plot summary. Rather than looking for citations for the medpack's contents, what the article really needs is information on these props' design, development, marketing/merchandising, etc. Please see WP:WAF. --EEMIV (talk) 12:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see your point, but surely now the need to delete the article altogether is gone. All non encyclopedic and unsourced opinons have been removed. The only template required in my view now is the "re-write" one.Dark hyena (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - While a remarkable improvement with the removal of speculation and original research, the article still does not meet the WP:WAF call for information on these fictional items' real-world development, critical response, merchandising, etc. The words "director," "producer," "response," "develop," "product," and "merchandise" do not appear in the article. The addition of citations is laudable, but substantiate only plot summary, which is insufficient for an article about a fictional topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EEMIV (talk • contribs) 15:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Is there anyone here with "a making of" DVD of any of the films? Would adding the design history of the technology in Stan Winston studios make any difference?Dark hyena (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - EEMIV, then the article is no longer a legitimate candidate for deletion according to the rules you are bringing up. It's now a matter of cleanup. You really should withdraw your nomination and allow editors to clean up the article. The article satisfies notability, and is well referenced. Malamockq (talk) 05:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there are no secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside of. The article is comprised of plot summary with an in universe persective, which means it falls outside the scope of Wikipedia. This is perfect example of fancruft that is better suited to the Annex.--Gavin Collins (talk) 12:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well organized and referenced article concerning a memorable and notable aspect of a major fictional franchise. Great job on the improvements! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dark Hyena. If he is working on it, let him work on it RogueNinja_talk 08:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deleting this page doesn't make much sense. This was created because the Predator (alien) article was becoming too big. The article is well referenced, and is all legitimate information from the various movies, comics, and videogames. This article needs clean-up, not deletion. Let the editors work on it. Malamockq (talk) 05:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in order to provide a coherent and unified presentation of the material, which transcends the level of the individual parts. But the amount of detail is sometimes excessive, and the writing diffuse. The article needs editing. A great many video articles need extensive editing, having been written with more enthusiasm than skill. such problems can of course be solved by removing them all, but this would also apply to the content of much of WP. Most of it probably needs extensive upgrading and rewriting--as often expansion as condensation, and the quickest way to do it would be to throw out all substandard content regardless of the importance of the subject. Citizendium did just that in its first few months: it originally forked the 99% of WP for which it did not have articles, and then removed all of it that had not be at least partially rewritten. It's now 95% red links, but they think it an improvement for their purposes. They won't ever have much video or game content, either. Our purposes here are a little more comprehensive.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bulimaw[edit]

Contested prod; removed by author without explanation. Non-notable video game company. Googling yields zero hits; article fails WP:V and WP:RS. Also borders on WP:HOAX. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (as above)Rotovia (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, HelloAnnyong puts the reasons quite well — alex.muller (talk • edits) 17:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found this in Random Articles. If it wasn't nominated I would have done it myself. Wheresthechicken (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's analysis. Doctorfluffy (talk) 04:07, 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. Fram (talk) 12:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guilherme Schröter[edit]

Autobiography of a Brazilian musician. Is he notable? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the real inventor of the piano now? STRONG DELETE Rotovia (talk) 14:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For God's sake delete. SethTisue (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed this whilst doing a new page patrol: Whilhelm Schroter. Thought I'd better mention it here? Sting au Buzz Me... 01:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also has links at the side for German, Portuguese and Swedish language articles but nothing there when you follow the links. Could AfD both together? Looks like someone trying to claim notability via family connections but no real WP:RS put forward? Sting au Buzz Me... 01:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I redirected the new page to the old one. Feel free to undo if this is inappropriate for me to have done. SethTisue (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Probably not inappropriate under the circumstances? As long as the redirect is deleted too if the result turns out delete for this one? Sting au Buzz Me... 07:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. Article as is fails WP:BLP. Major contributor of this may have COI issues? Claims of notability via family associations doesn't work. Looks like trying to make a Linkfarm with all those family member red links? Sting au Buzz Me... 07:42, 1 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 04:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny Silver Hammers[edit]

