< September 12 September 14 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Now referenced and asserts notability seicer | talk | contribs 16:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham Steel Corporation[edit]

Birmingham Steel Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable company? Fails to assert any notability. SGGH speak! 00:05, 14 September 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. ffm 12:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canon Sims Characters[edit]

List of Canon Sims Characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a list of "characters" that do not establish independent notability from the Sims series. They are not really characters, but rather generic "units" given names and very basic details in order to make the games not feel entirely empty when they are loaded up. The games themselves have no actual storylines and the characters can be deleted and replaced in five minutes. They don't require any coverage in the main articles, so they definitely don't need a separate list. TTN (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You have a point, but I think the debate is that while the game is notable, the pre-made characters inside it are not notable by themselves. Think of it this way: would someone who was less familiar with the game read an article to better understand the characters? —C. Raleigh (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too have used the WP:PLOT shorthand in the context of games, but stopped because its applicability is not always clear. The related guideline specific to the context of video games is WP:VGSCOPE item 5. The former is a well established policy, and the latter is an implementing guideline which quite evidently has a weaker consensus. ~ Ningauble (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't the Sims characters you'd like to see, already included in this list (I wouldn't know, since this list doesn't list the characters of the Strangetown neighborhood which I always play)? And does Sims really have a "meta story"? (I'd argue The Sims has no more meta story than a bucket of paint that says "you can paint your room red, here, have a brush".) – sgeureka t•c 11:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. Precisely because this list doesn't include Strangetown, Desiderata Valley, and other neighbourhood's "canon" Sims. Yes on the "megastory" though most definitely not as fully details as some games. An example (though possibly not 100% accurate as I don't actually have the game in front of me) would be the relationships that exist between some families and the fact that the Goth's have grown up with Bella disappearing at some point between games. My understanding and meaning in this case of Metastory is sort of how the world has "evolved" without the interaction of a player (although not as extensive as the "metastory" between Knights of the Old Republic and Knights of the Old Republic 2 I see it in a similar vein). Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:N due to a lack of coverage in reliable third party sources. In fact, they might even have a lack of coverage in primary sources considering how thin these characters are: where they live, who they're related to, what they wear, and what skills they have. According to WP:GAMECRUFT, we don't just list every darn aspect of a character. Wikipedia is not the place to find out what characters wear or where they live. Randomran (talk) 17:28, 15 September 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. Very much borderline notability, and serious COI are problematic; but the complete lack of verifiability is fatal. — Coren (talk) 22:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donald W. Scott[edit]

Donald W. Scott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Individual of borderline notability, article however appears to be self-promotion by Dwscottjr (talk · contribs). User's only significant contributions are to this and Luck of the Draw (board game), a game he invented. roleplayer 23:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

The result was delete. The claims of notability are not supported by the sources; and support for keeping the article appears to come mostly from the same person. — Coren (talk) 22:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Lee (musician)[edit]

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

Procedural re-nomination after DRV produced consensus to re-list. See the DRV here. Black Kite 12:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Divine Horsemen-Devil's river liner lyrics-credits.jpg
Welcome to Wikipedia Jayzee69. Closing admin please take note of the prior sock issues with the prior AFD. (Checkuser case) GtstrickyTalk or C 18:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The only quote listed in the article is a copyright violation from BBC news. If anyone is active on WQ, they can contact me or any other administrator for the link to that article for the quote. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Petraeus on Iraq[edit]

Petraeus on Iraq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete - This article got speedy deleted first ("Little or no context") but was recreated a day later by the same author. I figured speedy-ing it again might be considered too rude, so I'm bringing it here. I don't see why it has to exist and why the quote can't be added to the David Petraeus article.    SIS  23:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The General said one thing in one instance, and all of a sudden that means that all of his prior statements are invalid? Ye Gods! I might as well create an article called Darwin on Evolution that included just the quote "To suppose that the eye [...] could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." The Squicks (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikiquote, maybe. They seem to be verifiable quotes, so the article, under the title of David Petraeus, may be valid there. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 00:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:John Z for WP:AGF and thanks to User:Strikeout_Sister for allowing this discussion. I thought I might be able to circumvent edit-war paralysis by creating a new article -- compose first and worry about integration later. I see now that there is no alternative to the interminable struggle in the trenches. -- NonZionist (talk) 13:33, 14 September 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. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gino Melone[edit]

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

No references, the info fails WP:V. Google returns nothing relevant except the WP page [1]. Possibly a hoax or entirely non-notable, per WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 23:11, 13 September 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:SAL does imply that it is possible this could be a useful topic for an article. However, that same guideline also states that stand-along lists much meet the standards of WP:V and WP:RS. The general feeling I'm getting from this discussion is that this list fails both. There is only one reference for the whole article. This close has no prejudice against a re-creation that is well-referenced throughout, or against tasteful inclusions in other articles, provided they are similarly well-referenced. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft carriers in fiction[edit]