Incomplete nomination. 24.193.61.236 (talk · contribs) writes: This EP does not exist. Tiny Silver Hammers is another name for Motherfucker=Redeemer, the closing track on Yanqui-UXO, which was Godspeed's last release. Procedural nomination; no opinion is being expressed by me. ➔ REDVEЯS with my innocent hand on my heart 14:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. PKT (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am a fan of Godspeed You! Black Emperor, and I've never heard anything about this supposed EP. Nothing on their AMG Page or their Official discography. I get a grand total of 9 ghits for this EP. The only time i've ever heard this phrase is that is was the original name for the composition "Motherfucker=Redeemer" like Redvers said. This is a WP:HOAX or at least A fan-made EP that fails WP:MUSIC. Doc Strange (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I too am a fan and have never heard of this release. The article in question describes it as unofficial in any case. Vans74 (talk) 11:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've only heard of the band recently, but I noticed this fake EP mentioned in lots of places. This led to confusion, since it's fake, and it misses from other places. Shouldn't we change the article to actually mention that it's a fake EP, rather than delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.216.21.37 (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the album the track is from. Seems kind of obvious to me. Torc2 (talk) 22:48, 31 January 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikiSpecs.org
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 17:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] WikiSpecs.org[edit] WikiSpecs.org (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) No assertion of notability, no evidence it passes WP:WEB, page exists solely to promote a website; also an inappropriate tone, no sources, and concerns over copyright violation. WLU (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC) Note that page was speedy and contested, so I moved it to AFD WLU (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete - essentially an advert. Springnuts (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Speedy delete under WP:CSD#A7. Non-notable website. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] What are porducts? Should have been Speedily Deleted. --Veritas (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Not notable. For a website, its name gets pathetically few ghits and it's hardly likely to have been written about in the real world.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:55, 30 January 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--Salix alba (talk) 11:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Evolutionary Polynomial Regression[edit] Evolutionary Polynomial Regression (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) non-notable subject. Prod was removed citing an article. However, "Evolutionary Polynomial Regression" only generates 40 Ghits[36] (including the Wikipedia article itself) and most of those hits refer to articles by one single person, Orazio Giustolisi. There are no links to this page, which has remained a stub for quite some time. Hence, I propose that this page be deleted. Crusio (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] delete promotional, rather than informative article. The paper this article is based on has been cited a mere two times in the ISI database, one of which is a self-citation. It might be possible to write an encyclopedia article on the idea (it's sort of reminiscent of this idea), but this is simply use of Wikipedia to promote an idea with no demonstrable impact in the outside world. Pete.Hurd (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] delete I concur with nom. and Pete.Hurd; non-notable promotional article. Tim Ross·^talk 15:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete. The entire text of the article, absent its single reference, is: Evolutionary Polynomial Regression (EPR) is an analytical approach which offers a range of benefits when seeking to quantify relationships; it does not require prior knowledge of the form of the relationship, and ‘sifts’ through potential causal attributes identifying those which have the greatest relevance to the observed outputs. This seems typical of the method. You choose a three word phrase with TLA potential, selecting words that sound precisely scientific or mathematical. The actual description of the great discovery is verbal mush: abstract to the point of evasiveness, and ultimately yields little meaning. I too suspect that this is promotional in intent. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Ask your doctor if Evolutionary Polynomial Regression is right for you. Mandsford (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. RogueNinja_talk 08:55, 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 per article improvements and sourcing. Keeper \| 76 \| Disclaimer 16:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Robert Blake (folk singer)[edit] Robert Blake (folk singer) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) No independant sources, unable to find any. Artists own site's "Press Clippings" section has one article (2004) from a source I am unable to locate/verify. "Signed" to his own label. Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. PKT (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Furthermore, I do not personally know this artist at all and this article was not intended to further the cause of a personal friend or promote Robert Blake's music for any other reason than that this man has something to add to the great litany of American musicians. He is a great musician, well respected amongst those in the folk music scene, and has a fan base that stretches from Bellingham, WA (Blake's hometown) all the way to Ireland. Here is another independent magazine that mentions Robert Blake and independently verifies the fact that he is a known recording artist: http://www.whatsup-magazine.com/index.php?navarea=Archives&storyid=747 I believe that deleting this article attacks the core belief of Wikipedia; namely, that small independent voices can add something to the greater good of society. Deleting this article would be both disrespectful to the artist himself and to the idea that individuals should be able to take their own path in life - though it may be different from the norm - and still manage to create something beautiful, lasting, and meaningful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiretalk (talk • contribs) 22:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Here is a link to a review from a show that Blake played in Ireland. http://www.irelandlogue.com/music/robert-sarazin-blake-in-ballymahon.html It is unfair to claim that this artist is unimportant and not noteworthy enough for Wikipedia when he has been consistently releasing albums and playing venues, both here and abroad, for nearly a decade. Simply because one cannot here this artist on MTV or Top 40 radio play - two venues he would almost certainly deny exposure on anyway - is no reason not to include this extremely talented and influential artist on a website dedicated to the pursuit and dissemination of information of all types. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiretalk (talk • contribs) 22:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] He didn't sing "Keep Your Eye on the Sparrow". He's not that Robert Blake. Mandsford (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment - Shiretalk: Your comments, while heartfelt, do not address the core issue: Notability in wikipedia. Whether or not he is heard on MTV or Top 40, has been "been consistently releasing albums", the "idea that individuals should be able to take their own path in life", that "small independent voices can add something to the greater good of society", that you "do not personally know this artist", that the article "was not intended to further the cause of a personal friend or promote Robert Blake's music for any other reason than that this man has something to add" -- all of these arguments are moot: they are not of practical importance to this debate. If you wish to save the article, support his notability in the article (based on guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (music)) by citing reliable sources. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] UPDATE I have again updated the article with more verifiable sources; all of which prove the notability of Robert Blake. This article now fulfills, not one, but three different criteria according to the Wikipedia:Notability (music) guidelines. The three criteria that this article meets are as follows: 1. It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.[1] 4. Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. 7. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. I hope that this will finally quell the fears that this artist is not noteworthy enough to be included in Wikipedia.--Shiretalk (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep The supplemental information seems to satisfy the notability requirement.Georgiamonet (talk) 05:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep I've been following this discussion since the original nomination. The references that have been produced (even excluding the Same Room Records links, since that's Blake's label) seem to me to be enough to show multiple, non-trivial coverage. Xymmax (talk) 15:56, 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 a non-admin keep per consensus. SorryGuy Talk 02:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Kerokero Ace[edit] Kerokero Ace (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Delete or Merge with an appropriate one. An unreferenced and promotional article (see Free gifts section) on a magazine that fails at WP:NOTE. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •} ^Contribs) 13:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Strong Keep. This article is in no way intended as promotion. I created it only this morning and it's marked as a stub to help build it up. http://www.kadokawa.co.jp/mag/kerokero/ The magazine is up to its third volume and has taken on some of the titles previously running in the now canceled Comic Bom Bom. The mention of the cover mounted freebies is there because it's a fact of the magazine and my Japanese skills aren't the best so I can't offer tons of information.--HellCat86 (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment: Unreferenced article (only link is its official site in Japanese) written in an advertising tone. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •} ^Contribs) 19:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] It's difficult not to when the publication in question is highly commercialised. As for references...you've not even given anyone a full day yet. It's a bit ridiculous to demand criteria be met instantly.--HellCat86 (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep Article has only been in existence for 2 days. Lack of sources is grounds for improvement, not deletion. Frankly don't see why nominator thinks it has a promotional tone, it notable lacks the superlatives and POV such articles are full of. Edward321 (talk) 06:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Strong Keep. While it is a new magazine, it is published by a well-known and well-established publisher, and the magazine article has only been around for a few days. Articles really shouldn't be nominated for deletion so soon unless they are obviously nonsense. You really need to give the authors a chance to improve it by first marking it with appropriate cleanup tags, allowing a few weeks to a few months for the cleanup to be accomplished (perhaps even notifying the appropriate Wikiproject, too, to allow more interested editors to work on it), and then marking it for deletion if it still doesn't meet the basic requirements of WP:N and WP:V. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep. It is tempting to say that on the basis of being nominated 50 minutes after the article was created while the editor was actively working on it, as shown by the history, because per policy, articles aren't supposed to be perfect right off. As mentioned above, if you have notability concerns tag it first, then see what comes of it -- and this goes double if it's still being created. However, edits made since then are enough to convince me that there is sufficient notability to make this a valid stub. — Quasirandom (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep per aboves. No warning bells go off for me, and it seems to be a valid magazine. --Gwern (contribs) 01:50 6 February 2008 (GMT) Keep. Seems like a perfectly fine article on a proper magazine. Seems pretty factual to me, with no real "promotional" aspect. Does however need one or two references, e.g. a reference for examples of free gifts would help in the removal of any "promotional" aspect. Highwind888 (talk) 02:21, 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. DS (talk) 06:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Goat tongue[edit] The sole reference in this article has been questioned. A google search fails to find any historical acounts of this supposed form of torture. If it is practised by fetishists or game show hosts today, it is very non-notable- googling for the term reveals mainly a culinary term and links to pictures of a goat's tongue. Lurker (said · done) 13:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Speedy Delete - hoax. Springnuts (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete - Npn-Notable. Valley2city 16:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] ~~Very weak keep~~. I was going to say delete, but it appears not to be a hoax. This looks like a reliable source to confirm its existence, and if the book in question can be checked to verify that citation is correct, then that makes this notable - has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial reliable published sources. I admit that I was drawn to participation in this AfD in the hope of finding another addition to WP:DAFT, but going on the Google hits it sounds like people think it's an urban legend, but actually seemed to have taken place in real life throughout the course of history.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Or how about merge to tickle torture given the citation I've found? Yeah, I strike my very weak keep in favour of a merge.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Reality check - you would die of old age before the wretched goat got through the thick calluses on your mediaeval feet! OK some research: This site [[37]] is the home of the torture exhibition (the link to the English version may not work in Firefox), however the only mention of goat I found is to goatskin trousers (in this document [[38]]. The BMJ article is a report on an exhibition of torture instruments - this cannot have included "goat tongue" as no instrument was involved - it is just ghastly things with spikes and stuff. None of the other references to the travelling exhibition mention this improbable torture. The book given as a reference is incorrectly titled - it is actually "In Search of Dracula: A True History of Dracula and Vampire Legends". Astonishingly it is available at my local university library, and I suppose I could have a look - but read what is said - Dracula skinned the feet first then dripped salt water on them - goat involvement nil!! Sorry, but all my (goat's) b****s detectors are flashing red. Springnuts (talk) 22:58, 30 January 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 delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Quizzee Rascalz[edit] Quizzee Rascalz (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Delete. Non-notable Pub Quiz team that fails at WP:NOTE. Lake of citations as well. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 12:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete pub quiz teams are by definition non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete Non-notable pub quiz team and all the content is currently unreferenced. AngelOfSadness talk 17:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Speedy delete, A7, non-notable group of people, no references. Complete and utter vanity. Google turns up absolutely nothing. No point debating this further.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:50, 30 January 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. Fram (talk) 12:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Kendrion Electromagnetic[edit] Kendrion Electromagnetic (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Delete unreferenced promotional piece about NN company Mayalld (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete: Tagged it as speedy, got contested, nothing changed since that time. Andante1980 (talk) 14:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Speedy delete** as spam. Yet another article about a technology business that makes no showing of notability. Even if the business were notable, the current text -- . . . guarantees solution-oriented customer service. Innovative ability and highest productivity characterize the group -- is so non-neutral that it would be best to scrub this and start from scratch. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Speedy delete as per G11. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 16:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Annual revenues of 144 millions Euros are not to be sneezed at. I added a reference from Modern Machine Shop magazine. --Eastmain (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete as non-notable subsidiary. The parent company, Kendrion N.V, appears to be notable. If an article were to be created on the parent, this article (heavily edited for POV) could be merged. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 03:32, 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 Nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure RoninBK _{T C} 18:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Broumov Airport[edit] Broumov Airport (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) The article is copied from webpage http://www.airbroumov.eu/index.php?pageurl=airport. It is written like an advertisement and it is written in Czech. Kubek15 - Talk, Userboxes, Contributions 09:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Appears to have been rewritten now. J Milburn (talk) 11:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Speedy Keep As the original reasons for deletion have been fixed [39]. Perfectly acceptable stub. Pedro : Chat 11:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete No claims of notability (I know that's not what the nominator picked, but it still applies), no third party sources either. TJ Spyke 11:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep - now that it has been translated into English. There are thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of similar stubs for airports, towns, rivers, etc. Personally, I would get rid of all of them on notability grounds but there is a long consensus that such stubs be kept. They are verifiable and Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Sbowers3 (talk) 13:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] OK, I close this AfD. The result is keep. Thanks for voting. Kubek15 - Talk, Userboxes, Contributions 17:08, 30 January 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Nitish Srivastava[edit] Nitish Srivastava (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Entirely non-notable biography which should be speedily deleted. The speedy tags I have placed there have been removed by an anon. IP (with a history of having been involved with the article before) Ros0709 (talk) 09:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete This person appears to be entirely non-notable, but the article is cited and makes a claim of notability so it's not a speedy deletion candidate, unfortunately. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Speedy delete Vanity page RogueNinja_talk 15:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of academic-related deletion discussions. —Lquilter (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Some corporation gave him a college scholarship. That seems very far from enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Speedy Delete I agree with the ninja and we also have a guy watching over it and removing the afd tags. Kingpomba (talk) 08:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete no sign of notability. Edward321 (talk) 06:48, 2 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 17:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Obsil[edit] Obsil (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) This project by a redlinked musician makes no claim of notability, has no outside sources whatsoever. Lord Uniscorn (talk) 08:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Obsil is the moniker of the musician, and it's his main project. I think it's more correct to substitute "a project by" with "the moniker of". The article has no outside sources, but it has the link of the artist's label. This mini-biography was taken from the website of the artist's label Von9 (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Per the above, I think it is pretty clear that no reliable sources as defined by WP:RS exist. As such, the article fails WP:MUSIC. SorryGuy Talk 03:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete - could easily have been speedy deleted for non-notability. Deb (talk) 13:16, 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 speedy delete. Daniel (talk) 11:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Randy Smith, Composer and Lost Children Network Founder[edit] Randy Smith, Composer and Lost Children Network Founder (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Not notable. Assertions made of notability (hence no speedy delete), but no reliable sources given. Relevant Google hits are few. Just not enough there to prove he is notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Update: The original author, User:Soundcaptain4u has contacted me via private e-mail, in which he said that the subject of the article ha asked that the article be removed. (In other words, it's not an autobio.) I instructed him how to properly handle it with a ((db-author)), so when the speedy delete is subsequently carried out, we'll close this discussion. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Read like a classic nn-autobio. -- RHaworth (Talk \| contribs) 09:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Notability not established, no independent supportive referencing. References given are vague and lack relevance. WWGB (talk) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete Author would get more sympathy creating an article called "Lost Children's Network" than this worshipful piece. Mandsford (talk) 16:15, 30 January 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 and userfy. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] List of claims made by Zeitgeist, the Movie[edit] List of claims made by Zeitgeist, the Movie (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) As the creator of the list writes on the talk* page, "The purpose of this list is to attempt to provide a way to find sources relating to facts claimed by the Zeitgeist movie. This is not original research, but rather an attempt to recreate, or verify the research that was done by the creators of the film." Isn't that the very definition of original research? Pairadox (talk) 07:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] * Note that the talk page has been blanked, and will only contain comments from now on. VegKilla (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Original Research says: "Original research is research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research." (which this is) Wikipedia:No_original_research says: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." (which this does not) I am trying to perform research that IS EXCLUSIVELY "based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research" and I am NOT trying to "advance a position." That is the whole point behind the detailed instructions on the talk page. If there is anything in the article that is NOT based exclusively on earlier publications on the subject of research, then let me know. VegKilla (talk) 09:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Above, Pairadox said "Isn't that the very definition of original research?" This is nothing like the definition of original research. Following your own link you will find that OR is "unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." If I am advancing a position, it is obviously the wrong one because I support this movie and am expecting to find that everything it says is true (and everyone here seems to think I am opposing that viewpoint!).VegKilla (talk) 07:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] It is a "synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." You are trying to tie claims in the film to reality. Unless such an analysis has been published and you are using that as a source, you are engaging in original research. Pairadox (talk) 11:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] The NPOV guideline is irrespective of the actual position taken. By your own statement, this page is in support of the POV of the film, thus violating our NPOV policy. -- RoninBK _{T C} 08:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] That is not true at all. By my own statement I am in support of the film. If you read the rest of this page, you will find people accusing me of being against it. Whether I support it or not, this article I have created is an honest attempt at being neutral, which is why so many people have mistaken my position. (I am in support of the movie because I have seen it and I think it is amazing. Other than being really impressed with it, I have no way of knowing if it is true, and I have no vested interest (or conflict of interest) in the film.) VegKilla (talk) 09:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete Clearly OR. The 'Guidelines for editing this article' on the talk page are rather odd and suggest ownership issues as well. Wikipedia is not the creator of this article's personal website.* --Nick Dowling (talk) 08:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] * Note that the talk page has been blanked, and will only contain comments from now on. VegKilla (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] I only wrote the talk page that way in order to help future editors of the article to avoid WP:SOAP issues, and to make a clear list of things to do. Please give me more time. VegKilla (talk) 07:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Besides, the talk page has now been blanked, so please don't consider it as part of the article. VegKilla (talk) 09:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete, per nom, obvious OR. Jfire (talk) 08:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Please see the quote I added in response near the top of this page from the Original Research article. VegKilla (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete with extreme prejudice. This is a POV fork of the article on the movie. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] How can this be a POV fork? Are you talking about something I wrote on the talk* page or in the article itself? I don't see how there can be any POV in the article, and if you are talking about the talk page...then let's just remove the POV from the talk page! VegKilla (talk) 07:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] * Note that the talk page has been blanked, and will only contain comments from now on. VegKilla (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Hey Ice Cold Beer, you're obviously watching this page since you've been reveting my edits, so why haven't you responded to me? VegKilla (talk) 09:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Strong delete, WP:OR in the extreme, despite the author's protestations otherwise. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Please see the quote I added in response near the top of this page from the Original Research article. VegKilla (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Nuke it from orbit It's the only way to be sure. Nick mallory (talk) 08:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Please explain your reasoning. What are you trying to be sure of? VegKilla (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] It's a quote from an Alien film, obviously not as well known as I'd assumed. Nick mallory (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom as original research with the potential to violate the film's copyright (by transcribing all the claims made in the film). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] The copyright thing is the only good argument for deleting the article that I've read! Can anyone confirm or deny this copyright thing? Shouldn't this be fair use? If not I am sure I can get permission from the copyright holder anyway, but thanks for raising a good point! VegKilla (talk) 11:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Strong delete Original Research, VERY strong ownership issues on talk* page as well. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] * Note that the talk page has been blanked, and will only contain comments from now on. VegKilla (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] The only reason I made such a specific talk page was because I was expecting other users to help edit the page in the future, and I was trying to do two things: To help other editors to follow the guidelines, since I knew this subject was susceptible to WP:POV and WP:OR To help other editors to understand what the goals and plans were for the article to ensure that it was created with organization VegKilla (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Strong delete Original research, obviously. Maxa megalon 2000 13:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Please see the quote I added in response near the top of this page from the Original Research article. VegKilla (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Someone needs to sit down with this guy, and as politely as possible explain what "original research" means in this context. I think his argument of "This isn't OR because I'm checking this other guy's research" means that he doesn't understand the meaning of our policy. -- RoninBK _{T C} 14:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Please see the quote I added in response near the top of this page from the Original Research article. VegKilla (talk) 09:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete It's not hard to figure out what happened... VegKilla attempted to edit the Zeitgeist, the Movie article; someone edited over Veg's edits; Veg, in frustration, created this article to demonstrate that the claims made in the documentary are untrue; and Veg is (in an attempt to be fair) documenting the place on the DVD or VHS tape where each statement is made. It may well be that this type of citation to the DVD was what got edited out. I can only say that it's clear from the Zeitgeist article that Veg is not alone in criticizing the film's misstatements and that Veg can point out errors (or untruths) without documenting the exact minute and second where the statement is made. The concern may be about someone coming back and saying on the talk page "That's not what the film says", but if they do so, then (and only then) Veg should break out the "evidence". I would say, Veg, that there are plenty of sources that show that other reviewers think that the Zeitgeist film is, either negligently or deliberately, inaccurate. Your attempt to be fair to the movie producers (by documenting where a statement is made) is commendable; and you're not the first person to be worried that an untruthful statement will be accepted as fact unless it's corrected. But this isn't the way to do it. Mandsford (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Above comment struck (except vote) since Mandsford admits below that it was all lies. VegKilla (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] And unstruck by Pairadox. Don't change another editor's comments. Pairadox (talk) 03:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] And restruck again by VegKilla. Please take your own advice. This isn't your comment, and I have had a discussion with Mandsford about this comment. Furthermore, Mandsford edited this page 3 times while this comment was struck, and did not decide to unstrike it, so if it needs the strike removed, let Mandsford do it for himself/herself, or at least discuss it with Mandsford first, as I did before I added the strike. Thank-you, VegKilla (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Stop striking out another editors comments. If Mandsford wants them struck, s/he can do it themself. Pairadox (talk) 09:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Why do you even care Pairadox? Once this AfD is over you need to stop watching me. If you ever contact me after this AfD is over it is definitely going to be harassment. I don't care if the above is struck or not, but Mandsford has already admitted that everything he/she wrote about me was a lie, so I think it should be. You need to change the way you deal with other people. Read WP:FAITH a couple more times. VegKilla (talk) 09:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Mandsford is just making this stuff up! Six lies in a row! It is easy to see in the edit histories that the following things that Mandsford said are lies (incase anyone cares): Lie: VegKilla attempted to edit the Zeitgeist, the Movie article; someone edited over Veg's edits; Lie: Veg, in frustration, created this article to demonstrate that the claims made in the documentary are untrue; Lie: and Veg is (in an attempt to be fair) documenting the place on the DVD or VHS tape where each statement is made. Not so: It may well be that this type of citation to the DVD was what got edited out. Lie, I am not criticizing the film: Veg is not alone in criticizing the film's misstatements Not so: The concern may be about someone coming back and saying on the talk page "That's not what the film says", but if they do so, then (and only then) Veg should break out the "evidence". VegKilla (talk) 11:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Incase anyone is tempted to believe the lies that Mandsford has put in the above comment, please review my contributions to the Zeitgeist, the Movie article that he is accusing me of being "not alone in criticizing." (I was never criticizing it!!) [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] VegKilla (talk) 09:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Wow...you guys are really upset about this. I'm very disappointed and insulted by the comment above by Mandsford. I understand the copyright issues, but other that that, you guys are way off. Did you look at the history of the Zeitgeist, the Movie article before accusing me of not supporting the movie? I think that this is one of the most important movies I have ever seen, and I have no reason to think that anything it says in untrue. In fact, for the short time that I have been editing the Zeitgeist, the Movie article, I have been doing my best to place the film in a better light, as you can see from both my edits to that page and to the talk page. I have spent hours working on this article in an honest attempt to figure out if what the movie is saying is true. I believe the movie probably is true, and I saw this article as a systematic and logical way to address the vague comments by people that this movie "relied on anecdotal evidence" or "unreliable sources" etc. Furthermore...unless this is going to be a speedy delete...then I propose we suspend this AfD altogether. I created this article last Friday (Jan 25, four days before it was nominated for deletion)--I even put an announcement on the page stating this, so if this is a question of copyright I may be wrong, but if this is just a question of whether this is suitable for an encyclopedia, or whether it is original research, then give me a chance! At least a week...I'm only working on this in my spare time. VegKilla (talk) 07:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] AfD's are scheduled for five days, and considering the fact that there is significant debate, this is not going to be speedy-closed one way or the other. You have until then to try, but realize that most of the arguments against this article are fairly well based in policy. Even if you manage to complete your stated goals, the page will still violate many of our policies. -- RoninBK _{T C} 08:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Agree with Mandsford. This simply is not an encyclopedia article in any way shape or form. The goal is laudable, and I hope that the author will be permitted to userify his work before (what seems to be likely) deletion. Xymmax (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] I don't know what "userify" means VegKilla (talk) 07:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Also, in addition to not knowing what "userify" means, I would like to say, that although no list can ever truly fit the for of a normal article, I believe that this list can be quickly (some days) created, that it will make Wikipedia more useful, that it will greatly expand the accuracy of Wikipedia's information regarding Zeitgeist, the Movie, and that it will adhere to all Wikipedia guidelines. VegKilla (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Speedy Delete despite the claims on the talk* page, this is the definition of Original Research and is also in vio of WP:SOAP, WP:OWN (guidelines for editing?) and maybe WP:NOT#WEBSPACE Doc Strange (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Note that the talk page has been blanked, and will only contain comments from now on. VegKilla (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Please see the quote I added in response near the top of this page from the Original Research article. As far as WP:SOAP, I'm pretty sure I'm not standing on a soap box, because all of you seemed to have misunderstood my position. I believe the movie is true and am trying to verify that. As far as WP:OWN, the reason I am the only person who has edited these pages is because I created them on Friday (Jan 25, four days before they were nominated for deletion) and no one has heard of them. Once I finished watching the movie through once (which you guys didn't even let me get to that point), I was planning on inviting people who I had already been talking to on the Zeitgeist, the movie talk page to join me. The WP:OWN thing is kinda silly, because no one has ever tried to edit this page. My understanding of WP:OWN is that you are accusing me of reverting other peoples edits because this is "my page."...well that def. hasn't been happening. All that happened was I spent hours trying to create a helpful research tool for a subject that many people are interested in. Comment Did you even read WP:SOAP? Here's two parts of that - Wikipedia is not: "Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views" Wikipedia is not for "Opinion pieces on current affairs or politics. Although current affairs and politics may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced so as to put entries for current affairs in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. Wikinews, however, allows commentaries on its articles." . Also when WP:OR says that summaries are allowed, that's usually in the parent article, not in another article. Doc Strange (talk) 13:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment on your comment Did you even read the article that we are talking about deleting? Do you understand what it is? Have you seen the movie it is about? You can watch the movie for free on the internet...watch the movie and read the article at the same time and in all those pages and hours I put into it you will not find one word that does not describe the topic of the movie from a neutral point of view. Has anyone tried that yet? Has anyone watched the film and read my page at the same time? It is reporting exactly what the film is reporting. The only thing that could possibly be wrong with the article is that it is too detailed. I'm blanking the article's talk page since it does not seem to be helpful and is not needed. VegKilla (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep, please more time I realize that in an attempt to be detailed, I may have infringed on copyrights (honestly I don't know the law that well). If that is the case, I am sure I will have no problem obtaining permission from the copyright holder. As far as all the other concerns (WP:SOAP, WP:NOT#WEBSPACE, WP:OWN, WP:OR) these concerns are because the article is not done. I just started it last Friday (Jan 25, four days before it was nominated for deletion), and I have spent many hours on it, but there is a lot left. If you give me a little more time, I am sure you would all see that this is neutral, helpful, and within all guidelines. Please give me more time. Thank-youVegKilla (talk) 07:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Wow, six lies in a row? I guess that beats my record of four consecutive lies, set in 2003. Looks like I misunderstood the purpose of your article. Sorry about that. I won't give the usual reminder about being "civil", since it looks like you honestly thought you were being attacked. However, for future reference, usually, when people refer to statements as "claims", it's because they doubt the veracity of the statements. Anyway, this type of overly-detailed study of a subject (not just Zeitgeist, but any subject) doesn't work, and it's one of those things that was more interesting to write than it is to read. Save your hard work to your own computer, because it looks like the consensus is that nobody else so far is asking for a keep. After everything else that you've written, saying "please" at this point in the discussion isn't going to change anyone's mind. Mandsford (talk) 14:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] The only reason I was saying please is because it hasn't even been a week since I started this article, and I was hoping to find other people interested in helping me work on it (and turn it into something much shorter and more encyclopedic). I have a copy of it on my computer, but I'm not going to have time to finish something like this on my own. If the article is deleted I am going to abandon the subject. Maybe I should abandon Wikipedia altogether :-( I think I might be better suited for wikibooks or something like that. VegKilla (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Original research could be very easily avoided on this article, but it wouldn't make the concept notable or encyclopedic. I believe the main article provides a very fair presentation of what is worth mentioning. Indeed, in the long and tumultuous course of this topic's existence on Wikipedia, countless sources were presented and hacked down to the few reliable ones. And it is only the information to be found within those sources that is truly worth noting. Readers who want to know every single claim made in the movie can follow the handy link to its official website and download it. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC This article was not nominated for deletion based on anything except OR. I know this is not notable, and the reason it is not is because it is brand new and I am the only person who has worked on it. The entire list of every fact the movie claims is never going to be notable, but if it is deleted now, then the collaboration required to turn this into encyclopedic information can never take place. This process has not already been done on Wikipedia, and the list of sources on the movie's official website is incomplete and not encyclopedic. Your argument that the official website or the history of the Zeitgeist article talk page are suitable substitutes for what is being created here ignores the fact that the goal of this list is to quickly, and through collaboration produce a product that is encyclopedic. The answer that I have never had answered fully is, can I copy and paste this article to my user name space as long as the only guideline I violate is the notability guideline, in the hope that it will quickly become encyclopedic? If the only debate here is whether this should be in the Article name-space or the User name-space, then I'm fine with moving it. I'm just hoping that it can persist somewhere so that the possibility for collaboration exists. Thank-you. VegKilla (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Copied from the article's talk page by VegKilla[edit] This seems inappropriate[edit] From what I can gather, you are trying to make a list of all factual claims in the film, and then find sources that will support them. I don't know why you're doing this, or what purpose it will serve — what's the point? --Haemo (talk) 01:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] <"This is not original research, but rather an attempt to recreate, or verify the research that was done by the creators of the film." Um, that is original research. Pairadox (talk) 07:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] * Note that the talk page has been blanked, and will only contain comments from now on. VegKilla (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] To clarify Pairadox's point, according to the Wikipedia:No original research policy, there is no difference between what you are doing, and what we consider to be original research. Wikipedia is not the place to fact-check the Zeitgeist movie. You might want to consider checking out Wikipedia:Alternative outlets-- RoninBK _{T C} 14:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] The Zeitgeist movie cites many facts, such as quotes taken from the bible, etc. Some people have accused the makers of the film of downright lying about what these sources say. My goal is to create a list of facts claimed by the movie, and the source that the movie is claiming shows this fact. Original research (according to the link you gave above) "includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." According to the Original Research article, OR is "is research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research." *My very detailed talk page is an attempt to create research that IS exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research."** * Note that the talk page has been blanked, and will only contain comments from now on. VegKilla (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] VegKilla (talk) 09:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] No, it is a "synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." You are trying to tie claims in the film to reality. Unless such an analysis has been published and you are using that as a source, you are engaging in original research. Pairadox (talk) 09:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] This article is not "a synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position clearly advance by the sources." This article is a summary of Zeitgeist, the Movie; and Zeitgeist, the Movie is "a synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position clearly advance by the sources." which is the whole reason I am so interested in it Do you understand what I am saying? The movie is the published analysis! And I am using that as a source. VegKilla (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] You don't seem to understand. You are taking a fact in a published source, and then checking it.* The "checking" you are doing, and publishing here, is original research, since you are are synthesizing outside sources to provide a new fact — i.e. is the statement true, or false. That's original synthesis — it's no different from a historian who collects facts from a bunch of sources and puts them together to provide a new conclusion which has never been published before. Your conclusion (i.e. Zeitgiest the Movie is correct/incorrect about fact X) is exactly the same thing. --Haemo (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] * Note that the talk page has been blanked, and will only contain comments from now on (i.e. no "fact checking" or anything else except comments). VegKilla (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] MBanak Writes In the development of every institution, a time comes when the framework is stressed by the intoduction of unexpected elements. This Wiki entry seems to be such a case, and it is normal to expect stuff like this to come up. After thinking this over, I discovered why it was hard, at first, to find a clear and cogent reason to delete this article: The article is also hard to categorize. I don't like to add rules to a system unless they are absolutley necessary. Adding a rule to preclude "Lists of claims in movies" seems artificially narrow. There is a statement of purpose already published within Wiki, to preclude this article. In the page Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, we find the following rule: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". The difficulty in categorizing this article, amplifies the impression that this article makes Wikipedia an indiscriminate "collection of information". One other barrier exists to the acceptability of this article. That is the matter of overcategorization. The categorization of this article is so elusive, that I believe any attempt at categorization will result in over-categorization. Please review the rules on the over-categorization page, and give them consideration. Finally, a word on what to expect if this article stands: It is also said on the Wiki page "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not", that "Wikipedia is not a battle ground". Unfortunately, this happens all the time. The controversial nature of this article will invite scholarly battles. I happen to be quite familiar with the topics raised by "Zeitgeist, The Movie", and the ultimate, inevitable refutation of the claims in this article will undoubtedly turn this Wikipedia page into another Internet Armageddon. Controversy, alone, is not a reason to leave out material, but the eclectic nature of this article, and the exected rebuttals, all guarantee a long, long entry. Respectfully, Mbanak (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] In response to the previous 2 comments (by Haemo and Mbanak), this article does not, and would never be allowed to state that any claim made by the Zeitgeist movie is either true or false, and would also never be allowed to imply that any claim in the movie is either true or false by the references it cites. This article could, however, become a useful cross-reference tool for people interested in finding the sources that the Zeitgeist movie itself cites. As far as the "checking" you are talking about, you have misunderstood the talk page. So many people misunderstood it that I have blanked it, so please consider only the article itself if you are going to support its deletion. The intent was never to categorize any facts as confirmed or denied, but rather to use that terminology on the talk* page only so that the editors of the article could have a sense of what information still needed to be researched. There is no room here for "finding" sources that support or deny anything—the movie cites it's own sources, this is merely an attempt to find those sources (such as the bible, ancient Egyptian text about Horus, etc) and present them in a way where someone doing research on the movie can find those resources in an organized way. VegKilla (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] ** by me or most other editors. * Note that the talk page has been blanked, and will only contain comments from now on. VegKilla (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Copied from VegKilla's talk page by VegKilla[edit] AfD nomination of List of claims made by Zeitgeist, the Movie[edit] An editor has nominated List of claims made by Zeitgeist, the Movie, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of claims made by Zeitgeist, the Movie and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Help[edit] ((helpme)) Please I need help with the List of claims made by Zeitgeist, the Movie article I have created. It is going to get deleted (I think) and this is making me very sad. The people who want to delete it, think that I made it as a way to discredit the Zeitgeist movie, but in actuality I want to support the movie, but was trying so hard to be neutral, that that is not clear. I did not create this article as a way to avoid consensus on the main Zeitgeist, the Movie page, in fact I created it partially from an idea I got from another editor while working on that article. (see Talk:Zeitgeist,_the_Movie#Real_critique.3F) My edit history on this topic and on all topics shows that I make only good-faith and non POV edits. I have spent hours working on this article. It is not WP:OWN or WP:OR or any of that. The only thing I am not clear about is if it violates copyrights. My question is: Can I just copy and paste the page to the User name space to save it from disappearing, or will this be seen as me being sneaky? I don't want anyone else getting mad at me. I am working so hard to follow all guidelines and I am so sad right now about this. These people are being really mean, and accusing me of all sorts of things that they could easily tell are not true if they looked at the edit histories. Please help. Thank-you VegKilla (talk) 08:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] No, you can't use Wikipedia to host articles that don't comply with our policies. I concur the article is probably going to be deleted, and if you want to develop the ideas expressed in the article you should copy it to your computer. Addhoc (talk) 12:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] `((helpme))` But can I temporarily have an article in my user name-space if the only policy it violates is notability, and I am actively involved in a collaborative effort to organize the information into an encyclopedic format? VegKilla (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Of course! You're free to create a subpage sandbox to work on an article that you're in the progress of developing. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 22:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] So if this page is deleted, I am going to copy it to my user name-space, right?[edit] Copied from above: `((helpme))` But can I temporarily have an article in my user name-space if the only policy it violates is notability, and I am actively involved in a collaborative effort to organize the information into an encyclopedic format? VegKilla (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Of course! You're free to create a subpage sandbox to work on an article that you're in the progress of developing. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 22:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] So that means: I still hope that this page is not deleted, bug if this page is deleted, I am going to copy it to my user name-space (see the comment above made by Master of Puppets) so that editors can collaborate on it, since I believe that the only guidelines it can be seriously accused of violating are notability and "list of random facts." VegKilla (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] If anyone thinks this page should not be copied to my user name-space, please say so here[edit] * No one thinks it's a bad idea yet. You don't need our permission to copy the article to your user space. Just do it before it's deleted. Good luck to you, hope that you've learned something from the experience. Mandsford (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] What you do is copy your stuff; then you create a page called "User:VegKilla/List of Zeitgeist Claims" and paste your stuff on to that and save it. It takes it out of circulation, and let's you work on your stuff while this "List of claims..." article gets the axe. Eventually, if you think it's refined enough for a return visit, you can try putting it back in the stream of commerce. Final word of advice: "Less is more". Mandsford (talk) 03:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] I know I don't need permission, but I know there are guidelines for user pages as well, so I don't want to cause problems or make it seem like I am trying to avoid the consensus of this discussion. I'm just so paranoid! I've been accused of so many things on Wikipedia that I didn't do, that I avoid making good faith contributions sometimes just because I don't want to be accused of anything! VegKilla (talk) 03:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] BTW: I still don't think the article should be deleted, but as long as I can keep it in my name-space and bring it back later, I don't care too much. VegKilla (talk) 03:52, 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 merge and redirect, both of which I will be performing shortly. Keeper \| 76 \| Disclaimer 17:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Pitt Med magazine[edit] Pitt Med magazine (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Fails WP:NOTABILITY. This is just a campus paper. Undeath (talk) 06:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Merge+Redirect Not enough notability to stand on its on. Merge to Med School page Corpx (talk) 11:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Merge. Appears to be a college magazine which does not publish primary research papers and has no special notability. It probably merits a mention at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine page. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 10:18, 1 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 no sources and the winners of Mr Gay UK do not have articles (possibly one does but there rest dont) so I dont see this as sufficient notability. John Vandenberg (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Jarrod Batchelor[edit] Jarrod Batchelor (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Fails WP:BIO. If anything, this should be listed on the mr. gay uk article. Undeath (talk) 06:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep, he's been on the cover of at least 3 magazines. Jfire (talk) 06:36, 30 January 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. John254 01:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Kayke Moreno de Andrade Rodrigues[edit] Kayke Moreno de Andrade Rodrigues (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Uhh....what? I don't even understand the first part of this article. Either way, it fails WP:BIO. Undeath (talk) 06:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep, appears to be a professional footballer. Looked like a bad automated translation, I've replaced it with stub text. Jfire (talk) 06:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep as athlete in premier league club, Campeonato Brasileiro Série A. Sting au Buzz Me... 07:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arto Tukio for previous discussion on a premier league athlete. Sting au Buzz Me... 07:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep, notable as a top-league footballer. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment article makes no assertion of criteria. Has he played any games - no apps stats in the infobox. Peanut4 (talk) 14:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep - I'm Wikilinking to the Portuguese article on him, which states he's made an appearance. Definitely meets notability. matt91486 (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment Did he made his professional debut?, ~~if not, Delete.~~ Matthew_hk t c 18:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] As I said in my note above, the Portuguese article asserts he has in fact made his debut. matt91486 (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Expand it then. Matthew_hk t c 07:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep, according to this he has made 3 sub appearances, its a more reliable source than pt wiki, but contains so little additional info I'm not sure whether its a worthwhile external link. King of the North East 20:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] I think it should work as a reference, the Guardian is a major paper. matt91486 (talk) 21:23, 31 January 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 Srebrenica_massacre#Alternative_views John Vandenberg (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Srebrenica Genocide Denial[edit] Srebrenica Genocide Denial (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) This was tagged as an attack page for speedy deletion. That's fixable by removing the names, maybe. I've tried to avoid "Genocide Denial" articles at AfD because they seem to be hotly contentious. So I'm bringing this here as it may be controversial. ~~It is presently unsourced, and possibly speediable that way. I just don't know.~~ It may also have been dealt with in the past under a slightly different name with diacritical marks. Dlohcierekim 03:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC) Dlohcierekim 03:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] OOps, there were sources attesting to the occurrence of the massacre, and I have added (({reflist))} so they show. Dlohcierekim 03:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] So the question is, Is this notable and verifiable? Dlohcierekim 06:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] CommentOn the articles about those people i mentioned the Srebrenica Genocide denial is mentioned as well. This article is about the phenomenon of Srebrenica Genocide Denial which includes some journalists,the serbian radical party and a great part of serbian people who still continue to deny it or argue about the number of victims. It is a propaganda campain by a number of Serb Apologists who are even making films about it in order to confuse people.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 03:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Could you please provide verifiable sources for the Denial part of the article? Dlohcierekim 03:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] OK.Thanks.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 03:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Redirect to Srebrenica_massacre#Alternative_views. It looks as if it would be difficult, perhaps impossible, to make this article NPOV. --Rumping (talk) 10:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Agree with Redirect to Srebrenica_massacre#Alternative_views. This article is gaming the system by citing references and sourcing its information yet using it for POV pushing. SWik78 (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Redirect I agree, it's probably impossible to make this article NPOV. Part of the article is a rebuttal to persons who claim that no such killing took place, fair enough; but a large part of it is about the author's belief that the word "massacre" rather than "genocide" (as in the Wikipedia article Srebrenica massacre) is improper. It's implied that using the word "massacre" is, itself, denying reality or somehow an insult to the persons who were murdered. This, in effect, an "alternative view". Thousands of people were murdered, during a little more than a week in July 1995, because of their ethnic background. The documented instances would properly be called massacres, while the overall murders (including those before and after July 1995, inside and outside Srebrenica) were all part of genocide. Suggestion to Griffin-- instead why not write an article about the campaign of genocide, which would include not only the 1995 murders at Srebrenica, but everything else? Mandsford (talk) 17:03, 30 January 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). Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Rocky VI (1986 film)[edit] Rocky VI (1986 film) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Non-notable 9 minute short film. Contested prod; reason for removal was "a review in the NY Times means it's likely to be notable", but it's an All Movie Guide review, not a NYT review (the NYT page is just a database listing). No external reviews in imdb; no significant coverage in online sources; fails WP:NF. Jfire (talk) 05:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Nomination withdrawn per expansion by Prolog. Nice work! Jfire (talk) 08:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment This is a film by a highly notable director, that people are obviously still talking about and watching more than 11 years after it was released. It may not be easy to find multiple online sources, but it is common sense that in the past 11 years multiple reliable sources have very probably talked about it. Kla’quot (talk \| contribs) 06:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep. This short film by a notable director does not fall short of notability. Prolog (talk) 07:52, 30 January 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Weiner Shnitzel[edit] Weiner Shnitzel (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Fails WP:MUSIC. No sources. Searches yield food. Undeath (talk) 05:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Speedy delete, no assertion of notability. In fact, it asserts non-notability: "The band has not gained much popularity outside of their local venues." Jfire (talk) 06:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. Sting au Buzz Me... 06:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete and Reirect to Wienerschnitzel. JuJube (talk) 07:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete, fails WP:MUSIC, redirect to Wiener schnitzel.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:53, 30 January 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 with no prejudice against recreation when "the big break" happens. Not notable (yet) Keeper \| 76 \| Disclaimer 18:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Michael Beardsley[edit] Michael Beardsley (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) I checked his bio at the reference given and he has mainly been a filler character. (i.e. member in crowd, member of high school...) Delete per WP:BIO. Undeath (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete, per nom. Nakon 05:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Cut. It's a bad sign when most of his characters aren't even given names, but are referred to by description (e.g. Suspicious Video Store Patron). The article itself admits that he hasn't gotten his "big break" yet. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete I'll say again, I've been an extra in a number of movies, AND appeared on a nationwide game show. Where's my article, then? Silliness aside, does not meet WP:BIO. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:50, 30 January 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Ayase Haruka (album)[edit] Ayase Haruka (album) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) This album does not exist, please see talk page. Momusufan (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] As a note, you should either nominate for deletion, or propose for deletion, but not both. I've removed the prod. Jfire (talk) 05:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom; not a real album. Jfire (talk) 05:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete as I can find no evidence this album is being released. The artist's official site says nothing about it, the artist's label's site says nothing about it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 05:24, 31 January 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 Abnak records (although I think someone should seriously look at that article and consider expanding and sourcing, or nominating it for deletion). Keeper \| 76 \| Disclaimer 22:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Abnak Label[edit] Abnak Label (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) This page is a duplicate. See Abnak records. Undeath (talk) 05:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Merge/Redirect and speedy close. No need for an AfD. Jfire (talk) 05:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] I don't think a redirect is necessary. Just delete the Label page. There is no need in even keeping the name. It's the exact same article with two different titles. Delete one entry and keep the other.Undeath (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] The very fact that somebody created a duplicate article is a very strong indication that a redirect is appropriate. Jfire (talk) 05:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] The same person made both articles. It would be different if it were two different people.Undeath (talk) 05:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Still, in this case a redirect won't hurt. It's possible the user didn't know how to do redirects, so put the article in the same place. matt91486 (talk) 05:48, 30 January 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Nikki Fairchild[edit] Nikki Fairchild (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Doesn't seem to satisfy wp:bio. Did a google search for articles to find notability but came up with porn spam or trivial ancillary mentions. Vinh1313 (talk) 04:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Vinh1313 (talk) 05:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete, not notable. Nakon 04:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete Nothing to get it past WP:PORNBIO Corpx (talk) 11:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete just another porn actress. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. There's one possibly non-trivial Google Books mention of her, though. Still fails WP:N anyway. Just another porn actress indeed.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:31, 30 January 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 22:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Sajav[edit] Sajav (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) "SAP R/3 consulting company". Obviously written by someone with a COI in a pretty spammy tone. Are they notable? -- RHaworth (Talk \| contribs) 04:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Speedy Delete COI or not, doesn't meet WP:CORP, I would even go as far to say that it meets WP:CSD criteria 11. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete, non-notable company. Jfire (talk) 06:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:26, 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. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 10:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Joe Beast[edit] Joe Beast (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) nn rapper, only released mixtapes, no evidence of meeting WP:BIO, prod removed by anon with no reasoning Delete Secret ^account 01:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete, per nom. Nakon 01:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete User who created this article didn't provide evidence of meeting BIO. Daniel5127 ^(talk) 04:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Do Not Delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.65.119 (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete. The only reference provided does not meet the standard of significant coverage, it would seem to be trivial, and definitely does not meet the major music award notability guideline put forth in WP:MUSIC. SorryGuy Talk 04:00, 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 moved to userspace to User Madram/Alfa romeo spider alloy wheels. --Salix alba (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Alfa romeo spider alloy wheels[edit] Alfa romeo spider alloy wheels (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) The details of the wheels used on a series of Alfa Romeo cars does not rise to the level of notability to deserve its own article. The article is also unsourced, so unverifiable. We don't even have an article on the Alfa Romeo 105 series yet, otherwise I'd suggest merging anything that might be verifiable into a short section there. Prod was removed without explanation Gwernol 01:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Alfa Romeo "105 Series" vehicles is a reference to a factory numerical series designation and covers a range of named models already exisitng on Wikipedia: Spider, 1750 Coupes, Juniors, Sprints, etc. While these had diferent name designation, the 105 Series cars share many similar engine and drivetrain components. OEM Alloy wheels suitable for "105 Series" cars may be fitted to many named models. The "105 Series" Spiders were manufactured from 1969-1993. The "916 Series" Spider was re-launched in 1995. Agreed, this article is a very specific topic, but it is difficult to merge with other model-specific articles due to its applicability across several named models. Madram (talk) 01:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Merge into userspace then delete It would seem that this would be appropriate merged into an article that covered ALL Alfa Romeo wheels, or Unique Automotive Wheels or something that likely doesn't exist. I am not sure how the existing article can ever be notable, even if it is informative. Looks like something that may belong in userspace until a broader article could be written. It isn't that the information is useless, it just that it is homeless. Pharmboy (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete Inane, unencylopedic, come out the wrong side of WP:NOT. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 04:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete, car parts have to have independent, third-party sources showing they are notable just like anything else. Maybe I should go create an article on Samsung microwave oven door latches. Lord Uniscorn (talk) 09:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Merge a small part of this content to Alfa Romeo. Not inane nor unencyclopedic, just too narrow a subtopic without enough independent sources found. And let's be clear, to some car owners, wheels are one of the most noticed components; plain stamped-steel wheels like on your Escort might be akin to microwave latches, but these styled alloy rims are more significant. This level of detail isn't needed on Wikipedia; maybe an interested party can find an automotive wiki that would accept it. Barno (talk) 15:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Merge this to a page on Alfa Romeos. It does not warrant it's own page but is worthy of a mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgiamonet (talk • contribs) 04:49, 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. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Zafina[edit] Zafina (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) This article has no assertion of notability, and as such is just an in-universe plot repetition of gameplay and plot elements from the Tekken 6 article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete as nn. Possibly redirect back to Tekken 6 article. Notable game but surely no need for each character to have an article. Character list on game article page should suffice. Sting au Buzz Me... 05:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete Very few video game characters are notable enough for their own entry, and I don't see anything here or on Google that establishes notability for this oneBeeblbrox (talk) 05:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete per WP:FICT and WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep' There we go again with this notability stuff. Zafina is VERY notable, as she is a new character and deserves to be known about. Angie Y. (talk) 21:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] No, she doesn't "deserve" anything, each article has to actually prove its notability, because it is not taken on blind faith. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] No, articles do not have to "prove" notability. The criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not notability. --Pixelface (talk) 23:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep Every other character in the Tekken series has an article or an article that mentions them, describing them very well, so why shouldn't Zafina? Unless we're planning to merge every character into one article, which is just ludicrous, as it would take up way too much space! Also, why is it okay for Bob, Leo, and Miguel Caballero Rojo to have articles about them, but it's not for Zafina to have one? Even Azazel has an article, and we barely know anything about him other than how it fights, what it looks like, and that it will be in Tekken 6! There are barely any images of it, as well! I don't know why Zafina's article was singled out out of all of them. What makes the others more notable than Zafina? What is actually considered "notable", anyway? So, keep it. JunKazamaFan (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment - have a look at Wikipedia:Notability, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Addhoc (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep this well put together article on a character from a notable game series as well as per the injunction "Enacted on 02:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)". Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment - Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, the arbitration committee ruling only applies to TV characters, and this is a game character. Tekken is notable, however notability isn't inherited. Addhoc (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] In instances like character articles notability is inhereited in a sense. Moreover, the larger issue in the arbitration case are fictional characters in general. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] The injunction clearly doesn't apply, and Seraphimblade has already explained to you the arbitration committee doesn't create policy. Addhoc (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] In any event, clearly deleting this article does not improve Wikipedia, but rather detracts from our goal of providing the sum of human knowledge and may turn off readers and editors who contribute to and are interested in this verfiable article. Sincerley, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete - lacks significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Addhoc (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep- You are talking about notability and the page about it describes everything Zafina's article has. Also, she's a new character and her story is one of the main game's plot. I can't see any worthy argument to delete it. I'm a fan of this game and I didn't know much thing about her until I read the article. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia where everyone can edit, you guys are taking away Wikipedia's freedom choosing what pleases you. There are a lot of things we have to worry here as vandalism, medias being used erroneously and other things. Think about it. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 02:50, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] List of progressive organizations[edit] List of progressive organizations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) WP:NOT#DIR. The various organizations listed are subjective and the term "progressive" is open to interpretation, therefore a solid list of "progressive" organization is truly impossible to create . I couldn't find a similar list for "conservative organization" although that should be AfD as well. Mønobi 04:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete Putting these organizations under the umbrella of "progressive" without a reliable source making that assertion is OR Corpx (talk) 11:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Strong delete - hopelessly subjective, impossible to quantify. --Orange Mike \| Talk 16:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Ill-defined, and “original”. (Wikipedia should, in fact, look askance at the term “progressive”, treating the label as it would “forward-looking”.) —SlamDiego_←T 18:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete - Although not to the Letter, the Spirit of WP:CRYSTAL prevents us from labeling groups as progressive. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete. "Progressive" is not amenable to objective definition. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Though 'tis a tendence to peer ascance at such untenable and frankly unamenable and pontiferous wiki-anathema, hitherto I roundly declare.... would you just delete the article for shit's sake?--Jackbirdsong (talk) 05:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Mark the page as having bias or needing a cleanup, or needing renaming. The list itself can be useful The links refer to organisations that define themselves as progressive, which infers that such a thing as a 'progressive organisation' is defined in culture. I got 82 responses for 'progressive organisations' and 85 responses for 'conservative organisations' on dogpile, so the subjectivity of the heading is not hopeless.Usualsuit (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] The word “infer” means surmise; you seem to be confusing it with “imply”. Instead of “progressive”, consider words such as “patriotic”. Many will label themselves thus, or label others thus. But that won't make them patriotic nor make others non-patriotic. —SlamDiego_←T 16:39, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Zetsumei Taiko[edit] Zetsumei Taiko (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) This band fails our notability criteria for music. I performed a Google search to find sources, but there were only three hits - two to Myspace and one to this article.[48] I suspect that the awards listed in the Awards section were not really won by the band. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. --Evan Seeds (talk)(contrib.) 04:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Speedy delete as nn. fails WP:MUSIC. MySpace page just full of spam. Sting au Buzz Me... 04:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete Borderline speedy under WP:CSD#G3 - non notable band with zero evidence they've ever won these awards makes it whiff or a hoax or a plain outright load of WP:BOLLOCKS. Pedro : Chat 11:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete per above. No references to confirm the awards, fails WP:MUSIC and if you'll excuse me, it is extremely bad written (that's why I classified it as uncyclopedic, apart from the other tags). Victao lopes (talk) 16:45, 30 January 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 Cleanup, so tagged. Keeper \| 76 \| Disclaimer 18:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Eurotrash (term)[edit] Eurotrash (term) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) WP:WINAD is an official policy, and this article violates it heavily, along with violating WP:NOR to the extreme. Already exists in Wiktionary. Eurotrash is fine as a disambig page with a wiktionary link, this does not need its own article. Correct me if I'm wrong... h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 03:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. Already on Wiktionary no need for it here. Sting au Buzz Me... 04:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete - almost anything quatified as term belongs on wiktionary, and this is mostly WP:OR anyhow --T-rex 06:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Obviously, though unsourced and partly unencyclopedic, this is more than just a definition of a cultural term that has been prevalent for over two decades. It's easily sourced (it seems to need a definition published somewhere, around the time tourist season starts wherever the publication is). We have the NYT with a substantial definition as well. (It's also clearly a term that Europeans use, too, not just an American stereotype _of_ Europeans.) --Dhartung \| Talk 12:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment. Sounds like an argument to Transwiki to Wiktionary, to me. Looking at this word's entry there, part of this article does seem to refer to a definition that is not listed there. --Darkprincealain (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment The very first criterion in WINAD:Encyclopedia vs. dictionary articles says that encyclopedic articles are "are about the people, concepts, places, events, and things that their titles denote". Is there some other article about this topic that the term Eurotrash denotes? It certainly isn't a synonym for European. --Dhartung \| Talk 22:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep The term is not a neologism, its use to pretty wide spread and well established, and the article seeks to establish how it was created and popularized. These sections cannot be transwikied to the full extent that they need, and as such the article should be kept. As an aside, the Sacha Baron Cohen character of Bruno is a good example of Eurotrash with regards toward their fashion and culture aesthetics, and can be cited as a prominent fictitious example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zidel333 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] If you can demonstrate that it is improvable without going into original research, by all means do it. An alternative is to include it in list of ethnic slurs, if that's appropriate.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep Very widespread use as a word, and its application and the development of the meaning is encyclopedic. DGG (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep Notable per Google hits and scholar/books: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Certainly enough to edit a decent article out of (although the current one is indeed in a poor uncited OR condition and needs to be revamped). — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 06:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Strong Keep This article is a valid topic, because "Eurotrash" is a frequently used pejorative term and deserving of more than a mere dictionary entry. However, the current version needs to be greatly overhauled. 68.101.130.214 (talk) 05:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete - dictionary definition, as shown by title -Halo (talk) 17:23, 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 No consensus, I'm going out on a limb a bit here; it has an article on the Italian sub-domain, and their article has more blue links, so there is a good chance this will grow in time. Another discussion on this in a few months will probably be necessary. John Vandenberg (talk) Chicken Park[edit] Chicken Park (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) This film fails our notability criteria for films. ~~This article is also a borderline attack page.~~ Prod removed without comment by creator. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] ~~Speedy~~ delete ~~CSD G4 recreation of deleted material.~~ As non notable. Sting au Buzz Me... 04:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Speedy Delete per G4.Undeath (talk) 05:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment This article has not been deleted previously via deletion discussion, which makes it ineligible for speedy deletion under the G4 criterion. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] No not AfD but speedied. [49] Sting au Buzz Me... 06:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Yeah, that's what I meant (sorry if I was unclear). It's ineligible as a G4 because it was speedied. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Oh ok? I thought speedys were included in that section. My bad. I'll change to delete as nn. Sting au Buzz Me... 06:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment I'm actually going to try to save this page, as I found a few items on this movie. I'll be adding to the page, but if it is deleted, so be it. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] I also noted that there is an article on this same movie on the Italian Wikipedia [50]. I've added an infobox, and removed the borderline personal attack. Unfortunately I can't find a lot of info on this movie however other than IMDB. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] The IMDb might just be enough? According to WP:MOVIE where there it states, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." In the Resources section IMBd is listed as an accepted source. I'd still like to see this page ref improved though? Or maybe film stub it and just go with the IMBd reference? I'm swaying towards keep now. Try and convince me. Sting au Buzz Me... 22:45, 30 January 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 as hoax/attack page. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Michael Dariel Salinas[edit] Michael Dariel Salinas (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) ((Underconstruction)) tag inserted by the creator prevented me from nominating this article for speedy deletion, although I wasn't sure extreme weight is grounds for notability. I did insert cleanup tags. On follow-up, I googled this name to find zero relevant ghit. Smells like a hoax. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 02:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. --Sc straker (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] ~~IAR speedy/snowball~~ delete This is a hoax, try googling heaviest person alive. Thin boy 00 @179, i.e. 03:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Maybe not a speedy based on ghits alone... --Thin boy 00 @182, i.e. 03:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Likely a hoax. Doctorfluffy (talk) 18:22, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Sunset Boulevard (2008 film)[edit] Sunset Boulevard (2008 film) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Explicitly fails future films notability guidelines. No prejudice to recreation when reliable sources can confirm production has started. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. --Sc straker (talk) 03:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete per WP:NFF, as there's no guarantee of an announced film making it to production, especially with this one being affected by the writers' strike. FYI, I've merged the relevant information to Sunset Boulevard (musical)#Future film adaptation. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete per WP:NFF. Mr. DeMille, this isn't ready for its closeup. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete per WP:NFF. Doc Strange (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete - The notability guidelines for future films stipulate that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. This is because many factors such as budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with the project. The article can be recreated when principal photography is confirmed to have begun. Steve ^{T • C} 10:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete per Clarityfriend. Couldn't have said it better myself ;) Cliff smith (talk) 04:01, 1 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, to be recreated as Mary Queen of Scots (2008 film) once filming begins. Lots of movies get "casted", they don't all get "reeled in". (sorry, bad fishing pun). The 1970s Redgrave movie, BTW, does have an article (note the comma) at Mary, Queen of Scots (film). Keeper \| 76 \| Disclaimer 19:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Mary Queen of Scots (film)[edit] Mary Queen of Scots (film) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Explicitly fails future films notability guidelines. No prejudice to recreation when the film is reliably documented to have begun production. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. --Sc straker (talk) 03:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom; announced films don't guarantee actual films. If it begins shooting, revive the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Weak keep. There was print newspaper coverage of this film, plus at least one magazine article (I believe in the Royal-watching publication "Royalty") on this production. Granted, mostly relating to the casting of Johansson, but if the sources can be found I think that would satisfy the future films notability requirement. If kept, however, the article should be renamed Mary Queen of Scots (2008 film) owing to the existence of the early-1970s film of the same title starring Vanessa Redgrave, which likely will have an article created if one doesn't already exist. 23skidoo (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Are you saying it's gone into production, or just that sources exist for casting? Because the latter still fails NFF. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete - The notability guidelines for future films stipulate that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. This is because many factors such as budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with the project. The article can be recreated when principal photography is confirmed to have begun. Steve ^{T • C} 10:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment. The articles for Star Trek (2008 film) and Quantum of Solace were created months before either film entered production. Can anyone confirm that production of this film hasn't begun? Unlike the Sunset Blvd film article which apparently mentions it being affected by the WGA strike, I've heard nothing to suggest the strike has affected this film. 23skidoo (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] This page says filming is to start April 9 2008. Should that be insufficient, I can provide more. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 19:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] WP:WAX. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] In addition, WP:FUTFILMS was set in stone after Star Trek and Quantum of Solace were created, and in the case of the latter, began shooting. Alientraveller (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete per Erik. Cliff smith (talk) 03:57, 1 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 This list is rather short. John Vandenberg (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Kane George Jason[edit] Kane George Jason (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Insufficient qualifications for notability; appear to be vanity pages for an independent filmmaker - 100% of User:Fakelake's edits up to now are regarding these pages. (Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for personal resumes.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] I am also nominating the following related pages: Dancing with the Pros (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) He's Not My... (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Contempovision Films (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) The Diary (short film) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Revenge Is Sweet (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) My Garden (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Delete Because of a lacking of any reviews or any other kind of significant coverage for any of these Corpx (talk) 11:02, 30 January 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 invalid nomination. Read the targets of the wikilinks you cited (first 2). No justification provided for WP:CORP. "Per nom" !vote also thrown out for same reason. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] RAFaL[edit] RAFaL (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Delete per WP:APATHY, WP:JNN, and most of all, WP:CORP. Undeath (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom, or Merge into Université Laval. --Sc straker (talk) 03:07, 30 January 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. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Ernest Wong[edit] Ernest Wong (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Completing unfinished nomination by Shuyun (talk · contribs). No opinion yet. The article has been tagged for notability since May 2007. The ~200 Chinese GHits are about unrelated individuals [51]; had time to go through the English GNews hits, but at a cursory glance I haven't found any which are actually about the same Ernest Wong. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. cab (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete - fails WP:N and WP:BIO for academics. --Sc straker (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete per above comments. Just no notability Corpx (talk) 11:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete NLP trainers are not academics. i doubt he is a notable trained in " ACCELERATRED LEARNING" either. (spelling as in the article) DGG (talk) 09:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment. I agree he's not an academic, but I listed it in the deletion sorting page because there is a claim in the article that he's an educator: the part about founding a language learning center (with a name strangely resembling but not the same as UNESCO) and teaching 20k people to speak (don't most people older than a toddler already know how to do this?). As for the article itself, I'm concerned that it's taking the names of the Universities of California and British Columbia in vain: I searched but couldn't find any official connection between anything named "Turning Point" and UC, nor between the Society of NLP and UBC. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:13, 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] International Phone Dictionary Day[edit] International Phone Dictionary Day (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Oh please... 1090 Ghits, less than 200 of which are unique. None of them appear to assert anything close to notability. And... com'on, an unrecognized holiday to support a cell phone utility? Trusilver 02:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete; complete WP:BOLLOCKS. --MCB (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. --Sc straker (talk) 03:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Strong delete vanispamcruftisement, possibly a hoax, definitely doesn't belong. Thin boy 00 @177, i.e. 03:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Speedy delete - no evidence that this exists outside of a single high school --T-rex 06:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete, salt the earth, execute the author's family and redirect to WP:NOT. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:37, 30 January 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. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 10:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] The Southern Cat Rocks On[edit] The Southern Cat Rocks On (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Fails WP:MUSIC: compilation album with no claims of notability. Wyatt Riot (talk) 02:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep passes WP:MUSIC easily. Album by notable musician. Gene Summers = Rockabilly Hall of Fame. Should WP:SNOW this. Sting au Buzz Me... 05:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment: The AFD isn't for Gene Summers (who is clearly notable) but for this album. Per WP:MUSIC (especially the Albums and songs section), each album must meet basic notability requirements. This articles just doesn't meet those requirements. Wyatt Riot (talk) 11:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep Gene Summers is clearly notable, WP:MUSIC says that his albums are notable too. Is it the word "compilation" that's confusing? In addition, there are plenty of references and material to sustain an article, they're not inline cites but they indicate to me that the notability is not only claimed but quite obvious. --Canley (talk) 07:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment: If you look through the History and the articles written by the same editor, you'll see that the "Sources" mainly apply to claims made in the "Artist profile" section, which isn't even necessary in this article. The sole reference for the album itself is the liner notes. Wyatt Riot (talk) 11:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Merge to Gene Summers or better yet, maybe someone wants to create a list of his albums. WP:MUSIC doesn't give an automatic license for all albums by notable musicians to have their own articles. There have to be sources about the album itself. The reason is simple if you think about it - how else is one to write an article that isn't OR? Content about the artist is or should be all ready in his article, and if you take that out of this article, there isn't enough for more than a stub. I couldn't find much of anything about the article or its songs when I searched; if there are sources that show notability of the album I'd revisit this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xymmax (talk • contribs) 16:43, 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 Speedily deleted, WP:CSD#G3, pure vandalism, being a blatant and obvious hoax about a supposed eleventh century saint with a modern English style surname, middle, and given name. Seemed to me it's probably a tribute or satire about a living person, probably an acquaintance of the author. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Saint sather[edit] Saint sather (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Unreferenced, probably a hoax. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 02:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Same reasons, no Google hits. Delete. --ukexpat (talk) 03:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. --Sc straker (talk) 03:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete Few or zero hits on Google, Google Scholar, Google Books and Google News. Of the few hits, non are related to this article. Speedy Delete is recommended--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete as unsourceable. I corrected the lead formatting, but - if a myth has existed since 976 AD, then surely something would have been written down somewhere, by somebody. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 04:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete I suspect a hoax as well. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete the concept of "teenager" did not exist in the timeframe given for this, hence betraying the hoaxalicious nature of this junk. JuJube (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete. I think this is supposed to be a tribute to one of the article creator's high school classmates with an overlay of myths and nonsense. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:40, 30 January 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, default to keep. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 10:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] OldVersion.com[edit] AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/OldVersion.com Articles for deletion/OldVersion.com (2nd nomination) OldVersion.com (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) No references. If we delete what isn't referenced, we end up with an empty, sub-stub article. The article hasn't been referenced since inception, really. There's no evidence of meeting WP:WEB for notability. Mikeblas (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete per WP:WEB. If it wasn't for the previous AfD this would be a WP:CSD#A7 candidate. Jfire (talk) 05:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete No significant coverage from independent sources Corpx (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Uncertain. I vaguely remember reading about this website in a computer magazine or newspaper, but I don't remember where. Would need more research to see if it is possible to find media mentions of it that might help establish notability. --Itub (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep or merge -- possibly to somewhere like archive site or history of application software. The archive, notable in itself for uniqueness and survival, just happens to have a web-page format; its notability as a repository does not necessarily depend on the guidelines for the average web-sit-- A respectable link/review appears at http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2704,1162680,00.asp -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment. The 72-word "article" at pcmag.com isn't exactly substantial, per WP:N. The current article is completely uncited; WP:V, we're to remove such material, not relocate it. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep, numerous sources available from Google News Archive including the Wall Street Journal and National Review in addition to "industry" publications. --Dhartung \| Talk 05:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep per Dhartung; great job! Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 01:07, 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. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Summers-Dance Dance Dance The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, this article does not give sources for this album; the sources provided are exactly the same as was used on Gene Summers-Dance Dance Dance. John Vandenberg (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Rock 'n Roll Tour - "Live" In Scandinavia[edit] AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Rock 'n Roll Tour - "Live" In Scandinavia Rock 'n Roll Tour - "Live" In Scandinavia (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Fails WP:MUSIC: live album with no claims of notability. Wyatt Riot (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep passes WP:MUSIC easily. Album by notable musician. Gene Summers = Rockabilly Hall of Fame. Should WP:SNOW this. Sting au Buzz Me... 06:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment: The AFD isn't for Gene Summers (who is clearly notable) but for this album. Per WP:MUSIC (especially the Albums and songs section), each album must meet basic notability requirements. This articles just doesn't meet those requirements. Wyatt Riot (talk) 11:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Redirect to Gene Summers, lack of media coverage. Addhoc (talk) 17:32, 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 Non-valid nomination. If you find you are typing "WP:ATA..." in your wikilinks while making a nomination, stop! Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions should actually be avoided in deletion discussions, particularly in the nomination. The statement that this song has not been released yet is not true. It is a song played on UK music television channels frequently, references provided shows that. There potentially could be coherant arguments to be made to support deletion, but they were not made in this nomination. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] It's High Tide Baby[edit] It's High Tide Baby (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Delete per WP:ATA#CRYSTAL and WP:MUSIC. This has not even been released yet. Undeath (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. --Sc straker (talk) 03:17, 30 January 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 John Vandenberg (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Show Me Love (t.A.T.u. song)[edit] Show Me Love (t.A.T.u. song) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Non-notable, fails WP:Music, neither of the source links are working Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 02:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] This song's notability is nowt demonstrated. It was not released as a single, and it does not matter that it was at one point considered for release. I see no evidence that it was released a promotional CD, and even if it was, it didn't chart. Much of the article is rambling about a music video that was never released. Also, neither of the links are working, which seems a bit suspicious to me. Overall, not notable, never released as single, fails WP:Music: "Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article..." This song has not been ranked on national or significant music charts, has not won significant awards or honors, and, to my knowledge, has not been performed independently by several notable artists, bands, or groups. I will withdraw my nomination if this can be well-sourced and it's notability firmly proven. Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 02:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Er, did you mean "now demonstrated" or "not demonstrated"? —Quasirandom (talk) 02:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Yes...good spotting that. Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 02:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete - scraped single fails notablity. half a music video doesn't change anything. unless the single is eventually released, this should just redirect back to the album --T-rex 06:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Weak keep or merge. In answer to Bmrbarre's scepticism about the links, they had been wrongly formatted. I've fixed the BBC News link, so that's one reliable source towards notability, but the other one seems to require membership to view. While a scrapped single wouldn't normally be notable, a video shoot making the news seems to me to indicate material worth keeping. If the article is not kept, there is material that definitely needs to be merged into the album article. Bondegezou (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment. I've added another citation, althought the article could certainly do with more work. Bondegezou (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment. I'm pretty sure that an unreleased music video, even one story about it, does not count as notable, no matter how well it is sourced. To quote what Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, "Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right." [52] Also, to quote Wikipedia:Notability, "A short burst of news reports about a topic does not necessarily constitute evidence of long-term notability." [53]I think that a mention (albeit by the BBC) about the shoot an unreleased music video either does not constitute notability, or it is something that is in the news for a brief period, and therefore not necessarily suitable for an article in its own right. Perhaps something should be mentioned about this song on the TATU (or however the name should be written) page, but this song does not deserve its own page. Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 02:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Well the fact that the video wasn't released but was being made makes this song unusual, and thus notable. There are information about that it people might want, and this page would be good for that. This is the video which was never released: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGC7pYVpbEQ&feature=related —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.112.233 (talk) 22:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Also as far as I know, that is the official leaked video, and not a fan compilation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.112.233 (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] According to the article (though this is unsourced), "Some footage has made its way to the Internet in recent years, compiled of fan videos shot on location and unused official footage, but the completed video has never been released or leaked." Therefore, someone's wrong. Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 00:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete - this is a cancelled single. The controversy is over the proposed video not the single. In my view the controversy doesn't make an unreleased single notable but mention can sensibly be made in the t.A.T.u. page. TerriersFan (talk) 17:42, 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 article is incorrect. The video contains footage (in its entirety, footage in the video has never before been seen) that was never publicly released anywhere else, for example, from the stars' personal cams, and thus cannot be a fan video. The shooting was never finished, and as a result this video is not the as the producers intended. That's why it was never released in an official form. But it is certain that the management/producers made this video, either that or their video editor just got really bored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.107.95 (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 John Vandenberg (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Gene Summers-Early Rocking Recordings[edit] Gene Summers-Early Rocking Recordings (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Fails WP:MUSIC: compilation album with no claims of notability. Wyatt Riot (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep passes WP:MUSIC easily. Album by notable musician. Gene Summers = Rockabilly Hall of Fame. Sting au Buzz Me... 06:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment: The AFD isn't for Gene Summers (who is clearly notable) but for this album. Per WP:MUSIC (especially the Albums and songs section), each album must meet basic notability requirements. This articles just doesn't meet those requirements. Wyatt Riot (talk) 11:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Neutral - Major albums by notable artists are generally assumed to be notable. I don't really see anything special about this one compilation though. Torc2 (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Redirect - lack of media coverage Addhoc (talk) 17:41, 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 Redirect John Vandenberg (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Rock a Boogie Shake[edit] Rock a Boogie Shake (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Fails WP:MUSIC: compilation album with no claims of notability. Wyatt Riot (talk) 02:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment: Don't let the "Discography references" section fool you. They aren't notability references or reviews of the album but citations for the artist notability in the "Artist profile" section. Wyatt Riot (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep passes WP:MUSIC easily. Album by notable musician. Gene Summers = Rockabilly Hall of Fame. Sting au Buzz Me... 06:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment: The AFD isn't for Gene Summers (who is clearly notable) but for this album. Per WP:MUSIC (especially the Albums and songs section), each album must meet basic notability requirements. This articles just doesn't meet those requirements. Wyatt Riot (talk) 11:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Redirect - lack of media coverage Addhoc (talk) 17:43, 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 John Vandenberg (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Sounds Like Elvis CD[edit] Sounds Like Elvis CD (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Fails WP:MUSIC: compilation album with no claims of notability. Wyatt Riot (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Weak delete - There may be a track or two from notable artists, but the article doesn't make that clear. Even still, I don't know if that's sufficient to give the album a full article. Torc2 (talk) 22:52, 31 January 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Music magazine[edit] Music magazine (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) After I deleted some spam from the article, this basically becomes a dictionary definition of what a music magazine is. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Redfarmer (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Speedy Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary.Undeath (talk) 02:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep. This is a valid stub, and I do see the direction this article could take in its expansion. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 02:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. --Sc straker (talk) 03:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep per Blanchardb, could clearly be expanded well beyond a dictionary definition. Jfire (talk) 05:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep per Blanchardb and Jfire. Has potential for expansion. Sting au Buzz Me... 06:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep This is potentially expandable to a decent article, a legitimate stub. I'll have a look at it. --Canley (talk) 08:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment. although I agree with the basic arguments of the keepers in this case, I should point out that ~~most~~ all of this user's contributions are up for afd as WP:Spam astroturf and are fairing poorly in those discussions. I find myself wondering if this article will not, at some point in the near future, suddenly morph into something similar. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC) Also note (above) that Redfarmer deleted a bunch of spam from this article before he afd'd it. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] ~~Solidifying my remarks to Delete unless someone really cares enough in the next few days to give this thing a new life as something substantially other than the spamboard it was created as.~~--Pgagnon999 (talk) 02:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Nice job Canley; I'm upgrading to Keep. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 05:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] ~~Reserving judgement~~ Maybe it's a lack of imagination on my part, but I don't see this as developing beyond a dicdef at best, and a linkfarm at worst. I would have to see some improvement in the article before I could sign off as a keep -- RoninBK _{T C} 19:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Good start. I'm still concerned that this is still a pretty tasty linkspam target, especially by slipping slight blurbs into the "Notable music magazines" section. That being noted however, I can live with a Keep -- RoninBK _{T C} 10:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Currently a dictionary definition. No-one who has edited the article so far seems to have the interest or the ability to improve the article towards a survivable state. The theoretical possibility that someone (who isn't here yet) might one day improve it doesn't seem worth waiting around for. Blanchardb, who voted above, does seem to have an idea, and if he intends to work on the article I might reconsider my vote. EdJohnston (talk) 06:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Switching to Keep based on Canley's improvements. EdJohnston (talk) 05:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment I've expanded the article a bit beyond a dictionary definition and hopefully to create a bit of a framework for further improvement, expansion and referencing. --Canley (talk) 05:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] That's exactly the kind of improvement I was hoping for. Being unknowledgeable in this matter, I could not have made those improvements myself. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep Sure, it's just a dic-def now, but it seems like a lot of people have taken interest in improving the microscopic stub that I created ages ago. I think that with time, it can become a much better article. Eyeball kid (talk) 00:10, 2 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 Rebound (basketball). Excellent discussion led to this clear consensus. The content has been merged, and the page converted to a redirect. Nice work all. Non admin close. Xymmax (talk) 15:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Boxing out[edit] Boxing out (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. There are many terms that coaches use to describe the concept of "boxing out". Different coaches have different terminology. Making a page about one term is non notable. Delete Undeath (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Strong Keep - Boxing out is a universal basketball terminology and an essential basketball concept. matt91486 (talk) 01:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Can you provide a source saying that?Undeath (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] There are 450,000 google hits for "boxing out basketball". I think it's safe to say the article can be sourced if it's looked at closely. matt91486 (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Merge with Basketball. An essential concept, yes, but one worthy of it's own article? Not so much. DarkAudit (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Audit, you beat me to it. It is not worthy of it's own article. There are many, many "essential" concepts to any type of sport, but they do not have their own page.Undeath (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Full-court press, Zone defense, Man-to-man defense, Princeton offense, Box-and-one defense. I'm sure there's more, these are just the first basketball concepts I could think of to search. I think it's safe to say there's precedent for basketball concepts. matt91486 (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Okay, it has sources. But why does it need it' own page? Why cannot it be merged with basketball?Undeath (talk) 02:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason for inclusion. Precedent does not matter. DarkAudit (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] That wasn't my reason for inclusion. My reason was that it meets notability. I was just trying to respond to your point. you can't make the counter point to otherstuffexists and then use it against me when I say it in fact does. matt91486 (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Not worth merging, since it's unreferenced. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Are there any extraordinary claims in the article? This is very basic information and is easily verifiable. Zagalejo^^^ 06:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment - Alright, I'll admit, I'm very surprised at the direction this is going. Tomorrow when I get out of class, I'll see if I can spend some time going through references and giving the article a rewrite. So if you're voting delete at the moment, I'd like to ask that you check back in the next couple of days to look at the current version, if you might. Thanks. matt91486 (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] No matter what you add, it will still just be a part of the game. That alone either constitutes a Delete or a Merge. Rules or any concept of a game is not worthy of it's own article. The concepts and the rules of a game or a sport should be included in the page about the sport.Undeath (talk) 04:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] I disagree wholeheartedly and that's certainly not policy. Articles on games would get bogged down if every concept was detailed in the article. matt91486 (talk) 04:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Okay, if an article gets bogged down, then make a page dedicated to the rules. For example, make a page like Basketball (rules), or Basketball (concepts). You do not need to make an individual page for each and every rule/concept for a big game like basketball.Undeath (talk) 05:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] I'm not unreasonable, and I'm not averse to turning this article into a general concepts of basketball article. It could be well done, there could be see expansions of the more drawn out philosophy stuff, etc. That's a perfectly reasonable solution. It would take some work to put together, and I find it far preferable to putting into the main basketball article. Not sure of the exact naming of any prospective article though. matt91486 (talk) 05:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] I think the most logical merge target would be Rebound (basketball). Zagalejo^^^ 06:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment This concept should be explained somewhere on Wikipedia, as it's a major component of basketball. (And yes, "boxing out" is the established term in English; see [54].) I don't see why deletion tools are necessary; at the very least, this can be converted into a redirect for a broader article. Zagalejo^^^ 06:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete' not sure if this can be any more than a basic definition WP:NOT Corpx (talk) 10:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] You don't even think this could be a redirect? Zagalejo^^^ 18:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment - Alright, I agree with Zagalejo, that merging and redirecting with Rebound (basketball) is the most logical and the least work creating a whole new article. UndeadWarrior, DarkAudit, any thoughts on that? matt91486 (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment/Merge I agree with MERGE to Rebound (basketball).Undeath (talk) 01:55, 31 January 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 & Redirect. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 10:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Owen Burnett[edit] Owen Burnett (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context Jay32183 (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. However, there appears to be no AfD tag on the article. Can this be repaired? Bearian (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] AfD tag added, and article relisted. Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BLACKKITE 00:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Redirect to List of Gargoyles characters#Owen Burnett, per WP:FICT. Jfire (talk) 05:35, 30 January 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. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 10:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Rant Media[edit] Rant Media (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Non-notable website Nakon 00:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. --Sc straker (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. Daniel5127 ^(talk) 04:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete. I went ahead and read through the external links that did not appear to be primary sources, and of them I did not even find a mention of Rant Media, let alone the standard of significant coverage put forth by WP:N. Hence, it also appears to fail WP:WEB if we want to include that here. SorryGuy Talk 03:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete, I too checked the so-called references, and they are not about the article topic. Essentially unreferenced since July 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfmammamia (talk • contribs) 04:06, 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 speedy delete spam. Pegasus «C¦T» 05:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Kult Rock[edit] Kult Rock (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) One of many articles posted by User:Egasa in an apparent astroturfing campaign. Barest assertion of notability, and no secondary independent sources to back up any of these claims. DarkAudit (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. --Sc straker (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete Non-notable MBisanz ^talk 05:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep valid stub, requires clean-up not deletion. Catchpole (talk) 10:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment There is no assertion of notability in any of these articles you claim are "valid stubs". There are no reliable, verifiable, and independent sources of any kind. Mere existence is not enough. WP:N and WP:CORP are simply not met. DarkAudit (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep valid, i have found it in one of the first Google positions and have verified on website —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan60 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC) user's only edit DarkAudit (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC) [reply] Comment. ~~Darkaudit~~, Dan60, I looked it up, too. However, having a website doesn't = notability. Worse case, it appears to be astroturf; best case, unnotable.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment That just proves their web site exists. There are no sources independent of the subject that proves this, or any, of the articles related to User:Egasa are notable per WP:N, WP:CORP, or WP:MUSIC. Stub or not, those guidelines need to be met. They are not. DarkAudit (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Speedy delete, although appearance may not reflect intent, this appears to be just one more in a long line of non-notable, potential spam creations by the same editor. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Speedy Delete G11 spam and so tagged —Travis ^talk 02:59, 31 January 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 delete time Pegasus «C¦T» 05:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Amusement Time[edit] Amusement Time (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) One of many articles posted by User:Egasa in an apparent astroturfing campaign. Barest assertion of notability, and no secondary independent sources to back up any of these claims. DarkAudit (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. --Sc straker (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete Non-notable MBisanz ^talk 05:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep valid stub, requires clean-up not deletion. Catchpole (talk) 10:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment There is no assertion of notability in any of these articles you claim are "valid stubs". There are no reliable, verifiable, and independent sources of any kind. Mere existence is not enough. WP:N and WP:CORP are simply not met. DarkAudit (talk) 14:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Speedy Delete, does not assert notability through references or context; appears to be WP:Spam.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Speedy Delete G11 spam and so tagged —Travis ^talk 02:59, 31 January 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 delete spam. Pegasus «C¦T» 05:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] GeoMusic - Global Encyclopaedia of Music[edit] GeoMusic - Global Encyclopaedia of Music (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) One of many articles posted by User:Egasa in an apparent astroturfing campaign. Barest assertion of notability, and no secondary independent sources to back up any of these claims. DarkAudit (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete Non-notable MBisanz ^talk 05:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep valid stub, requires clean-up not deletion. Catchpole (talk) 10:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment There is no assertion of notability in any of these articles you claim are "valid stubs". There are no reliable, verifiable, and independent sources of any kind. Mere existence is not enough. WP:N and WP:CORP are simply not met. DarkAudit (talk) 14:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Speedy delete, although appearance may not reflect intent, this appears to be just one more in a long line of non-notable, potential spam creations by the same editor. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Speedy delete -- the website claims founded in 1827--I suppose they mean in print, but WorldCat has no listing at all for it under any of the possible alternative titles. The supposed publisher F-times publishing, (presumably Financial Times Publishing)is real, but did not exist in 1827 either. DGG (talk) 01:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Speedy Delete G11 spam and so tagged —Travis ^talk 02:58, 31 January 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 delete Pegasus «C¦T» 05:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] International Federation of Music Journalists[edit] International Federation of Music Journalists (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) One of many articles posted by User:Egasa in an apparent astroturfing campaign. Barest assertion of notability, and no secondary independent sources to back up any of these claims. DarkAudit (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete Non-notable. MBisanz ^talk 05:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep valid stub, requires clean-up not deletion. Catchpole (talk) 10:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment There is no assertion of notability in any of these articles you claim are "valid stubs". There are no reliable, verifiable, and independent sources of any kind. Mere existence is not enough. WP:N and WP:CORP are simply not met. DarkAudit (talk) 14:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Possibly exists solely to advertise Directory of Music Journalist, at any rate it's not notable. PKT (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Speedy delete, although appearance may not reflect intent, this appears to be just one more in a long line of non-notable, potential spam creations by the same editor. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete: 400 members for the whole blinkin' world is pretty small. Otherwise, there is no assertion that this association is anything special, and special is what's needed to be "of note." Utgard Loki (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Speedy Delete G11 spam and so tagged —Travis ^talk 02:58, 31 January 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 delete spam. Pegasus «C¦T» 05:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] GeoMusic Awards[edit] GeoMusic Awards (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) One of many articles posted by User:Egasa in an apparent astroturfing campaign. Barest assertion of notability, and no secondary independent sources to back up any of these claims. DarkAudit (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep valid stub, requires clean-up not deletion. Catchpole (talk) 10:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment There is no assertion of notability in any of these articles you claim are "valid stubs". There are no reliable, verifiable, and independent sources of any kind. Mere existence is not enough. WP:N and WP:CORP are simply not met. DarkAudit (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Speedy Delete. Spam. I doubt these awards have ever taken place, so WP:CRYSTAL applies as well. PKT (talk) 15:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Speedy delete, although appearance may not reflect intent, this appears to be just one more in a long line of non-notable, potential spam creations by the same editor. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete: It's a magazine promotion. Is there any indication that it produces product of note? Is there indication that it is a huge event? Is there evidence that it has massive participation or a high profile in other press? Utgard Loki (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Speedy Delete G11 spam and so tagged —Travis ^talk 02:57, 31 January 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 delete. Pegasus «C¦T» 05:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Directory Report[edit] Directory Report (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) One of many articles posted by User:Egasa in an apparent astroturfing campaign. Barest assertion of notability, and no secondary independent sources to back up any of these claims. DarkAudit (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete Non-notable MBisanz ^talk 05:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Speedy Delete. Spam, minor trade publication, not notable. PKT (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Speedy delete, WP:Spam, WP:Notability.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete or speedy: A3, A1, A7 speedy delete criteria, plus it's pretty spammy. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Speedy Delete WP:SPAM Doc Strange (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Speedy Delete G11 spam and so tagged —Travis ^talk 02:56, 31 January 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 delete spam. Pegasus «C¦T» 05:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Media Line International[edit] Media Line International (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) One of many articles posted by User:Egasa in an apparent astroturfing campaign. Barest assertion of notability, and no secondary independent sources to back up any of these claims. DarkAudit (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. No evidence of notability has been provided using reliable independent sources. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete Non-notable MBisanz ^talk 05:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete - spam --T-rex 06:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep valid stub, requires clean-up not deletion. Catchpole (talk) 10:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment There is no assertion of notability in any of these articles you claim are "valid stubs". There are no reliable, verifiable, and independent sources of any kind. Mere existence is not enough. WP:N and WP:CORP are simply not met. DarkAudit (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Speedy Delete. Spam, minor trade publication, not notable. PKT (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete, does not establish notability through references or context.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete or speedy delete: It's an A3 speedy (empty), and it's all box and no article. Additionally, it says, "Here is a magazine." Yes, well, here is one, there is one, everywhere is one. So? Utgard Loki (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Speedy Delete G11 spam and so tagged —Travis ^talk 02:56, 31 January 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 delete. Falls under WP:CSD#A7 W.marsh 01:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Phantasmata Production[edit] Phantasmata Production (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) One of many articles posted by User:Egasa in an apparent astroturfing campaign. Barest assertion of notability, and no secondary independent sources to back up any of these claims. DarkAudit (talk) 00:23, 30 January 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 Nomination Withdrawn, non-admin close. Redfarmer (talk) 08:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Fredrick Douglass Houses[edit] Fredrick Douglass Houses (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) I proded this one a while back for notability and it was contested with the reason "numerous news accounts available." Since I don't live in the area, I held off taking it to AfD to give someone a chance to source it and establish notability but no one has yet to and the only coverage I'm finding is trivial mentions. Redfarmer (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep I added a few sources that should establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Has relevant external coverage concerning the subject from reliable sources. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep: houses were the subject of discussion of whether to tear down or keep, and they were kept due to their historic nature. Unfortunately that is locked behind pay door in the NYT Archive and I can't get full text access at the moment. I'm probably not going to have time to work on the article between now and when this would expire, however. Travellingcari (talk) 05:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment: Notability established by Alansohn. Withdrawing. Redfarmer (talk) 08:25, 30 January 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Dataflex[edit] Dataflex (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Looks like an advertisement; fails WP:CORP. No sources or even an external link. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete reads like an ad, probably come COI issues, and company is not notable - Dumelow (talk) 14:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Gavin Collins (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete: Advertising copy or press release, and the company might or might not pass CORP, but the article is about services. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete: Yet another provider of "solutions"; yet another technology business trying to use Wikipedia for advertising. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete, agreed with everyone else here. Article seems far too much like an advert, and pretty much non-notable. — alex.muller (talk • edits) 21:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete - the company is clearly notable, and seems to have been quite large at one point, with hundreds of news articles in the likes of the Financial Times, but this article is clearly nothing but spam (unless you count the first sentence of the lead). Wikidemo (talk) 12:11, 1 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; article cleaned up, inappropriate sources removed, and proper sources brought. Avi (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Abraham Gancwajch[edit] Abraham Gancwajch (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Delete - Article was sourced to unreliable blogs. Outside of that, there is no verifiable notability. Avi (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment - A one day old stub, already better developed than thousands of other stub articles on wikipedia. The leader of the notorious "Thirteen network" in Warsaw Ghetto is certainly a notable person. Feel free to contribute in a constructive way and expand the stub instead. Bad faith nomination (first remove reference, then claim "unreferenced" and immediately nominate for deletion ? shame on you Avi). --Lysy^talk 16:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Blogs are not reliable sources; that reference was unacceptable. -- Avi (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Who said that was a blog ? --Lysy^talk 17:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] http://www.lastsuperpower.net self-defines as a "established by leftwingers who support the war in Iraq.…This is a place for people who want to discuss what it really means to be progressive and left-wing in the 21st century - and where we can go from here." It is a discussion forum, which is no more reliable than a blog. Please see WP:RS. -- Avi (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Please consult the source first. This is neither a blog nor a discussion forum. --Lysy^talk 17:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Nor is it a reliable source. Please do not restore it. -- Avi (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] First you claimed the references were from a blog, then a discussion forum, now you are saying it's not a RS. Still, I don't see the reason to delete the article. --Lysy^talk 22:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] comment I agree with Avi that this is a bad source, but that does not mean that there aren't good sources somewhere else. Jon513 (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] I have added a plethora of reliable books. The above site as well as [55] are not very reliable, but they can now be removed, as they are not sole references for any claims anymore.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus\| talk} 20:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment If the article's issues of sourcing and WP:NPOV can be fixed appropriately within the time period of the AfD, that would be an impetus to clse the nominations as "Keep - Corrected/Fixed". -- Avi (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Would you nominate any stub without references for deletion, or only this one. I'm sorry but it seems you are wikilawyering simply because you find the content of the article uncomfortable. --Lysy^talk 18:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment. Can you more specifically explain what WP:NPOV issues do you have in mind so that they can be corrected ? --Lysy^talk 19:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment Unless the provided information is false, any stub deserves an opportunity to be examined and expanded. Otherwise this proposal smacks of censorship. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete: When reliable sources are used, there can be a discussion. The article is not only using odd sources, but it has some of the infamous slur phrases like, "The allegation that he joined the NKVD has not been confirmed." Then why say it? "The allegation that you are a rapist and the killer of thousands has not yet been confirmed" is a way of unsaying it. The subject may be entirely valid, but the content is in no way valid. Furthermore, I'm not sure that a biography would be justified of someone who may or may not have done something and whose existence is undocumented beyond a certain point. Why a separate article instead of a listing of people in the article on the organization? You don't write a biographical entry until you have the biography. If you're speculating or contending over the biography, you wait until the material shows up. As for "why not leave it," the answer is that this is incendiary material. It's better safe than slanderous. Utgard Loki (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Infamous slur phrases fixed. Would you change your opinion now ? --Lysy^talk 22:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep. References, and we have many articles about less prominent rabbis anyway. PS. As for more reliable sources, I am sure something from over 30 books here would be enough.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus\| talk} 18:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus\| talk} 18:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete this clear violation of WP:NOR, WP:BIO, WP:V a well as WP:NOT#PROPAGANDA. IZAK (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] The only violations I see here are of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus\| talk} 19:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Weak keep, leaning toward merge with Group 13 - Two of the 11 sources are not WP:RS, but nine sources is a good number for a short article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus has shown that Gancwajch is mentioned in more than two dozen of books (some of the Google hits are duplicates). On the other hand, it isn't clear to me that coverage of Gancwajch is more than "trivial" - for example, Itamar Levin, the most cited source, writes primarily about "The Thirteen", not Gancwajch. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Isreal Gutman writes ([56] - wrong link ?) even more about him by but that point I was too tired to add this ref in. He has some speculations on his early career and such.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus\| talk} 21:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Strong keep-notable person, described in books.--Molobo (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Speedy Keep - References aren't based on blogs but mostly from many reputable books--YY (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep - All specific concerns addressed. --Lysy^talk 22:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment I am pleased to see that the article is actually getting fixed nicely. However, sites such as http://www.jewishtribalreview.org and http://www.lastsuperpower.net are unacceptable. If you can replace those with reliable citations or remove those sentences together with the other unsourced sentences, I will consider withdrawing the nomination. -- Avi (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] As I wrote above they can be removed without loss of any content; I have verified all info with reliable sources.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus\| talk} 05:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Done. Thanks all. --Lysy^talk 08:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep as per above comments/improvements to the aricle, also as per positive news for a change regarding tolerance policy in Poland after Tusk became its new PM and it shows. greg park avenue (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep per improvements, however, sources failing WP:RS need to be left out. --MPerel 02:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep Although not a great deal is known about his life, enough facts to support a clear notability claim are relaibly sourced. That is enough to support a keep under WP:BIO. AfD is about whether the subject is notable, not whether the current article is a good article. --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep - appears to be well referenced. Gatoclass (talk) 09:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep - as shameful as it is the nazis could have not done it without the Jewish help they received and he was one of them. As for WP:RS enough good sources have been given. --Shmaltz (talk) 14:19, 31 January 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 Nerf John Vandenberg (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Dart Wars[edit] Dart Wars (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Game doesn't appear to be a notable game. No proper reliable sources. Goes slightly beyond Things Made up in School One Day, though, so I decided to bring it here rather than PROD or speedy. ♠P M C♠ 18:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment After a quick perusal of the content and the fact there are external links to a newspaper and tv station, I have nominated this article for proposed rescue, assuming the good faith of the editors, however on the flip side I also note that the possibly related article Nerf War has been Afd'd before per making stuff up MickMacNee (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Lame but notable enough, it started in 1995 and is still being reported on in 2004. Clean-up and move on. Benjiboi 21:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep - It stoopid but it appears to be notable. Bearian (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Merge and Redirect to Nerf. It can be a separate section there, no need for a complete article on it. Black Kite 01:42, 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 Speedy delete per CSD G12, copyvio. Keeper \| 76 \| Disclaimer 20:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Oliver Hayes Dean[edit] Oliver Hayes Dean (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) Already denied PROD, so I'm bringing it to AFD. There are no sources provided showing this man's notability. The article has been tagged for such since March 2007, so I think it's safe to assume they're not coming. ♠P M C♠ 19:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete per my denied PROD, person seems non-notable. — alex.muller (talk • edits) 19:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of academic-related deletion discussions. —Lquilter (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment. I believe the subject is notable, however the current article is a copyvio from [57]. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete. It does sound like he should be notable, but my brief online searches did not find appropriate sources, and I agree with Espresso Addict about the copyvio. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:35, 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 a non-admin keep with no deletion rationale and consensus for keep. SorryGuy Talk 01:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Rubens Gerchman[edit] Rubens Gerchman (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) I don't think this article is in good shape so thats why i request a deletion. Unless someone fixes the article then it would be a keep.--Pookeo9 (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep first, the article is not in such a terrible state and second, when an article sucks, we don't delete it, we fix it. There's an article in the Portuguese wiki which you can request to have translated or adapted, you can ask for help from various WikiProjects, you can also go to your favorite library and pick up additional references to build the article. But he appears to be a significant figure and the article should stay. 66.130.247.219 (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep The deletion argument presented is not grounds for deletion. Keep, under WP:ATD, If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. . Yng varr 22:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep, article came with two reliable sources indicating notability. We don't delete imperfect articles, we improve them. --Dhartung \| Talk 00:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep Yes, this needs clean-up. However, he exhibited at Museum of Modern Art in São Paulo, Museu da Republica in Rio de Janeiro, Austin Museum in Austin, Texas, Bronx Museum and 3 São Paulo Biennials. This is more than notable. freshacconcispeaktome 17:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep seems like a notable entry. - Modernist (talk) 18:26, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Sandy Davidson[edit] Sandy Davidson (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) – (View AfD) This is Not notable. -Karaku (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] delete as NN --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete Unless the article as more information then i will switch to keep but for now not enough sources and who was he, his early life more detailed.--Pookeo9 (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete - tragic but non-notable crime victim. --Orange Mike \| Talk 18:27, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikiSpecs.org

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 17:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiSpecs.org[edit]

No assertion of notability, no evidence it passes WP:WEB, page exists solely to promote a website; also an inappropriate tone, no sources, and concerns over copyright violation. WLU (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC) Note that page was speedy and contested, so I moved it to AFD WLU (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - essentially an advert. Springnuts (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under WP:CSD#A7. Non-notable website. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What are porducts? Should have been Speedily Deleted. --Veritas (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. For a website, its name gets pathetically few ghits and it's hardly likely to have been written about in the real world.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:55, 30 January 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--Salix alba (talk) 11:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary Polynomial Regression[edit]

non-notable subject. Prod was removed citing an article. However, "Evolutionary Polynomial Regression" only generates 40 Ghits[36] (including the Wikipedia article itself) and most of those hits refer to articles by one single person, Orazio Giustolisi. There are no links to this page, which has remained a stub for quite some time. Hence, I propose that this page be deleted. Crusio (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete promotional, rather than informative article. The paper this article is based on has been cited a mere two times in the ISI database, one of which is a self-citation. It might be possible to write an encyclopedia article on the idea (it's sort of reminiscent of this idea), but this is simply use of Wikipedia to promote an idea with no demonstrable impact in the outside world. Pete.Hurd (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete I concur with nom. and Pete.Hurd; non-notable promotional article. Tim Ross·^talk 15:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The entire text of the article, absent its single reference, is:

Evolutionary Polynomial Regression (EPR) is an analytical approach which offers a range of benefits when seeking to quantify relationships; it does not require prior knowledge of the form of the relationship, and ‘sifts’ through potential causal attributes identifying those which have the greatest relevance to the observed outputs.

This seems typical of the method. You choose a three word phrase with TLA potential, selecting words that sound precisely scientific or mathematical. The actual description of the great discovery is verbal mush: abstract to the point of evasiveness, and ultimately yields little meaning. I too suspect that this is promotional in intent. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ask your doctor if Evolutionary Polynomial Regression is right for you. Mandsford (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. RogueNinja_talk 08:55, 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 per article improvements and sourcing. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Blake (folk singer)[edit]

No independant sources, unable to find any. Artists own site's "Press Clippings" section has one article (2004) from a source I am unable to locate/verify. "Signed" to his own label. Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. PKT (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I do not personally know this artist at all and this article was not intended to further the cause of a personal friend or promote Robert Blake's music for any other reason than that this man has something to add to the great litany of American musicians. He is a great musician, well respected amongst those in the folk music scene, and has a fan base that stretches from Bellingham, WA (Blake's hometown) all the way to Ireland. Here is another independent magazine that mentions Robert Blake and independently verifies the fact that he is a known recording artist: http://www.whatsup-magazine.com/index.php?navarea=Archives&storyid=747 I believe that deleting this article attacks the core belief of Wikipedia; namely, that small independent voices can add something to the greater good of society. Deleting this article would be both disrespectful to the artist himself and to the idea that individuals should be able to take their own path in life - though it may be different from the norm - and still manage to create something beautiful, lasting, and meaningful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiretalk (talk • contribs) 22:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to a review from a show that Blake played in Ireland. http://www.irelandlogue.com/music/robert-sarazin-blake-in-ballymahon.html It is unfair to claim that this artist is unimportant and not noteworthy enough for Wikipedia when he has been consistently releasing albums and playing venues, both here and abroad, for nearly a decade. Simply because one cannot here this artist on MTV or Top 40 radio play - two venues he would almost certainly deny exposure on anyway - is no reason not to include this extremely talented and influential artist on a website dedicated to the pursuit and dissemination of information of all types. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiretalk (talk • contribs) 22:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't sing "Keep Your Eye on the Sparrow". He's not that Robert Blake. Mandsford (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Shiretalk: Your comments, while heartfelt, do not address the core issue: Notability in wikipedia. Whether or not he is heard on MTV or Top 40, has been "been consistently releasing albums", the "idea that individuals should be able to take their own path in life", that "small independent voices can add something to the greater good of society", that you "do not personally know this artist", that the article "was not intended to further the cause of a personal friend or promote Robert Blake's music for any other reason than that this man has something to add" -- all of these arguments are moot: they are not of practical importance to this debate. If you wish to save the article, support his notability in the article (based on guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (music)) by citing reliable sources. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE

I have again updated the article with more verifiable sources; all of which prove the notability of Robert Blake. This article now fulfills, not one, but three different criteria according to the Wikipedia:Notability (music) guidelines. The three criteria that this article meets are as follows:

1. It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.[1]

4. Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.

7. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

I hope that this will finally quell the fears that this artist is not noteworthy enough to be included in Wikipedia.--Shiretalk (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The supplemental information seems to satisfy the notability requirement.Georgiamonet (talk) 05:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've been following this discussion since the original nomination. The references that have been produced (even excluding the Same Room Records links, since that's Blake's label) seem to me to be enough to show multiple, non-trivial coverage. Xymmax (talk) 15:56, 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 a non-admin keep per consensus. SorryGuy Talk 02:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kerokero Ace[edit]

Delete or Merge with an appropriate one. An unreferenced and promotional article (see Free gifts section) on a magazine that fails at WP:NOTE. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •} ^Contribs) 13:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This article is in no way intended as promotion. I created it only this morning and it's marked as a stub to help build it up. http://www.kadokawa.co.jp/mag/kerokero/ The magazine is up to its third volume and has taken on some of the titles previously running in the now canceled Comic Bom Bom. The mention of the cover mounted freebies is there because it's a fact of the magazine and my Japanese skills aren't the best so I can't offer tons of information.--HellCat86 (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Unreferenced article (only link is its official site in Japanese) written in an advertising tone. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •} ^Contribs) 19:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult not to when the publication in question is highly commercialised. As for references...you've not even given anyone a full day yet. It's a bit ridiculous to demand criteria be met instantly.--HellCat86 (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has only been in existence for 2 days. Lack of sources is grounds for improvement, not deletion. Frankly don't see why nominator thinks it has a promotional tone, it notable lacks the superlatives and POV such articles are full of. Edward321 (talk) 06:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. While it is a new magazine, it is published by a well-known and well-established publisher, and the magazine article has only been around for a few days. Articles really shouldn't be nominated for deletion so soon unless they are obviously nonsense. You really need to give the authors a chance to improve it by first marking it with appropriate cleanup tags, allowing a few weeks to a few months for the cleanup to be accomplished (perhaps even notifying the appropriate Wikiproject, too, to allow more interested editors to work on it), and then marking it for deletion if it still doesn't meet the basic requirements of WP:N and WP:V. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is tempting to say that on the basis of being nominated 50 minutes after the article was created while the editor was actively working on it, as shown by the history, because per policy, articles aren't supposed to be perfect right off. As mentioned above, if you have notability concerns tag it first, then see what comes of it -- and this goes double if it's still being created. However, edits made since then are enough to convince me that there is sufficient notability to make this a valid stub. — Quasirandom (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per aboves. No warning bells go off for me, and it seems to be a valid magazine. --Gwern (contribs) 01:50 6 February 2008 (GMT)
Keep. Seems like a perfectly fine article on a proper magazine. Seems pretty factual to me, with no real "promotional" aspect. Does however need one or two references, e.g. a reference for examples of free gifts would help in the removal of any "promotional" aspect. Highwind888 (talk) 02:21, 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. DS (talk) 06:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goat tongue[edit]

The sole reference in this article has been questioned. A google search fails to find any historical acounts of this supposed form of torture. If it is practised by fetishists or game show hosts today, it is very non-notable- googling for the term reveals mainly a culinary term and links to pictures of a goat's tongue. Lurker (said · done) 13:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - hoax. Springnuts (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Npn-Notable. Valley2city 16:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Very weak keep~~. I was going to say delete, but it appears not to be a hoax. This looks like a reliable source to confirm its existence, and if the book in question can be checked to verify that citation is correct, then that makes this notable - has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial reliable published sources. I admit that I was drawn to participation in this AfD in the hope of finding another addition to WP:DAFT, but going on the Google hits it sounds like people think it's an urban legend, but actually seemed to have taken place in real life throughout the course of history.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or how about merge to tickle torture given the citation I've found? Yeah, I strike my very weak keep in favour of a merge.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reality check - you would die of old age before the wretched goat got through the thick calluses on your mediaeval feet! OK some research: This site [[37]] is the home of the torture exhibition (the link to the English version may not work in Firefox), however the only mention of goat I found is to goatskin trousers (in this document [[38]]. The BMJ article is a report on an exhibition of torture instruments - this cannot have included "goat tongue" as no instrument was involved - it is just ghastly things with spikes and stuff. None of the other references to the travelling exhibition mention this improbable torture. The book given as a reference is incorrectly titled - it is actually "In Search of Dracula: A True History of Dracula and Vampire Legends". Astonishingly it is available at my local university library, and I suppose I could have a look - but read what is said - Dracula skinned the feet first then dripped salt water on them - goat involvement nil!! Sorry, but all my (goat's) b******s detectors are flashing red. Springnuts (talk) 22:58, 30 January 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 delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quizzee Rascalz[edit]

Delete. Non-notable Pub Quiz team that fails at WP:NOTE. Lake of citations as well. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 12:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pub quiz teams are by definition non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable pub quiz team and all the content is currently unreferenced. AngelOfSadness talk 17:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A7, non-notable group of people, no references. Complete and utter vanity. Google turns up absolutely nothing. No point debating this further.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:50, 30 January 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. Fram (talk) 12:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kendrion Electromagnetic[edit]

Delete unreferenced promotional piece about NN company Mayalld (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Tagged it as speedy, got contested, nothing changed since that time. Andante1980 (talk) 14:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam. Yet another article about a technology business that makes no showing of notability. Even if the business were notable, the current text -- . . . guarantees solution-oriented customer service. Innovative ability and highest productivity characterize the group -- is so non-neutral that it would be best to scrub this and start from scratch. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per G11. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 16:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Annual revenues of 144 millions Euros are not to be sneezed at. I added a reference from Modern Machine Shop magazine. --Eastmain (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable subsidiary. The parent company, Kendrion N.V, appears to be notable. If an article were to be created on the parent, this article (heavily edited for POV) could be merged. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 03:32, 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 Nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure RoninBK _{T C} 18:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broumov Airport[edit]

The article is copied from webpage http://www.airbroumov.eu/index.php?pageurl=airport. It is written like an advertisement and it is written in Czech. Kubek15 - Talk, Userboxes, Contributions 09:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to have been rewritten now. J Milburn (talk) 11:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep As the original reasons for deletion have been fixed [39]. Perfectly acceptable stub. Pedro : Chat 11:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claims of notability (I know that's not what the nominator picked, but it still applies), no third party sources either. TJ Spyke 11:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - now that it has been translated into English. There are thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of similar stubs for airports, towns, rivers, etc. Personally, I would get rid of all of them on notability grounds but there is a long consensus that such stubs be kept. They are verifiable and Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Sbowers3 (talk) 13:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I close this AfD. The result is keep. Thanks for voting. Kubek15 - Talk, Userboxes, Contributions 17:08, 30 January 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nitish Srivastava[edit]

Entirely non-notable biography which should be speedily deleted. The speedy tags I have placed there have been removed by an anon. IP (with a history of having been involved with the article before) Ros0709 (talk) 09:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person appears to be entirely non-notable, but the article is cited and makes a claim of notability so it's not a speedy deletion candidate, unfortunately. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Vanity page RogueNinja_talk 15:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of academic-related deletion discussions. —Lquilter (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some corporation gave him a college scholarship. That seems very far from enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I agree with the ninja and we also have a guy watching over it and removing the afd tags. Kingpomba (talk) 08:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sign of notability. Edward321 (talk) 06:48, 2 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 17:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obsil[edit]

This project by a redlinked musician makes no claim of notability, has no outside sources whatsoever. Lord Uniscorn (talk) 08:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obsil is the moniker of the musician, and it's his main project. I think it's more correct to substitute "a project by" with "the moniker of". The article has no outside sources, but it has the link of the artist's label. This mini-biography was taken from the website of the artist's label Von9 (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per the above, I think it is pretty clear that no reliable sources as defined by WP:RS exist. As such, the article fails WP:MUSIC. SorryGuy Talk 03:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - could easily have been speedy deleted for non-notability. Deb (talk) 13:16, 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 speedy delete. Daniel (talk) 11:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Smith, Composer and Lost Children Network Founder[edit]

Not notable. Assertions made of notability (hence no speedy delete), but no reliable sources given. Relevant Google hits are few. Just not enough there to prove he is notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The original author, User:Soundcaptain4u has contacted me via private e-mail, in which he said that the subject of the article ha asked that the article be removed. (In other words, it's not an autobio.) I instructed him how to properly handle it with a ((db-author)), so when the speedy delete is subsequently carried out, we'll close this discussion. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Read like a classic nn-autobio. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established, no independent supportive referencing. References given are vague and lack relevance. WWGB (talk) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Author would get more sympathy creating an article called "Lost Children's Network" than this worshipful piece. Mandsford (talk) 16:15, 30 January 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 and userfy. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of claims made by Zeitgeist, the Movie[edit]

As the creator of the list writes on the talk* page, "The purpose of this list is to attempt to provide a way to find sources relating to facts claimed by the Zeitgeist movie. This is not original research, but rather an attempt to recreate, or verify the research that was done by the creators of the film." Isn't that the very definition of original research? Pairadox (talk) 07:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Note that the talk page has been blanked, and will only contain comments from now on. VegKilla (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research says:

"Original research is research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research." (which this is)

Wikipedia:No_original_research says:

"Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." (which this does not)

I am trying to perform research that IS EXCLUSIVELY "based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research" and I am NOT trying to "advance a position." That is the whole point behind the detailed instructions on the talk page. If there is anything in the article that is NOT based exclusively on earlier publications on the subject of research, then let me know. VegKilla (talk) 09:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Above, Pairadox said "Isn't that the very definition of original research?" This is nothing like the definition of original research. Following your own link you will find that OR is "unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." If I am advancing a position, it is obviously the wrong one because I support this movie and am expecting to find that everything it says is true (and everyone here seems to think I am opposing that viewpoint!).VegKilla (talk) 07:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a "synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." You are trying to tie claims in the film to reality. Unless such an analysis has been published and you are using that as a source, you are engaging in original research. Pairadox (talk) 11:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The NPOV guideline is irrespective of the actual position taken. By your own statement, this page is in support of the POV of the film, thus violating our NPOV policy. -- RoninBK _{T C} 08:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true at all. By my own statement I am in support of the film. If you read the rest of this page, you will find people accusing me of being against it. Whether I support it or not, this article I have created is an honest attempt at being neutral, which is why so many people have mistaken my position. (I am in support of the movie because I have seen it and I think it is amazing. Other than being really impressed with it, I have no way of knowing if it is true, and I have no vested interest (or conflict of interest) in the film.) VegKilla (talk) 09:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly OR. The 'Guidelines for editing this article*' on the talk* page are rather odd and suggest ownership issues as well. Wikipedia is not the creator of this article's personal website.* --Nick Dowling (talk) 08:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Note that the talk page has been blanked, and will only contain comments from now on. VegKilla (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only wrote the talk page that way in order to help future editors of the article to avoid WP:SOAP issues, and to make a clear list of things to do. Please give me more time. VegKilla (talk) 07:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Besides, the talk page has now been blanked, so please don't consider it as part of the article. VegKilla (talk) 09:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, obvious OR. Jfire (talk) 08:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the quote I added in response near the top of this page from the Original Research article. VegKilla (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with extreme prejudice. This is a POV fork of the article on the movie. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can this be a POV fork? Are you talking about something I wrote on the talk* page or in the article itself? I don't see how there can be any POV in the article, and if you are talking about the talk page...then let's just remove the POV from the talk page! VegKilla (talk) 07:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Note that the talk page has been blanked, and will only contain comments from now on. VegKilla (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ice Cold Beer, you're obviously watching this page since you've been reveting my edits, so why haven't you responded to me? VegKilla (talk) 09:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, WP:OR in the extreme, despite the author's protestations otherwise. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the quote I added in response near the top of this page from the Original Research article. VegKilla (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke it from orbit It's the only way to be sure. Nick mallory (talk) 08:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your reasoning. What are you trying to be sure of? VegKilla (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a quote from an Alien film, obviously not as well known as I'd assumed. Nick mallory (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as original research with the potential to violate the film's copyright (by transcribing all the claims made in the film). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright thing is the only good argument for deleting the article that I've read! Can anyone confirm or deny this copyright thing? Shouldn't this be fair use? If not I am sure I can get permission from the copyright holder anyway, but thanks for raising a good point! VegKilla (talk) 11:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Original Research, VERY strong ownership issues on talk* page as well. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Note that the talk page has been blanked, and will only contain comments from now on. VegKilla (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I made such a specific talk page was because I was expecting other users to help edit the page in the future, and I was trying to do two things:

To help other editors to follow the guidelines, since I knew this subject was susceptible to WP:POV and WP:OR
To help other editors to understand what the goals and plans were for the article to ensure that it was created with organization

VegKilla (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Original research, obviously. Maxa megalon 2000 13:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the quote I added in response near the top of this page from the Original Research article. VegKilla (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to sit down with this guy, and as politely as possible explain what "original research" means in this context. I think his argument of "This isn't OR because I'm checking this other guy's research" means that he doesn't understand the meaning of our policy. -- RoninBK _{T C} 14:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the quote I added in response near the top of this page from the Original Research article. VegKilla (talk) 09:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not hard to figure out what happened... VegKilla attempted to edit the Zeitgeist, the Movie article; someone edited over Veg's edits; Veg, in frustration, created this article to demonstrate that the claims made in the documentary are untrue; and Veg is (in an attempt to be fair) documenting the place on the DVD or VHS tape where each statement is made. It may well be that this type of citation to the DVD was what got edited out. I can only say that it's clear from the Zeitgeist article that Veg is not alone in criticizing the film's misstatements and that Veg can point out errors (or untruths) without documenting the exact minute and second where the statement is made. The concern may be about someone coming back and saying on the talk page "That's not what the film says", but if they do so, then (and only then) Veg should break out the "evidence". I would say, Veg, that there are plenty of sources that show that other reviewers think that the Zeitgeist film is, either negligently or deliberately, inaccurate. Your attempt to be fair to the movie producers (by documenting where a statement is made) is commendable; and you're not the first person to be worried that an untruthful statement will be accepted as fact unless it's corrected. But this isn't the way to do it. Mandsford (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Above comment struck (except vote) since Mandsford admits below that it was all lies. VegKilla (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And unstruck by Pairadox. Don't change another editor's comments. Pairadox (talk) 03:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And restruck again by VegKilla. Please take your own advice. This isn't your comment, and I have had a discussion with Mandsford about this comment. Furthermore, Mandsford edited this page 3 times while this comment was struck, and did not decide to unstrike it, so if it needs the strike removed, let Mandsford do it for himself/herself, or at least discuss it with Mandsford first, as I did before I added the strike. Thank-you, VegKilla (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop striking out another editors comments. If Mandsford wants them struck, s/he can do it themself. Pairadox (talk) 09:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you even care Pairadox? Once this AfD is over you need to stop watching me. If you ever contact me after this AfD is over it is definitely going to be harassment. I don't care if the above is struck or not, but Mandsford has already admitted that everything he/she wrote about me was a lie, so I think it should be. You need to change the way you deal with other people. Read WP:FAITH a couple more times. VegKilla (talk) 09:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mandsford is just making this stuff up! Six lies in a row!

It is easy to see in the edit histories that the following things that Mandsford said are lies (incase anyone cares):

Lie: VegKilla attempted to edit the Zeitgeist, the Movie article; someone edited over Veg's edits;
Lie: Veg, in frustration, created this article to demonstrate that the claims made in the documentary are untrue;
Lie: and Veg is (in an attempt to be fair) documenting the place on the DVD or VHS tape where each statement is made.
Not so: It may well be that this type of citation to the DVD was what got edited out.
Lie, I am not criticizing the film: Veg is not alone in criticizing the film's misstatements
Not so: The concern may be about someone coming back and saying on the talk page "That's not what the film says", but if they do so, then (and only then) Veg should break out the "evidence".

VegKilla (talk) 11:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incase anyone is tempted to believe the lies that Mandsford has put in the above comment, please review my contributions to the Zeitgeist, the Movie article that he is accusing me of being "not alone in criticizing." (I was never criticizing it!!)

VegKilla (talk) 09:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow...you guys are really upset about this. I'm very disappointed and insulted by the comment above by Mandsford. I understand the copyright issues, but other that that, you guys are way off. Did you look at the history of the Zeitgeist, the Movie article before accusing me of not supporting the movie? I think that this is one of the most important movies I have ever seen, and I have no reason to think that anything it says in untrue. In fact, for the short time that I have been editing the Zeitgeist, the Movie article, I have been doing my best to place the film in a better light, as you can see from both my edits to that page and to the talk page.

I have spent hours working on this article in an honest attempt to figure out if what the movie is saying is true. I believe the movie probably is true, and I saw this article as a systematic and logical way to address the vague comments by people that this movie "relied on anecdotal evidence" or "unreliable sources" etc.

Furthermore...unless this is going to be a speedy delete...then I propose we suspend this AfD altogether. I created this article last Friday (Jan 25, four days before it was nominated for deletion)--I even put an announcement on the page stating this, so if this is a question of copyright I may be wrong, but if this is just a question of whether this is suitable for an encyclopedia, or whether it is original research, then give me a chance! At least a week...I'm only working on this in my spare time.

VegKilla (talk) 07:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD's are scheduled for five days, and considering the fact that there is significant debate, this is not going to be speedy-closed one way or the other. You have until then to try, but realize that most of the arguments against this article are fairly well based in policy. Even if you manage to complete your stated goals, the page will still violate many of our policies. -- RoninBK _{T C} 08:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with Mandsford. This simply is not an encyclopedia article in any way shape or form. The goal is laudable, and I hope that the author will be permitted to userify his work before (what seems to be likely) deletion. Xymmax (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what "userify" means VegKilla (talk) 07:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in addition to not knowing what "userify" means, I would like to say, that although no list can ever truly fit the for of a normal article, I believe that this list can be quickly (some days) created, that it will make Wikipedia more useful, that it will greatly expand the accuracy of Wikipedia's information regarding Zeitgeist, the Movie, and that it will adhere to all Wikipedia guidelines. VegKilla (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete despite the claims on the talk* page, this is the definition of Original Research and is also in vio of WP:SOAP*, WP:OWN* (guidelines for editing?*) and maybe WP:NOT#WEBSPACE Doc Strange (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Note that the talk page has been blanked, and will only contain comments from now on. VegKilla (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the quote I added in response near the top of this page from the Original Research article.

As far as WP:SOAP, I'm pretty sure I'm not standing on a soap box, because all of you seemed to have misunderstood my position. I believe the movie is true and am trying to verify that. As far as WP:OWN, the reason I am the only person who has edited these pages is because I created them on Friday (Jan 25, four days before they were nominated for deletion) and no one has heard of them. Once I finished watching the movie through once (which you guys didn't even let me get to that point), I was planning on inviting people who I had already been talking to on the Zeitgeist, the movie talk page to join me. The WP:OWN thing is kinda silly, because no one has ever tried to edit this page. My understanding of WP:OWN is that you are accusing me of reverting other peoples edits because this is "my page."...well that def. hasn't been happening. All that happened was I spent hours trying to create a helpful research tool for a subject that many people are interested in.

Comment Did you even read WP:SOAP? Here's two parts of that - Wikipedia is not: "Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views" Wikipedia is not for "Opinion pieces on current affairs or politics. Although current affairs and politics may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced so as to put entries for current affairs in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. Wikinews, however, allows commentaries on its articles." . Also when WP:OR says that summaries are allowed, that's usually in the parent article, not in another article. Doc Strange (talk) 13:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on your comment Did you even read the article that we are talking about deleting? Do you understand what it is? Have you seen the movie it is about? You can watch the movie for free on the internet...watch the movie and read the article at the same time and in all those pages and hours I put into it you will not find one word that does not describe the topic of the movie from a neutral point of view. Has anyone tried that yet? Has anyone watched the film and read my page at the same time? It is reporting exactly what the film is reporting. The only thing that could possibly be wrong with the article is that it is too detailed. I'm blanking the article's talk page since it does not seem to be helpful and is not needed. VegKilla (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, please more time I realize that in an attempt to be detailed, I may have infringed on copyrights (honestly I don't know the law that well). If that is the case, I am sure I will have no problem obtaining permission from the copyright holder. As far as all the other concerns (WP:SOAP, WP:NOT#WEBSPACE, WP:OWN, WP:OR) these concerns are because the article is not done. I just started it last Friday (Jan 25, four days before it was nominated for deletion), and I have spent many hours on it, but there is a lot left. If you give me a little more time, I am sure you would all see that this is neutral, helpful, and within all guidelines. Please give me more time. Thank-youVegKilla (talk) 07:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, six lies in a row? I guess that beats my record of four consecutive lies, set in 2003. Looks like I misunderstood the purpose of your article. Sorry about that. I won't give the usual reminder about being "civil", since it looks like you honestly thought you were being attacked. However, for future reference, usually, when people refer to statements as "claims", it's because they doubt the veracity of the statements. Anyway, this type of overly-detailed study of a subject (not just Zeitgeist, but any subject) doesn't work, and it's one of those things that was more interesting to write than it is to read. Save your hard work to your own computer, because it looks like the consensus is that nobody else so far is asking for a keep. After everything else that you've written, saying "please" at this point in the discussion isn't going to change anyone's mind. Mandsford (talk) 14:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I was saying please is because it hasn't even been a week since I started this article, and I was hoping to find other people interested in helping me work on it (and turn it into something much shorter and more encyclopedic). I have a copy of it on my computer, but I'm not going to have time to finish something like this on my own. If the article is deleted I am going to abandon the subject. Maybe I should abandon Wikipedia altogether :-( I think I might be better suited for wikibooks or something like that. VegKilla (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research could be very easily avoided on this article, but it wouldn't make the concept notable or encyclopedic. I believe the main article provides a very fair presentation of what is worth mentioning. Indeed, in the long and tumultuous course of this topic's existence on Wikipedia, countless sources were presented and hacked down to the few reliable ones. And it is only the information to be found within those sources that is truly worth noting. Readers who want to know every single claim made in the movie can follow the handy link to its official website and download it. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC

This article was not nominated for deletion based on anything except OR. I know this is not notable, and the reason it is not is because it is brand new and I am the only person who has worked on it. The entire list of every fact the movie claims is never going to be notable, but if it is deleted now, then the collaboration required to turn this into encyclopedic information can never take place. This process has not already been done on Wikipedia, and the list of sources on the movie's official website is incomplete and not encyclopedic. Your argument that the official website or the history of the Zeitgeist article talk page are suitable substitutes for what is being created here ignores the fact that the goal of this list is to quickly, and through collaboration produce a product that is encyclopedic. The answer that I have never had answered fully is, can I copy and paste this article to my user name space as long as the only guideline I violate is the notability guideline, in the hope that it will quickly become encyclopedic? If the only debate here is whether this should be in the Article name-space or the User name-space, then I'm fine with moving it. I'm just hoping that it can persist somewhere so that the possibility for collaboration exists. Thank-you. VegKilla (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from the article's talk page by VegKilla[edit]

This seems inappropriate[edit]

From what I can gather, you are trying to make a list of all factual claims in the film, and then find sources that will support them. I don't know why you're doing this, or what purpose it will serve — what's the point? --Haemo (talk) 01:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<"This is not original research, but rather an attempt to recreate, or verify the research that was done by the creators of the film." Um, that is original research. Pairadox (talk) 07:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Note that the talk page has been blanked, and will only contain comments from now on. VegKilla (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify Pairadox's point, according to the Wikipedia:No original research policy, there is no difference between what you are doing, and what we consider to be original research. Wikipedia is not the place to fact-check the Zeitgeist movie. You might want to consider checking out Wikipedia:Alternative outlets-- RoninBK _{T C} 14:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Zeitgeist movie cites many facts, such as quotes taken from the bible, etc. Some people have accused the makers of the film of downright lying about what these sources say. My goal is to create a list of facts claimed by the movie, and the source that the movie is claiming shows this fact. Original research (according to the link you gave above) "includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." According to the Original Research article, OR is "is research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research."

My very detailed talk* page is an attempt to create research that IS exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research."

* Note that the talk page has been blanked, and will only contain comments from now on. VegKilla (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VegKilla (talk) 09:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is a "synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." You are trying to tie claims in the film to reality. Unless such an analysis has been published and you are using that as a source, you are engaging in original research. Pairadox (talk) 09:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not "a synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position clearly advance by the sources." This article is a summary of Zeitgeist, the Movie; and Zeitgeist, the Movie is "a synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position clearly advance by the sources." which is the whole reason I am so interested in it Do you understand what I am saying? The movie is the published analysis! And I am using that as a source. VegKilla (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand. You are taking a fact in a published source, and then checking it.* The "checking" you are doing, and publishing here, is original research, since you are are synthesizing outside sources to provide a new fact — i.e. is the statement true, or false. That's original synthesis — it's no different from a historian who collects facts from a bunch of sources and puts them together to provide a new conclusion which has never been published before. Your conclusion (i.e. Zeitgiest the Movie is correct/incorrect about fact X) is exactly the same thing. --Haemo (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Note that the talk page has been blanked, and will only contain comments from now on (i.e. no "fact checking" or anything else except comments). VegKilla (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MBanak Writes

In the development of every institution, a time comes when the framework is stressed by the intoduction of unexpected elements. This Wiki entry seems to be such a case, and it is normal to expect stuff like this to come up. After thinking this over, I discovered why it was hard, at first, to find a clear and cogent reason to delete this article: The article is also hard to categorize. I don't like to add rules to a system unless they are absolutley necessary. Adding a rule to preclude "Lists of claims in movies" seems artificially narrow.

There is a statement of purpose already published within Wiki, to preclude this article. In the page Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, we find the following rule: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information".

The difficulty in categorizing this article, amplifies the impression that this article makes Wikipedia an indiscriminate "collection of information".

One other barrier exists to the acceptability of this article. That is the matter of overcategorization. The categorization of this article is so elusive, that I believe any attempt at categorization will result in over-categorization. Please review the rules on the over-categorization page, and give them consideration.

Finally, a word on what to expect if this article stands: It is also said on the Wiki page "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not", that "Wikipedia is not a battle ground". Unfortunately, this happens all the time. The controversial nature of this article will invite scholarly battles. I happen to be quite familiar with the topics raised by "Zeitgeist, The Movie", and the ultimate, inevitable refutation of the claims in this article will undoubtedly turn this Wikipedia page into another Internet Armageddon. Controversy, alone, is not a reason to leave out material, but the eclectic nature of this article, and the exected rebuttals, all guarantee a long, long entry. Respectfully, Mbanak (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the previous 2 comments (by Haemo and Mbanak), this article does not, and would never be allowed** to state that any claim made by the Zeitgeist movie is either true or false, and would also never be allowed** to imply that any claim in the movie is either true or false by the references it cites. This article could, however, become a useful cross-reference tool for people interested in finding the sources that the Zeitgeist movie itself cites. As far as the "checking" you are talking about, you have misunderstood the talk page. So many people misunderstood it that I have blanked it, so please consider only the article itself if you are going to support its deletion. The intent was never to categorize any facts as confirmed or denied, but rather to use that terminology on the talk* page only so that the editors of the article could have a sense of what information still needed to be researched. There is no room here for "finding" sources that support or deny anything—the movie cites it's own sources, this is merely an attempt to find those sources (such as the bible, ancient Egyptian text about Horus, etc) and present them in a way where someone doing research on the movie can find those resources in an organized way. VegKilla (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

** by me or most other editors.

* Note that the talk page has been blanked, and will only contain comments from now on. VegKilla (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from VegKilla's talk page by VegKilla[edit]

AfD nomination of List of claims made by Zeitgeist, the Movie[edit]

An editor has nominated List of claims made by Zeitgeist, the Movie, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of claims made by Zeitgeist, the Movie and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help[edit]

((helpme)) Please I need help with the List of claims made by Zeitgeist, the Movie article I have created.

It is going to get deleted (I think) and this is making me very sad.

The people who want to delete it, think that I made it as a way to discredit the Zeitgeist movie, but in actuality I want to support the movie, but was trying so hard to be neutral, that that is not clear.

I did not create this article as a way to avoid consensus on the main Zeitgeist, the Movie page, in fact I created it partially from an idea I got from another editor while working on that article. (see Talk:Zeitgeist,_the_Movie#Real_critique.3F)

My edit history on this topic and on all topics shows that I make only good-faith and non POV edits.

I have spent hours working on this article. It is not WP:OWN or WP:OR or any of that. The only thing I am not clear about is if it violates copyrights.

My question is:

Can I just copy and paste the page to the User name space to save it from disappearing, or will this be seen as me being sneaky? I don't want anyone else getting mad at me. I am working so hard to follow all guidelines and I am so sad right now about this. These people are being really mean, and accusing me of all sorts of things that they could easily tell are not true if they looked at the edit histories. Please help. Thank-you VegKilla (talk) 08:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can't use Wikipedia to host articles that don't comply with our policies. I concur the article is probably going to be deleted, and if you want to develop the ideas expressed in the article you should copy it to your computer. Addhoc (talk) 12:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

((helpme))

But can I temporarily have an article in my user name-space if the only policy it violates is notability, and I am actively involved in a collaborative effort to organize the information into an encyclopedic format? VegKilla (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! You're free to create a subpage sandbox to work on an article that you're in the progress of developing. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 22:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So if this page is deleted, I am going to copy it to my user name-space, right?[edit]

Copied from above:

((helpme))

But can I temporarily have an article in my user name-space if the only policy it violates is notability, and I am actively involved in a collaborative effort to organize the information into an encyclopedic format? VegKilla (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! You're free to create a subpage sandbox to work on an article that you're in the progress of developing. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 22:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So that means: I still hope that this page is not deleted, bug if this page is deleted, I am going to copy it to my user name-space (see the comment above made by Master of Puppets) so that editors can collaborate on it, since I believe that the only guidelines it can be seriously accused of violating are notability and "list of random facts." VegKilla (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone thinks this page should not be copied to my user name-space, please say so here[edit]

* No one thinks it's a bad idea yet.

You don't need our permission to copy the article to your user space. Just do it before it's deleted. Good luck to you, hope that you've learned something from the experience. Mandsford (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What you do is copy your stuff; then you create a page called "User:VegKilla/List of Zeitgeist Claims" and paste your stuff on to that and save it. It takes it out of circulation, and let's you work on your stuff while this "List of claims..." article gets the axe. Eventually, if you think it's refined enough for a return visit, you can try putting it back in the stream of commerce. Final word of advice: "Less is more". Mandsford (talk) 03:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know I don't need permission, but I know there are guidelines for user pages as well, so I don't want to cause problems or make it seem like I am trying to avoid the consensus of this discussion. I'm just so paranoid! I've been accused of so many things on Wikipedia that I didn't do, that I avoid making good faith contributions sometimes just because I don't want to be accused of anything! VegKilla (talk) 03:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: I still don't think the article should be deleted, but as long as I can keep it in my name-space and bring it back later, I don't care too much. VegKilla (talk) 03:52, 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 merge and redirect, both of which I will be performing shortly. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pitt Med magazine[edit]

Fails WP:NOTABILITY. This is just a campus paper. Undeath (talk) 06:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge+Redirect Not enough notability to stand on its on. Merge to Med School page Corpx (talk) 11:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Appears to be a college magazine which does not publish primary research papers and has no special notability. It probably merits a mention at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine page. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 10:18, 1 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 no sources and the winners of Mr Gay UK do not have articles (possibly one does but there rest dont) so I dont see this as sufficient notability. John Vandenberg (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jarrod Batchelor[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. If anything, this should be listed on the mr. gay uk article. Undeath (talk) 06:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he's been on the cover of at least 3 magazines. Jfire (talk) 06:36, 30 January 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. John254 01:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kayke Moreno de Andrade Rodrigues[edit]

Uhh....what? I don't even understand the first part of this article. Either way, it fails WP:BIO. Undeath (talk) 06:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, appears to be a professional footballer. Looked like a bad automated translation, I've replaced it with stub text. Jfire (talk) 06:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as athlete in premier league club, Campeonato Brasileiro Série A. Sting au Buzz Me... 07:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arto Tukio for previous discussion on a premier league athlete. Sting au Buzz Me... 07:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable as a top-league footballer. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article makes no assertion of criteria. Has he played any games - no apps stats in the infobox. Peanut4 (talk) 14:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm Wikilinking to the Portuguese article on him, which states he's made an appearance. Definitely meets notability. matt91486 (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did he made his professional debut?, ~~if not, Delete.~~ Matthew_hk tc 18:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said in my note above, the Portuguese article asserts he has in fact made his debut. matt91486 (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Expand it then. Matthew_hk t c 07:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, according to this he has made 3 sub appearances, its a more reliable source than pt wiki, but contains so little additional info I'm not sure whether its a worthwhile external link. King of the NorthEast 20:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it should work as a reference, the Guardian is a major paper. matt91486 (talk) 21:23, 31 January 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 Srebrenica_massacre#Alternative_views John Vandenberg (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Srebrenica Genocide Denial[edit]

This was tagged as an attack page for speedy deletion. That's fixable by removing the names, maybe. I've tried to avoid "Genocide Denial" articles at AfD because they seem to be hotly contentious. So I'm bringing this here as it may be controversial. ~~It is presently unsourced, and possibly speediable that way. I just don't know.~~ It may also have been dealt with in the past under a slightly different name with diacritical marks. Dlohcierekim 03:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC) Dlohcierekim 03:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OOps, there were sources attesting to the occurrence of the massacre, and I have added (({reflist))} so they show. Dlohcierekim 03:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So the question is, Is this notable and verifiable? Dlohcierekim 06:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentOn the articles about those people i mentioned the Srebrenica Genocide denial is mentioned as well.

This article is about the phenomenon of Srebrenica Genocide Denial which includes some journalists,the serbian radical party and a great part of serbian people who still continue to deny it or argue about the number of victims.

It is a propaganda campain by a number of Serb Apologists who are even making films about it in order to confuse people.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 03:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide verifiable sources for the Denial part of the article? Dlohcierekim 03:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK.Thanks.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 03:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Srebrenica_massacre#Alternative_views. It looks as if it would be difficult, perhaps impossible, to make this article NPOV. --Rumping (talk) 10:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Redirect to Srebrenica_massacre#Alternative_views. This article is gaming the system by citing references and sourcing its information yet using it for POV pushing. SWik78 (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I agree, it's probably impossible to make this article NPOV. Part of the article is a rebuttal to persons who claim that no such killing took place, fair enough; but a large part of it is about the author's belief that the word "massacre" rather than "genocide" (as in the Wikipedia article Srebrenica massacre) is improper. It's implied that using the word "massacre" is, itself, denying reality or somehow an insult to the persons who were murdered. This, in effect, an "alternative view". Thousands of people were murdered, during a little more than a week in July 1995, because of their ethnic background. The documented instances would properly be called massacres, while the overall murders (including those before and after July 1995, inside and outside Srebrenica) were all part of genocide. Suggestion to Griffin-- instead why not write an article about the campaign of genocide, which would include not only the 1995 murders at Srebrenica, but everything else? Mandsford (talk) 17:03, 30 January 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). Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky VI (1986 film)[edit]

Non-notable 9 minute short film. Contested prod; reason for removal was "a review in the NY Times means it's likely to be notable", but it's an All Movie Guide review, not a NYT review (the NYT page is just a database listing). No external reviews in imdb; no significant coverage in online sources; fails WP:NF. Jfire (talk) 05:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn per expansion by Prolog. Nice work! Jfire (talk) 08:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a film by a highly notable director, that people are obviously still talking about and watching more than 11 years after it was released. It may not be easy to find multiple online sources, but it is common sense that in the past 11 years multiple reliable sources have very probably talked about it. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 06:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This short film by a notable director does not fall short of notability. Prolog (talk) 07:52, 30 January 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weiner Shnitzel[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. No sources. Searches yield food. Undeath (talk) 05:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, no assertion of notability. In fact, it asserts non-notability: "The band has not gained much popularity outside of their local venues." Jfire (talk) 06:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sting au Buzz Me... 06:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Reirect to Wienerschnitzel. JuJube (talk) 07:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC, redirect to Wiener schnitzel.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:53, 30 January 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 with no prejudice against recreation when "the big break" happens. Not notable (yet) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Beardsley[edit]

I checked his bio at the reference given and he has mainly been a filler character. (i.e. member in crowd, member of high school...) Delete per WP:BIO. Undeath (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Nakon 05:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cut. It's a bad sign when most of his characters aren't even given names, but are referred to by description (e.g. Suspicious Video Store Patron). The article itself admits that he hasn't gotten his "big break" yet. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'll say again, I've been an extra in a number of movies, AND appeared on a nationwide game show. Where's my article, then? Silliness aside, does not meet WP:BIO. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:50, 30 January 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ayase Haruka (album)[edit]

This album does not exist, please see talk page. Momusufan (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, you should either nominate for deletion, or propose for deletion, but not both. I've removed the prod. Jfire (talk) 05:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; not a real album. Jfire (talk) 05:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I can find no evidence this album is being released. The artist's official site says nothing about it, the artist's label's site says nothing about it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 05:24, 31 January 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 Abnak records (although I think someone should seriously look at that article and consider expanding and sourcing, or nominating it for deletion). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abnak Label[edit]

This page is a duplicate. See Abnak records. Undeath (talk) 05:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect and speedy close. No need for an AfD. Jfire (talk) 05:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a redirect is necessary. Just delete the Label page. There is no need in even keeping the name. It's the exact same article with two different titles. Delete one entry and keep the other.Undeath (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The very fact that somebody created a duplicate article is a very strong indication that a redirect is appropriate. Jfire (talk) 05:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same person made both articles. It would be different if it were two different people.Undeath (talk) 05:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still, in this case a redirect won't hurt. It's possible the user didn't know how to do redirects, so put the article in the same place. matt91486 (talk) 05:48, 30 January 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Fairchild[edit]

Doesn't seem to satisfy wp:bio. Did a google search for articles to find notability but came up with porn spam or trivial ancillary mentions. Vinh1313 (talk) 04:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Vinh1313 (talk) 05:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Nakon 04:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to get it past WP:PORNBIO Corpx (talk) 11:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just another porn actress. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There's one possibly non-trivial Google Books mention of her, though. Still fails WP:N anyway. Just another porn actress indeed.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:31, 30 January 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 22:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sajav[edit]

"SAP R/3 consulting company". Obviously written by someone with a COI in a pretty spammy tone. Are they notable? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete COI or not, doesn't meet WP:CORP, I would even go as far to say that it meets WP:CSD criteria 11. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable company. Jfire (talk) 06:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:26, 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. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 10:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Beast[edit]

nn rapper, only released mixtapes, no evidence of meeting WP:BIO, prod removed by anon with no reasoning Delete Secret ^account 01:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Nakon 01:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete User who created this article didn't provide evidence of meeting BIO. Daniel5127 ^(talk) 04:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.65.119 (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only reference provided does not meet the standard of significant coverage, it would seem to be trivial, and definitely does not meet the major music award notability guideline put forth in WP:MUSIC. SorryGuy Talk 04:00, 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 moved to userspace to User Madram/Alfa romeo spider alloy wheels. --Salix alba (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alfa romeo spider alloy wheels[edit]

The details of the wheels used on a series of Alfa Romeo cars does not rise to the level of notability to deserve its own article. The article is also unsourced, so unverifiable. We don't even have an article on the Alfa Romeo 105 series yet, otherwise I'd suggest merging anything that might be verifiable into a short section there. Prod was removed without explanation Gwernol 01:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alfa Romeo "105 Series" vehicles is a reference to a factory numerical series designation and covers a range of named models already exisitng on Wikipedia: Spider, 1750 Coupes, Juniors, Sprints, etc. While these had diferent name designation, the 105 Series cars share many similar engine and drivetrain components. OEM Alloy wheels suitable for "105 Series" cars may be fitted to many named models. The "105 Series" Spiders were manufactured from 1969-1993. The "916 Series" Spider was re-launched in 1995. Agreed, this article is a very specific topic, but it is difficult to merge with other model-specific articles due to its applicability across several named models. Madram (talk) 01:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into userspace then delete It would seem that this would be appropriate merged into an article that covered ALL Alfa Romeo wheels, or Unique Automotive Wheels or something that likely doesn't exist. I am not sure how the existing article can ever be notable, even if it is informative. Looks like something that may belong in userspace until a broader article could be written. It isn't that the information is useless, it just that it is homeless. Pharmboy (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Inane, unencylopedic, come out the wrong side of WP:NOT. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 04:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, car parts have to have independent, third-party sources showing they are notable just like anything else. Maybe I should go create an article on Samsung microwave oven door latches. Lord Uniscorn (talk) 09:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a small part of this content to Alfa Romeo. Not inane nor unencyclopedic, just too narrow a subtopic without enough independent sources found. And let's be clear, to some car owners, wheels are one of the most noticed components; plain stamped-steel wheels like on your Escort might be akin to microwave latches, but these styled alloy rims are more significant. This level of detail isn't needed on Wikipedia; maybe an interested party can find an automotive wiki that would accept it. Barno (talk) 15:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this to a page on Alfa Romeos. It does not warrant it's own page but is worthy of a mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgiamonet (talk • contribs) 04:49, 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. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zafina[edit]

This article has no assertion of notability, and as such is just an in-universe plot repetition of gameplay and plot elements from the Tekken 6 article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn. Possibly redirect back to Tekken 6 article. Notable game but surely no need for each character to have an article. Character list on game article page should suffice. Sting au Buzz Me... 05:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very few video game characters are notable enough for their own entry, and I don't see anything here or on Google that establishes notability for this oneBeeblbrox (talk) 05:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FICT and WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' There we go again with this notability stuff. Zafina is VERY notable, as she is a new character and deserves to be known about. Angie Y. (talk) 21:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, she doesn't "deserve" anything, each article has to actually prove its notability, because it is not taken on blind faith. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, articles do not have to "prove" notability. The criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not notability. --Pixelface (talk) 23:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Every other character in the Tekken series has an article or an article that mentions them, describing them very well, so why shouldn't Zafina? Unless we're planning to merge every character into one article, which is just ludicrous, as it would take up way too much space! Also, why is it okay for Bob, Leo, and Miguel Caballero Rojo to have articles about them, but it's not for Zafina to have one? Even Azazel has an article, and we barely know anything about him other than how it fights, what it looks like, and that it will be in Tekken 6! There are barely any images of it, as well! I don't know why Zafina's article was singled out out of all of them. What makes the others more notable than Zafina? What is actually considered "notable", anyway? So, keep it. JunKazamaFan (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - have a look at Wikipedia:Notability, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Addhoc (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this well put together article on a character from a notable game series as well as per the injunction "Enacted on 02:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)". Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, the arbitration committee ruling only applies to TV characters, and this is a game character. Tekken is notable, however notability isn't inherited. Addhoc (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - In instances like character articles notability is inhereited in a sense. Moreover, the larger issue in the arbitration case are fictional characters in general. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The injunction clearly doesn't apply, and Seraphimblade has already explained to you the arbitration committee doesn't create policy. Addhoc (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - In any event, clearly deleting this article does not improve Wikipedia, but rather detracts from our goal of providing the sum of human knowledge and may turn off readers and editors who contribute to and are interested in this verfiable article. Sincerley, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Addhoc (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- You are talking about notability and the page about it describes everything Zafina's article has. Also, she's a new character and her story is one of the main game's plot. I can't see any worthy argument to delete it. I'm a fan of this game and I didn't know much thing about her until I read the article. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia where everyone can edit, you guys are taking away Wikipedia's freedom choosing what pleases you. There are a lot of things we have to worry here as vandalism, medias being used erroneously and other things. Think about it.
Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 02:50, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of progressive organizations[edit]

WP:NOT#DIR. The various organizations listed are subjective and the term "progressive" is open to interpretation, therefore a solid list of "progressive" organization is truly impossible to create . I couldn't find a similar list for "conservative organization" although that should be AfD as well. Mønobi 04:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Putting these organizations under the umbrella of "progressive" without a reliable source making that assertion is OR Corpx (talk) 11:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - hopelessly subjective, impossible to quantify. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ill-defined, and “original”. (Wikipedia should, in fact, look askance at the term “progressive”, treating the label as it would “forward-looking”.) —SlamDiego_←T 18:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although not to the Letter, the Spirit of WP:CRYSTAL prevents us from labeling groups as progressive. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Progressive" is not amenable to objective definition. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Though 'tis a tendence to peer ascance at such untenable and frankly unamenable and pontiferous wiki-anathema, hitherto I roundly declare.... would you just delete the article for shit's sake?--Jackbirdsong (talk) 05:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mark the page as having bias or needing a cleanup, or needing renaming. The list itself can be useful
The links refer to organisations that define themselves as progressive, which infers that such a thing as a 'progressive organisation' is defined in culture. I got 82 responses for 'progressive organisations' and 85 responses for 'conservative organisations' on dogpile, so the subjectivity of the heading is not hopeless.Usualsuit (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The word “infer” means surmise; you seem to be confusing it with “imply”.
- Instead of “progressive”, consider words such as “patriotic”. Many will label themselves thus, or label others thus. But that won't make them patriotic nor make others non-patriotic. —SlamDiego_←T 16:39, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zetsumei Taiko[edit]

This band fails our notability criteria for music. I performed a Google search to find sources, but there were only three hits - two to Myspace and one to this article.[48] I suspect that the awards listed in the Awards section were not really won by the band. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. --Evan Seeds (talk)(contrib.) 04:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nn. fails WP:MUSIC. MySpace page just full of spam. Sting au Buzz Me... 04:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Borderline speedy under WP:CSD#G3 - non notable band with zero evidence they've ever won these awards makes it whiff or a hoax or a plain outright load of WP:BOLLOCKS. Pedro : Chat 11:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No references to confirm the awards, fails WP:MUSIC and if you'll excuse me, it is extremely bad written (that's why I classified it as uncyclopedic, apart from the other tags). Victao lopes (talk) 16:45, 30 January 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 Cleanup, so tagged. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eurotrash (term)[edit]

WP:WINAD is an official policy, and this article violates it heavily, along with violating WP:NOR to the extreme. Already exists in Wiktionary. Eurotrash is fine as a disambig page with a wiktionary link, this does not need its own article. Correct me if I'm wrong... h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 03:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Already on Wiktionary no need for it here. Sting au Buzz Me... 04:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - almost anything quatified as term belongs on wiktionary, and this is mostly WP:OR anyhow --T-rex 06:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously, though unsourced and partly unencyclopedic, this is more than just a definition of a cultural term that has been prevalent for over two decades. It's easily sourced (it seems to need a definition published somewhere, around the time tourist season starts wherever the publication is). We have the NYT with a substantial definition as well. (It's also clearly a term that Europeans use, too, not just an American stereotype _of_ Europeans.) --Dhartung | Talk 12:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Sounds like an argument to Transwiki to Wiktionary, to me. Looking at this word's entry there, part of this article does seem to refer to a definition that is not listed there. --Darkprincealain (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The very first criterion in WINAD:Encyclopedia vs. dictionary articles says that encyclopedic articles are "are about the people, concepts, places, events, and things that their titles denote". Is there some other article about this topic that the term Eurotrash denotes? It certainly isn't a synonym for European. --Dhartung | Talk 22:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term is not a neologism, its use to pretty wide spread and well established, and the article seeks to establish how it was created and popularized. These sections cannot be transwikied to the full extent that they need, and as such the article should be kept. As an aside, the Sacha Baron Cohen character of Bruno is a good example of Eurotrash with regards toward their fashion and culture aesthetics, and can be cited as a prominent fictitious example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zidel333 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can demonstrate that it is improvable without going into original research, by all means do it. An alternative is to include it in list of ethnic slurs, if that's appropriate.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very widespread use as a word, and its application and the development of the meaning is encyclopedic. DGG (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable per Google hits and scholar/books: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Certainly enough to edit a decent article out of (although the current one is indeed in a poor uncited OR condition and needs to be revamped). — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 06:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article is a valid topic, because "Eurotrash" is a frequently used pejorative term and deserving of more than a mere dictionary entry. However, the current version needs to be greatly overhauled. 68.101.130.214 (talk) 05:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - dictionary definition, as shown by title -Halo (talk) 17:23, 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 No consensus, I'm going out on a limb a bit here; it has an article on the Italian sub-domain, and their article has more blue links, so there is a good chance this will grow in time. Another discussion on this in a few months will probably be necessary. John Vandenberg (talk)

Chicken Park[edit]

This film fails our notability criteria for films. ~~This article is also a borderline attack page.~~ Prod removed without comment by creator. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ delete ~~CSD G4 recreation of deleted material.~~ As non notable. Sting au Buzz Me... 04:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G4.Undeath (talk) 05:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has not been deleted previously via deletion discussion, which makes it ineligible for speedy deletion under the G4 criterion. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No not AfD but speedied. [49] Sting au Buzz Me... 06:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what I meant (sorry if I was unclear). It's ineligible as a G4 because it was speedied. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok? I thought speedys were included in that section. My bad. I'll change to delete as nn. Sting au Buzz Me... 06:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm actually going to try to save this page, as I found a few items on this movie. I'll be adding to the page, but if it is deleted, so be it. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also noted that there is an article on this same movie on the Italian Wikipedia [50]. I've added an infobox, and removed the borderline personal attack. Unfortunately I can't find a lot of info on this movie however other than IMDB. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The IMDb might just be enough? According to WP:MOVIE where there it states, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." In the Resources section IMBd is listed as an accepted source. I'd still like to see this page ref improved though? Or maybe film stub it and just go with the IMBd reference? I'm swaying towards keep now. Try and convince me. Sting au Buzz Me... 22:45, 30 January 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 as hoax/attack page. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Dariel Salinas[edit]

((Underconstruction)) tag inserted by the creator prevented me from nominating this article for speedy deletion, although I wasn't sure extreme weight is grounds for notability. I did insert cleanup tags. On follow-up, I googled this name to find zero relevant ghit. Smells like a hoax. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 02:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Sc straker (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~IAR speedy/snowball~~ delete This is a hoax, try googling heaviest person alive. Thin boy 00 @179, i.e. 03:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe not a speedy based on ghits alone... --Thin boy 00 @182, i.e. 03:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Likely a hoax. Doctorfluffy (talk) 18:22, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunset Boulevard (2008 film)[edit]

Explicitly fails future films notability guidelines. No prejudice to recreation when reliable sources can confirm production has started. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Sc straker (talk) 03:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF, as there's no guarantee of an announced film making it to production, especially with this one being affected by the writers' strike. FYI, I've merged the relevant information to Sunset Boulevard (musical)#Future film adaptation. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF. Mr. DeMille, this isn't ready for its closeup. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF. Doc Strange (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The notability guidelines for future films stipulate that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. This is because many factors such as budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with the project. The article can be recreated when principal photography is confirmed to have begun. Steve ^{T • C} 10:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Clarityfriend. Couldn't have said it better myself ;) Cliff smith (talk) 04:01, 1 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, to be recreated as Mary Queen of Scots (2008 film) once filming begins. Lots of movies get "casted", they don't all get "reeled in". (sorry, bad fishing pun). The 1970s Redgrave movie, BTW, does have an article (note the comma) at Mary, Queen of Scots (film). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Queen of Scots (film)[edit]

Explicitly fails future films notability guidelines. No prejudice to recreation when the film is reliably documented to have begun production. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Sc straker (talk) 03:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; announced films don't guarantee actual films. If it begins shooting, revive the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There was print newspaper coverage of this film, plus at least one magazine article (I believe in the Royal-watching publication "Royalty") on this production. Granted, mostly relating to the casting of Johansson, but if the sources can be found I think that would satisfy the future films notability requirement. If kept, however, the article should be renamed Mary Queen of Scots (2008 film) owing to the existence of the early-1970s film of the same title starring Vanessa Redgrave, which likely will have an article created if one doesn't already exist. 23skidoo (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying it's gone into production, or just that sources exist for casting? Because the latter still fails NFF. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The notability guidelines for future films stipulate that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. This is because many factors such as budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with the project. The article can be recreated when principal photography is confirmed to have begun. Steve ^{T • C} 10:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The articles for Star Trek (2008 film) and Quantum of Solace were created months before either film entered production. Can anyone confirm that production of this film hasn't begun? Unlike the Sunset Blvd film article which apparently mentions it being affected by the WGA strike, I've heard nothing to suggest the strike has affected this film. 23skidoo (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - This page says filming is to start April 9 2008. Should that be insufficient, I can provide more. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 19:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAX. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, WP:FUTFILMS was set in stone after Star Trek and Quantum of Solace were created, and in the case of the latter, began shooting. Alientraveller (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Erik. Cliff smith (talk) 03:57, 1 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 This list is rather short. John Vandenberg (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kane George Jason[edit]

Insufficient qualifications for notability; appear to be vanity pages for an independent filmmaker - 100% of User:Fakelake's edits up to now are regarding these pages. (Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for personal resumes.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Delete Because of a lacking of any reviews or any other kind of significant coverage for any of these Corpx (talk) 11:02, 30 January 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 invalid nomination. Read the targets of the wikilinks you cited (first 2). No justification provided for WP:CORP. "Per nom" !vote also thrown out for same reason. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RAFaL[edit]

Delete per WP:APATHY, WP:JNN, and most of all, WP:CORP. Undeath (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, or Merge into Université Laval. --Sc straker (talk) 03:07, 30 January 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. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Wong[edit]

Completing unfinished nomination by Shuyun (talk · contribs). No opinion yet. The article has been tagged for notability since May 2007. The ~200 Chinese GHits are about unrelated individuals [51]; had time to go through the English GNews hits, but at a cursory glance I haven't found any which are actually about the same Ernest Wong. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. cab (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:N and WP:BIO for academics. --Sc straker (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. Just no notability Corpx (talk) 11:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NLP trainers are not academics. i doubt he is a notable trained in " ACCELERATRED LEARNING" either. (spelling as in the article) DGG (talk) 09:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I agree he's not an academic, but I listed it in the deletion sorting page because there is a claim in the article that he's an educator: the part about founding a language learning center (with a name strangely resembling but not the same as UNESCO) and teaching 20k people to speak (don't most people older than a toddler already know how to do this?). As for the article itself, I'm concerned that it's taking the names of the Universities of California and British Columbia in vain: I searched but couldn't find any official connection between anything named "Turning Point" and UC, nor between the Society of NLP and UBC. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:13, 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Phone Dictionary Day[edit]

Oh please... 1090 Ghits, less than 200 of which are unique. None of them appear to assert anything close to notability. And... com'on, an unrecognized holiday to support a cell phone utility? Trusilver 02:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; complete WP:BOLLOCKS. --MCB (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Sc straker (talk) 03:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete vanispamcruftisement, possibly a hoax, definitely doesn't belong. Thin boy 00 @177, i.e. 03:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no evidence that this exists outside of a single high school --T-rex 06:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, salt the earth, execute the author's family and redirect to WP:NOT. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:37, 30 January 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. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 10:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Southern Cat Rocks On[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC: compilation album with no claims of notability. Wyatt Riot (talk) 02:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:MUSIC easily. Album by notable musician. Gene Summers = Rockabilly Hall of Fame. Should WP:SNOW this. Sting au Buzz Me... 05:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The AFD isn't for Gene Summers (who is clearly notable) but for this album. Per WP:MUSIC (especially the Albums and songs section), each album must meet basic notability requirements. This articles just doesn't meet those requirements. Wyatt Riot (talk) 11:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gene Summers is clearly notable, WP:MUSIC says that his albums are notable too. Is it the word "compilation" that's confusing? In addition, there are plenty of references and material to sustain an article, they're not inline cites but they indicate to me that the notability is not only claimed but quite obvious. --Canley (talk) 07:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you look through the History and the articles written by the same editor, you'll see that the "Sources" mainly apply to claims made in the "Artist profile" section, which isn't even necessary in this article. The sole reference for the album itself is the liner notes. Wyatt Riot (talk) 11:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gene Summers or better yet, maybe someone wants to create a list of his albums. WP:MUSIC doesn't give an automatic license for all albums by notable musicians to have their own articles. There have to be sources about the album itself. The reason is simple if you think about it - how else is one to write an article that isn't OR? Content about the artist is or should be all ready in his article, and if you take that out of this article, there isn't enough for more than a stub. I couldn't find much of anything about the article or its songs when I searched; if there are sources that show notability of the album I'd revisit this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xymmax (talk • contribs) 16:43, 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 Speedily deleted, WP:CSD#G3, pure vandalism, being a blatant and obvious hoax about a supposed eleventh century saint with a modern English style surname, middle, and given name. Seemed to me it's probably a tribute or satire about a living person, probably an acquaintance of the author. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saint sather[edit]

Unreferenced, probably a hoax. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 02:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same reasons, no Google hits. Delete. --ukexpat (talk) 03:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Sc straker (talk) 03:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Few or zero hits on Google, Google Scholar, Google Books and Google News. Of the few hits, non are related to this article. Speedy Delete is recommended--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourceable. I corrected the lead formatting, but - if a myth has existed since 976 AD, then surely something would have been written down somewhere, by somebody. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 04:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I suspect a hoax as well. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the concept of "teenager" did not exist in the timeframe given for this, hence betraying the hoaxalicious nature of this junk. JuJube (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think this is supposed to be a tribute to one of the article creator's high school classmates with an overlay of myths and nonsense. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:40, 30 January 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, default to keep. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 10:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OldVersion.com[edit]

AfDs for this article:

No references. If we delete what isn't referenced, we end up with an empty, sub-stub article. The article hasn't been referenced since inception, really. There's no evidence of meeting WP:WEB for notability. Mikeblas (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB. If it wasn't for the previous AfD this would be a WP:CSD#A7 candidate. Jfire (talk) 05:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage from independent sources Corpx (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain. I vaguely remember reading about this website in a computer magazine or newspaper, but I don't remember where. Would need more research to see if it is possible to find media mentions of it that might help establish notability. --Itub (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge -- possibly to somewhere like archive site or history of application software. The archive, notable in itself for uniqueness and survival, just happens to have a web-page format; its notability as a repository does not necessarily depend on the guidelines for the average web-sit-- A respectable link/review appears at http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2704,1162680,00.asp -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The 72-word "article" at pcmag.com isn't exactly substantial, per WP:N. The current article is completely uncited; WP:V, we're to remove such material, not relocate it. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, numerous sources available from Google News Archive including the Wall Street Journal and National Review in addition to "industry" publications. --Dhartung | Talk 05:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung; great job! Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 01:07, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Summers-Dance Dance Dance

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, this article does not give sources for this album; the sources provided are exactly the same as was used on Gene Summers-Dance Dance Dance. John Vandenberg (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rock 'n Roll Tour - "Live" In Scandinavia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Rock 'n Roll Tour - "Live" In Scandinavia

Fails WP:MUSIC: live album with no claims of notability. Wyatt Riot (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:MUSIC easily. Album by notable musician. Gene Summers = Rockabilly Hall of Fame. Should WP:SNOW this. Sting au Buzz Me... 06:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The AFD isn't for Gene Summers (who is clearly notable) but for this album. Per WP:MUSIC (especially the Albums and songs section), each album must meet basic notability requirements. This articles just doesn't meet those requirements. Wyatt Riot (talk) 11:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gene Summers, lack of media coverage. Addhoc (talk) 17:32, 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 Non-valid nomination. If you find you are typing "WP:ATA..." in your wikilinks while making a nomination, stop! Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions should actually be avoided in deletion discussions, particularly in the nomination. The statement that this song has not been released yet is not true. It is a song played on UK music television channels frequently, references provided shows that. There potentially could be coherant arguments to be made to support deletion, but they were not made in this nomination. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's High Tide Baby[edit]

Delete per WP:ATA#CRYSTAL and WP:MUSIC. This has not even been released yet. Undeath (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Sc straker (talk) 03:17, 30 January 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 John Vandenberg (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Show Me Love (t.A.T.u. song)[edit]

Non-notable, fails WP:Music, neither of the source links are working Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 02:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This song's notability is nowt demonstrated. It was not released as a single, and it does not matter that it was at one point considered for release. I see no evidence that it was released a promotional CD, and even if it was, it didn't chart. Much of the article is rambling about a music video that was never released. Also, neither of the links are working, which seems a bit suspicious to me. Overall, not notable, never released as single, fails WP:Music: "Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article..." This song has not been ranked on national or significant music charts, has not won significant awards or honors, and, to my knowledge, has not been performed independently by several notable artists, bands, or groups. I will withdraw my nomination if this can be well-sourced and it's notability firmly proven. Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 02:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, did you mean "now demonstrated" or "not demonstrated"? —Quasirandom (talk) 02:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes...good spotting that. Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 02:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - scraped single fails notablity. half a music video doesn't change anything. unless the single is eventually released, this should just redirect back to the album --T-rex 06:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge. In answer to Bmrbarre's scepticism about the links, they had been wrongly formatted. I've fixed the BBC News link, so that's one reliable source towards notability, but the other one seems to require membership to view. While a scrapped single wouldn't normally be notable, a video shoot making the news seems to me to indicate material worth keeping. If the article is not kept, there is material that definitely needs to be merged into the album article. Bondegezou (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've added another citation, althought the article could certainly do with more work. Bondegezou (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I'm pretty sure that an unreleased music video, even one story about it, does not count as notable, no matter how well it is sourced. To quote what Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, "Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right." [52] Also, to quote Wikipedia:Notability, "A short burst of news reports about a topic does not necessarily constitute evidence of long-term notability." [53]I think that a mention (albeit by the BBC) about the shoot an unreleased music video either does not constitute notability, or it is something that is in the news for a brief period, and therefore not necessarily suitable for an article in its own right. Perhaps something should be mentioned about this song on the TATU (or however the name should be written) page, but this song does not deserve its own page. Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 02:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the fact that the video wasn't released but was being made makes this song unusual, and thus notable. There are information about that it people might want, and this page would be good for that.

This is the video which was never released: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGC7pYVpbEQ&feature=related —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.112.233 (talk) 22:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also as far as I know, that is the official leaked video, and not a fan compilation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.112.233 (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article (though this is unsourced), "Some footage has made its way to the Internet in recent years, compiled of fan videos shot on location and unused official footage, but the completed video has never been released or leaked." Therefore, someone's wrong. Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 00:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a cancelled single. The controversy is over the proposed video not the single. In my view the controversy doesn't make an unreleased single notable but mention can sensibly be made in the t.A.T.u. page. TerriersFan (talk) 17:42, 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 article is incorrect. The video contains footage (in its entirety, footage in the video has never before been seen) that was never publicly released anywhere else, for example, from the stars' personal cams, and thus cannot be a fan video. The shooting was never finished, and as a result this video is not the as the producers intended. That's why it was never released in an official form. But it is certain that the management/producers made this video, either that or their video editor just got really bored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.107.95 (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 John Vandenberg (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Summers-Early Rocking Recordings[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC: compilation album with no claims of notability. Wyatt Riot (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:MUSIC easily. Album by notable musician. Gene Summers = Rockabilly Hall of Fame. Sting au Buzz Me... 06:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The AFD isn't for Gene Summers (who is clearly notable) but for this album. Per WP:MUSIC (especially the Albums and songs section), each album must meet basic notability requirements. This articles just doesn't meet those requirements. Wyatt Riot (talk) 11:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - Major albums by notable artists are generally assumed to be notable. I don't really see anything special about this one compilation though. Torc2 (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - lack of media coverage Addhoc (talk) 17:41, 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 Redirect John Vandenberg (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rock a Boogie Shake[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC: compilation album with no claims of notability. Wyatt Riot (talk) 02:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Don't let the "Discography references" section fool you. They aren't notability references or reviews of the album but citations for the artist notability in the "Artist profile" section. Wyatt Riot (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:MUSIC easily. Album by notable musician. Gene Summers = Rockabilly Hall of Fame. Sting au Buzz Me... 06:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The AFD isn't for Gene Summers (who is clearly notable) but for this album. Per WP:MUSIC (especially the Albums and songs section), each album must meet basic notability requirements. This articles just doesn't meet those requirements. Wyatt Riot (talk) 11:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - lack of media coverage Addhoc (talk) 17:43, 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 John Vandenberg (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds Like Elvis CD[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC: compilation album with no claims of notability. Wyatt Riot (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - There may be a track or two from notable artists, but the article doesn't make that clear. Even still, I don't know if that's sufficient to give the album a full article. Torc2 (talk) 22:52, 31 January 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Music magazine[edit]

After I deleted some spam from the article, this basically becomes a dictionary definition of what a music magazine is. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Redfarmer (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary.Undeath (talk) 02:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a valid stub, and I do see the direction this article could take in its expansion. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 02:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Sc straker (talk) 03:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Blanchardb, could clearly be expanded well beyond a dictionary definition. Jfire (talk) 05:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Blanchardb and Jfire. Has potential for expansion. Sting au Buzz Me... 06:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is potentially expandable to a decent article, a legitimate stub. I'll have a look at it. --Canley (talk) 08:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. although I agree with the basic arguments of the keepers in this case, I should point out that ~~most~~ all of this user's contributions are up for afd as WP:Spam astroturf and are fairing poorly in those discussions. I find myself wondering if this article will not, at some point in the near future, suddenly morph into something similar. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC) Also note (above) that Redfarmer deleted a bunch of spam from this article before he afd'd it. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Solidifying my remarks to Delete unless someone really cares enough in the next few days to give this thing a new life as something substantially other than the spamboard it was created as.~~--Pgagnon999 (talk) 02:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Nice job Canley; I'm upgrading to Keep. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 05:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Reserving judgement~~ Maybe it's a lack of imagination on my part, but I don't see this as developing beyond a dicdef at best, and a linkfarm at worst. I would have to see some improvement in the article before I could sign off as a keep -- RoninBK _{T C} 19:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good start. I'm still concerned that this is still a pretty tasty linkspam target, especially by slipping slight blurbs into the "Notable music magazines" section. That being noted however, I can live with a Keep -- RoninBK _{T C} 10:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Currently a dictionary definition. No-one who has edited the article so far seems to have the interest or the ability to improve the article towards a survivable state. The theoretical possibility that someone (who isn't here yet) might one day improve it doesn't seem worth waiting around for. Blanchardb, who voted above, does seem to have an idea, and if he intends to work on the article I might reconsider my vote. EdJohnston (talk) 06:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to Keep based on Canley's improvements. EdJohnston (talk) 05:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've expanded the article a bit beyond a dictionary definition and hopefully to create a bit of a framework for further improvement, expansion and referencing. --Canley (talk) 05:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's exactly the kind of improvement I was hoping for. Being unknowledgeable in this matter, I could not have made those improvements myself. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sure, it's just a dic-def now, but it seems like a lot of people have taken interest in improving the microscopic stub that I created ages ago. I think that with time, it can become a much better article. Eyeball kid (talk) 00:10, 2 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 Rebound (basketball). Excellent discussion led to this clear consensus. The content has been merged, and the page converted to a redirect. Nice work all. Non admin close. Xymmax (talk) 15:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boxing out[edit]

Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. There are many terms that coaches use to describe the concept of "boxing out". Different coaches have different terminology. Making a page about one term is non notable. Delete Undeath (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Boxing out is a universal basketball terminology and an essential basketball concept. matt91486 (talk) 01:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Can you provide a source saying that?Undeath (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are 450,000 google hits for "boxing out basketball". I think it's safe to say the article can be sourced if it's looked at closely. matt91486 (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Basketball. An essential concept, yes, but one worthy of it's own article? Not so much. DarkAudit (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Audit, you beat me to it. It is not worthy of it's own article. There are many, many "essential" concepts to any type of sport, but they do not have their own page.Undeath (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Full-court press, Zone defense, Man-to-man defense, Princeton offense, Box-and-one defense. I'm sure there's more, these are just the first basketball concepts I could think of to search. I think it's safe to say there's precedent for basketball concepts. matt91486 (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay, it has sources. But why does it need it' own page? Why cannot it be merged with basketball?Undeath (talk) 02:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason for inclusion. Precedent does not matter. DarkAudit (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That wasn't my reason for inclusion. My reason was that it meets notability. I was just trying to respond to your point. you can't make the counter point to otherstuffexists and then use it against me when I say it in fact does. matt91486 (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not worth merging, since it's unreferenced. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any extraordinary claims in the article? This is very basic information and is easily verifiable. Zagalejo^^^ 06:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Alright, I'll admit, I'm very surprised at the direction this is going. Tomorrow when I get out of class, I'll see if I can spend some time going through references and giving the article a rewrite. So if you're voting delete at the moment, I'd like to ask that you check back in the next couple of days to look at the current version, if you might. Thanks. matt91486 (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No matter what you add, it will still just be a part of the game. That alone either constitutes a Delete or a Merge. Rules or any concept of a game is not worthy of it's own article. The concepts and the rules of a game or a sport should be included in the page about the sport.Undeath (talk) 04:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree wholeheartedly and that's certainly not policy. Articles on games would get bogged down if every concept was detailed in the article. matt91486 (talk) 04:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, if an article gets bogged down, then make a page dedicated to the rules. For example, make a page like Basketball (rules), or Basketball (concepts). You do not need to make an individual page for each and every rule/concept for a big game like basketball.Undeath (talk) 05:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not unreasonable, and I'm not averse to turning this article into a general concepts of basketball article. It could be well done, there could be see expansions of the more drawn out philosophy stuff, etc. That's a perfectly reasonable solution. It would take some work to put together, and I find it far preferable to putting into the main basketball article. Not sure of the exact naming of any prospective article though. matt91486 (talk) 05:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think the most logical merge target would be Rebound (basketball). Zagalejo^^^ 06:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This concept should be explained somewhere on Wikipedia, as it's a major component of basketball. (And yes, "boxing out" is the established term in English; see [54].) I don't see why deletion tools are necessary; at the very least, this can be converted into a redirect for a broader article. Zagalejo^^^ 06:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' not sure if this can be any more than a basic definition WP:NOT Corpx (talk) 10:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't even think this could be a redirect? Zagalejo^^^ 18:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Alright, I agree with Zagalejo, that merging and redirecting with Rebound (basketball) is the most logical and the least work creating a whole new article. UndeadWarrior, DarkAudit, any thoughts on that? matt91486 (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Merge I agree with MERGE to Rebound (basketball).Undeath (talk) 01:55, 31 January 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 & Redirect. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 10:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Burnett[edit]

No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context Jay32183 (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. However, there appears to be no AfD tag on the article. Can this be repaired? Bearian (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD tag added, and article relisted.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BLACKKITE 00:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Gargoyles characters#Owen Burnett, per WP:FICT. Jfire (talk) 05:35, 30 January 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. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 10:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rant Media[edit]

Non-notable website Nakon 00:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Sc straker (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Daniel5127 ^(talk) 04:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I went ahead and read through the external links that did not appear to be primary sources, and of them I did not even find a mention of Rant Media, let alone the standard of significant coverage put forth by WP:N. Hence, it also appears to fail WP:WEB if we want to include that here. SorryGuy Talk 03:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I too checked the so-called references, and they are not about the article topic. Essentially unreferenced since July 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfmammamia (talk • contribs) 04:06, 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 speedy delete spam. Pegasus «C¦T» 05:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kult Rock[edit]

One of many articles posted by User:Egasa in an apparent astroturfing campaign. Barest assertion of notability, and no secondary independent sources to back up any of these claims. DarkAudit (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Sc straker (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable MBisanz ^talk 05:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valid stub, requires clean-up not deletion. Catchpole (talk) 10:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is no assertion of notability in any of these articles you claim are "valid stubs". There are no reliable, verifiable, and independent sources of any kind. Mere existence is not enough. WP:N and WP:CORP are simply not met. DarkAudit (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valid, i have found it in one of the first Google positions and have verified on website —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan60 (talk •

contribs) 12:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC) user's only edit DarkAudit (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Comment. ~~Darkaudit~~, Dan60, I looked it up, too. However, having a website doesn't = notability. Worse case, it appears to be astroturf; best case, unnotable.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment That just proves their web site exists. There are no sources independent of the subject that proves this, or any, of the articles related to User:Egasa are notable per WP:N, WP:CORP, or WP:MUSIC. Stub or not, those guidelines need to be met. They are not. DarkAudit (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, although appearance may not reflect intent, this appears to be just one more in a long line of non-notable, potential spam creations by the same editor. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G11 spam and so tagged —Travis ^talk 02:59, 31 January 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 delete time Pegasus «C¦T» 05:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amusement Time[edit]

One of many articles posted by User:Egasa in an apparent astroturfing campaign. Barest assertion of notability, and no secondary independent sources to back up any of these claims. DarkAudit (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Sc straker (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable MBisanz ^talk 05:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valid stub, requires clean-up not deletion. Catchpole (talk) 10:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is no assertion of notability in any of these articles you claim are "valid stubs". There are no reliable, verifiable, and independent sources of any kind. Mere existence is not enough. WP:N and WP:CORP are simply not met. DarkAudit (talk) 14:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, does not assert notability through references or context; appears to be WP:Spam.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G11 spam and so tagged —Travis ^talk 02:59, 31 January 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 delete spam. Pegasus «C¦T» 05:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GeoMusic - Global Encyclopaedia of Music[edit]

One of many articles posted by User:Egasa in an apparent astroturfing campaign. Barest assertion of notability, and no secondary independent sources to back up any of these claims. DarkAudit (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable MBisanz ^talk 05:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valid stub, requires clean-up not deletion. Catchpole (talk) 10:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is no assertion of notability in any of these articles you claim are "valid stubs". There are no reliable, verifiable, and independent sources of any kind. Mere existence is not enough. WP:N and WP:CORP are simply not met. DarkAudit (talk) 14:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, although appearance may not reflect intent, this appears to be just one more in a long line of non-notable, potential spam creations by the same editor. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete -- the website claims founded in 1827--I suppose they mean in print, but WorldCat has no listing at all for it under any of the possible alternative titles. The supposed publisher F-times publishing, (presumably Financial Times Publishing)is real, but did not exist in 1827 either. DGG (talk) 01:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G11 spam and so tagged —Travis ^talk 02:58, 31 January 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 delete Pegasus «C¦T» 05:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Federation of Music Journalists[edit]

One of many articles posted by User:Egasa in an apparent astroturfing campaign. Barest assertion of notability, and no secondary independent sources to back up any of these claims. DarkAudit (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. MBisanz ^talk 05:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valid stub, requires clean-up not deletion. Catchpole (talk) 10:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is no assertion of notability in any of these articles you claim are "valid stubs". There are no reliable, verifiable, and independent sources of any kind. Mere existence is not enough. WP:N and WP:CORP are simply not met. DarkAudit (talk) 14:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possibly exists solely to advertise Directory of Music Journalist, at any rate it's not notable. PKT (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, although appearance may not reflect intent, this appears to be just one more in a long line of non-notable, potential spam creations by the same editor. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: 400 members for the whole blinkin' world is pretty small. Otherwise, there is no assertion that this association is anything special, and special is what's needed to be "of note." Utgard Loki (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G11 spam and so tagged —Travis ^talk 02:58, 31 January 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 delete spam. Pegasus «C¦T» 05:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GeoMusic Awards[edit]

One of many articles posted by User:Egasa in an apparent astroturfing campaign. Barest assertion of notability, and no secondary independent sources to back up any of these claims. DarkAudit (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep valid stub, requires clean-up not deletion. Catchpole (talk) 10:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is no assertion of notability in any of these articles you claim are "valid stubs". There are no reliable, verifiable, and independent sources of any kind. Mere existence is not enough. WP:N and WP:CORP are simply not met. DarkAudit (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Spam. I doubt these awards have ever taken place, so WP:CRYSTAL applies as well. PKT (talk) 15:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, although appearance may not reflect intent, this appears to be just one more in a long line of non-notable, potential spam creations by the same editor. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's a magazine promotion. Is there any indication that it produces product of note? Is there indication that it is a huge event? Is there evidence that it has massive participation or a high profile in other press? Utgard Loki (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G11 spam and so tagged —Travis ^talk 02:57, 31 January 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 delete. Pegasus «C¦T» 05:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Directory Report[edit]

One of many articles posted by User:Egasa in an apparent astroturfing campaign. Barest assertion of notability, and no secondary independent sources to back up any of these claims. DarkAudit (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable MBisanz ^talk 05:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Spam, minor trade publication, not notable. PKT (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, WP:Spam, WP:Notability.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or speedy: A3, A1, A7 speedy delete criteria, plus it's pretty spammy. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete WP:SPAM Doc Strange (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G11 spam and so tagged —Travis ^talk 02:56, 31 January 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 delete spam. Pegasus «C¦T» 05:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Media Line International[edit]

One of many articles posted by User:Egasa in an apparent astroturfing campaign. Barest assertion of notability, and no secondary independent sources to back up any of these claims. DarkAudit (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence of notability has been provided using reliable independent sources. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable MBisanz ^talk 05:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - spam --T-rex 06:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valid stub, requires clean-up not deletion. Catchpole (talk) 10:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is no assertion of notability in any of these articles you claim are "valid stubs". There are no reliable, verifiable, and independent sources of any kind. Mere existence is not enough. WP:N and WP:CORP are simply not met. DarkAudit (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Spam, minor trade publication, not notable. PKT (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not establish notability through references or context.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or speedy delete: It's an A3 speedy (empty), and it's all box and no article. Additionally, it says, "Here is a magazine." Yes, well, here is one, there is one, everywhere is one. So? Utgard Loki (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G11 spam and so tagged —Travis ^talk 02:56, 31 January 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 delete. Falls under WP:CSD#A7 W.marsh 01:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phantasmata Production[edit]

One of many articles posted by User:Egasa in an apparent astroturfing campaign. Barest assertion of notability, and no secondary independent sources to back up any of these claims. DarkAudit (talk) 00:23, 30 January 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 Nomination Withdrawn, non-admin close. Redfarmer (talk) 08:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fredrick Douglass Houses[edit]

I proded this one a while back for notability and it was contested with the reason "numerous news accounts available." Since I don't live in the area, I held off taking it to AfD to give someone a chance to source it and establish notability but no one has yet to and the only coverage I'm finding is trivial mentions. Redfarmer (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a few sources that should establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has relevant external coverage concerning the subject from reliable sources. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: houses were the subject of discussion of whether to tear down or keep, and they were kept due to their historic nature. Unfortunately that is locked behind pay door in the NYT Archive and I can't get full text access at the moment. I'm probably not going to have time to work on the article between now and when this would expire, however. Travellingcari (talk) 05:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Notability established by Alansohn. Withdrawing. Redfarmer (talk) 08:25, 30 January 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dataflex[edit]

Looks like an advertisement; fails WP:CORP. No sources or even an external link. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reads like an ad, probably come COI issues, and company is not notable - Dumelow (talk) 14:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Gavin Collins (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Advertising copy or press release, and the company might or might not pass CORP, but the article is about services. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yet another provider of "solutions"; yet another technology business trying to use Wikipedia for advertising. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agreed with everyone else here. Article seems far too much like an advert, and pretty much non-notable. — alex.muller (talk • edits) 21:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the company is clearly notable, and seems to have been quite large at one point, with hundreds of news articles in the likes of the Financial Times, but this article is clearly nothing but spam (unless you count the first sentence of the lead). Wikidemo (talk) 12:11, 1 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; article cleaned up, inappropriate sources removed, and proper sources brought. Avi (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Gancwajch[edit]

Delete - Article was sourced to unreliable blogs. Outside of that, there is no verifiable notability. Avi (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A one day old stub, already better developed than thousands of other stub articles on wikipedia. The leader of the notorious "Thirteen network" in Warsaw Ghetto is certainly a notable person. Feel free to contribute in a constructive way and expand the stub instead. Bad faith nomination (first remove reference, then claim "unreferenced" and immediately nominate for deletion ? shame on you Avi). --Lysy^talk 16:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are not reliable sources; that reference was unacceptable. -- Avi (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who said that was a blog ? --Lysy^talk 17:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.lastsuperpower.net self-defines as a "established by leftwingers who support the war in Iraq.…This is a place for people who want to discuss what it really means to be progressive and left-wing in the 21st century - and where we can go from here." It is a discussion forum, which is no more reliable than a blog. Please see WP:RS. -- Avi (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please consult the source first. This is neither a blog nor a discussion forum. --Lysy^talk 17:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is it a reliable source. Please do not restore it. -- Avi (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First you claimed the references were from a blog, then a discussion forum, now you are saying it's not a RS. Still, I don't see the reason to delete the article. --Lysy^talk 22:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I agree with Avi that this is a bad source, but that does not mean that there aren't good sources somewhere else. Jon513 (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a plethora of reliable books. The above site as well as [55] are not very reliable, but they can now be removed, as they are not sole references for any claims anymore.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment If the article's issues of sourcing and WP:NPOV can be fixed appropriately within the time period of the AfD, that would be an impetus to clse the nominations as "Keep - Corrected/Fixed". -- Avi (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Would you nominate any stub without references for deletion, or only this one. I'm sorry but it seems you are wikilawyering simply because you find the content of the article uncomfortable. --Lysy^talk 18:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Can you more specifically explain what WP:NPOV issues do you have in mind so that they can be corrected ? --Lysy^talk 19:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unless the provided information is false, any stub deserves an opportunity to be examined and expanded. Otherwise this proposal smacks of censorship. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: When reliable sources are used, there can be a discussion. The article is not only using odd sources, but it has some of the infamous slur phrases like, "The allegation that he joined the NKVD has not been confirmed." Then why say it? "The allegation that you are a rapist and the killer of thousands has not yet been confirmed" is a way of unsaying it. The subject may be entirely valid, but the content is in no way valid. Furthermore, I'm not sure that a biography would be justified of someone who may or may not have done something and whose existence is undocumented beyond a certain point. Why a separate article instead of a listing of people in the article on the organization? You don't write a biographical entry until you have the biography. If you're speculating or contending over the biography, you wait until the material shows up. As for "why not leave it," the answer is that this is incendiary material. It's better safe than slanderous. Utgard Loki (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Infamous slur phrases fixed. Would you change your opinion now ? --Lysy^talk 22:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References, and we have many articles about less prominent rabbis anyway. PS. As for more reliable sources, I am sure something from over 30 books here would be enough.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this clear violation of WP:NOR, WP:BIO, WP:V a well as WP:NOT#PROPAGANDA. IZAK (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only violations I see here are of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, leaning toward merge with Group 13 - Two of the 11 sources are not WP:RS, but nine sources is a good number for a short article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus has shown that Gancwajch is mentioned in more than two dozen of books (some of the Google hits are duplicates). On the other hand, it isn't clear to me that coverage of Gancwajch is more than "trivial" - for example, Itamar Levin, the most cited source, writes primarily about "The Thirteen", not Gancwajch. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isreal Gutman writes ([56] - wrong link ?) even more about him by but that point I was too tired to add this ref in. He has some speculations on his early career and such.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep-notable person, described in books.--Molobo (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - References aren't based on blogs but mostly from many reputable books--YY (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - All specific concerns addressed. --Lysy^talk 22:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am pleased to see that the article is actually getting fixed nicely. However, sites such as http://www.jewishtribalreview.org and http://www.lastsuperpower.net are unacceptable. If you can replace those with reliable citations or remove those sentences together with the other unsourced sentences, I will consider withdrawing the nomination. -- Avi (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote above they can be removed without loss of any content; I have verified all info with reliable sources.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks all. --Lysy^talk 08:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above comments/improvements to the aricle, also as per positive news for a change regarding tolerance policy in Poland after Tusk became its new PM and it shows. greg park avenue (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements, however, sources failing WP:RS need to be left out. --MPerel 02:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although not a great deal is known about his life, enough facts to support a clear notability claim are relaibly sourced. That is enough to support a keep under WP:BIO. AfD is about whether the subject is notable, not whether the current article is a good article. --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to be well referenced. Gatoclass (talk) 09:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as shameful as it is the nazis could have not done it without the Jewish help they received and he was one of them. As for WP:RS enough good sources have been given. --Shmaltz (talk) 14:19, 31 January 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 Nerf John Vandenberg (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dart Wars[edit]

Game doesn't appear to be a notable game. No proper reliable sources. Goes slightly beyond Things Made up in School One Day, though, so I decided to bring it here rather than PROD or speedy. ♠P M C♠ 18:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After a quick perusal of the content and the fact there are external links to a newspaper and tv station, I have nominated this article for proposed rescue, assuming the good faith of the editors, however on the flip side I also note that the possibly related article Nerf War has been Afd'd before per making stuff up MickMacNee (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lame but notable enough, it started in 1995 and is still being reported on in 2004. Clean-up and move on. Benjiboi 21:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It stoopid but it appears to be notable. Bearian (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Nerf. It can be a separate section there, no need for a complete article on it. Black Kite 01:42, 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 Speedy delete per CSD G12, copyvio. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Hayes Dean[edit]

Already denied PROD, so I'm bringing it to AFD. There are no sources provided showing this man's notability. The article has been tagged for such since March 2007, so I think it's safe to assume they're not coming. ♠P M C♠ 19:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my denied PROD, person seems non-notable. — alex.muller (talk • edits) 19:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of academic-related deletion discussions. —Lquilter (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I believe the subject is notable, however the current article is a copyvio from [57]. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It does sound like he should be notable, but my brief online searches did not find appropriate sources, and I agree with Espresso Addict about the copyvio. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:35, 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 a non-admin keep with no deletion rationale and consensus for keep. SorryGuy Talk 01:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rubens Gerchman[edit]

I don't think this article is in good shape so thats why i request a deletion. Unless someone fixes the article then it would be a keep.--Pookeo9 (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep first, the article is not in such a terrible state and second, when an article sucks, we don't delete it, we fix it. There's an article in the Portuguese wiki which you can request to have translated or adapted, you can ask for help from various WikiProjects, you can also go to your favorite library and pick up additional references to build the article. But he appears to be a significant figure and the article should stay. 66.130.247.219 (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The deletion argument presented is not grounds for deletion. Keep, under WP:ATD, If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. . Yng varr 22:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article came with two reliable sources indicating notability. We don't delete imperfect articles, we improve them. --Dhartung | Talk 00:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, this needs clean-up. However, he exhibited at Museum of Modern Art in São Paulo, Museu da Republica in Rio de Janeiro, Austin Museum in Austin, Texas, Bronx Museum and 3 São Paulo Biennials. This is more than notable. freshacconcispeaktome 17:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems like a notable entry. - Modernist (talk) 18:26, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Davidson[edit]

This is Not notable. -Karaku (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete as NN --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless the article as more information then i will switch to keep but for now not enough sources and who was he, his early life more detailed.--Pookeo9 (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - tragic but non-notable crime victim. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:27, 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.