Aircraft carriers in fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a loose and indiscriminate collection of trivia and original research. The fact that aircraft carries are mentioned in a piece of media is not relevant to the topic as a whole. Popular culture sections in articles are meant to briefly describe how the topic is used rather than just list every single little mention, so one or two paragraphs in the main article may be suitable. TTN (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have a problem with this kind of entries and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. As an article, they fail, the "subject" is generally not notable, secondary sources are not available, and they more or less constitute original research either built without references, on primary sources, or on Wikipedia itself. It's not very likely the New York Times is going to publish something about aircraft carriers in fiction.
However, they are not articles, they are lists. What these lists do (well the good ones) is present trivial, non controversial information (do we really need to call that "original research" ?) that is otherwise dispersed in the linked articles in a thematical manner not possible with a category. I don't want to invoke an all too usual but flawed argument: "but there are many similar articles on Wikipedia that are not nominated for AfD" (normally followed by someone nominating those for deletion), however I do make use of such lists now and then, I find them useful (well some of them). Some arguments against the list here would probably apply to List of science fiction movies or List of active Royal Navy ships and I sure as hell wouldn't want those deleted.
Another point here is that while Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, I should note that such lists are not entirely indiscriminate, they group articles found within Wikipedia, a priori subjects deemed notable by the community or at least worthy of inclusion.
I believe we try too hard to apply policies and guidelines designed with articles in mind to a different kind of beast: stand alone lists. Unfortunately, the guidelines we have : WP:SAL, WP:LIST, WP:CLN are mostly style guidelines, we seem to be lacking (someone corrects me here, the closest thing I can find is WP:SALAT) a clear guideline stating criteria for inclusion of lists, maybe something that should be remedied.
Anyway, I believe this particular list is being unfairly judged through guidelines designed for something else. Is a thematic index "original research" or a useful feature ? Equendil Talk 08:42, 17 September 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 WP:SNOW -- The Anome (talk) 23:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rock paper[edit]

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

WP:NOT; more specifically - Wikipedia is not for things made up in one day. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 23:04, 13 September 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. MBisanz talk 02:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent design (software engineering)[edit]

Intelligent design (software engineering) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An unremarkable combination of words for a title, and a content that reflects that: two unrelated dictionary like definitions, one of which has been added by a single purpose account (User:Computertheology) to add a reference to a book recently published (and partially the object of another AfD : Computer Theology). I don't believe there's anything to salvage here.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 13:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MemoryArchive[edit]

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

Appears to be an online wiki community, but there is no indication of their notability, or of meeting WP:N. rootology (C)(T) 22:50, 13 September 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. News coverage is more than adequate to meet the notability guideline — Coren (talk) 22:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scandalpedia[edit]

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

Appears to lack notability independent of the Liberal Party of Canada. No sourcing, no evidence of meeting WP:N. rootology (C)(T) 22:46, 13 September 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. MBisanz talk 02:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Atkinson (actor)[edit]

William Atkinson (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable actor with only minor, one-off roles that are often uncredited. — Scientizzle 18:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 22:40, 13 September 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. seicer | talk | contribs 16:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ravana (film)[edit]

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

Apparently fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation upon reliable sources confirming that shooting has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:21, 13 September 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, author's username indicates that he's a 14 year old writing about his own unpublished fiction. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drake Slyme[edit]

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

This appears to be made-up. No google hits for author, character names or any other elements of the article. Rob Banzai (talk) 22:02, 13 September 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. PhilKnight (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nerf (computer gaming)[edit]

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

Nerf, as used in computer gaming, is an online slang term... perhaps a neologism... used only in computer gaming as far as I can find.

The article cites no sources, and I have been unable to find any I feel confident enough to cite as appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia, rather than a gaming discussion forum.
Objecting editors, while insisting that there must be sources, have been unwilling or unable to cite them. With the rewrite by Protonk (talk) and other changes this is no longer true. sinneed (talk) 18:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the term may eventually enter the general language, I am very dubious as to whether this and a large number of similar terms belong in a general-purpose encyclopedia. There are adequate online jargon dictionaries and gaming-specific wikis for these online terms, I think. sinneed (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my apologies for the fact that this is a "2nd nomination" even though purists will note that there never was a proper 1st effort. I was too new to wiki, and simply failed at the submission process. sinneed (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Article significantly reworked and demonstration that an article can be built has been made. Equendil Talk 23:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Week keep per my partial agreement with the nom, but the verifiable sources found do indicate some notability of the term, just as with other Internet slang such as l33t (hate to imply WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS); however, it's not much, and more would need to be found. Proper copyediting and addltion of sources can get rid of the WP:OR problems, but a complete rewrite would not be necessary. MuZemike (talk) 18:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Rubicite Breastplace Priced to Sell, a whitepaper written by tim burke (not the baseball player), a games researcher. Talks about nerfs coming down the pike and how they influence player actions.
  2. Terranova posts Terra Nova (blog) is a games researcher group blog on the subject of virtual worlds. The blog itself is not RS, of course, but the individual authors are (double check to see, of course)
  3. Raph Koster's website A dicdef, but Ralph Koster Raph Koster (helped make Star Wars Galaxies) does a lot of work in the field of virtual worlds.
  4. Owned: Finding a Place for Virtual World Property Rights in the Michigan State Law Review defines and explains "nerfed" in the contest of property rights.
  5. Designing Virtual Worlds, page 305.
  6. Julian Dibbell talks about it in his book, Play Money
  7. In the New York Times talking about player protests after a nerf in AO.
  • I think that's enough for now. Protonk (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just want to point to this as a productive AFD that is a true discussion, not a vote. Instead of people blindly asserting back and forth and avoiding each other arguments, people actually address each other's arguments with evidence and policy. The fact that Protonk took some time to rewrite the article is a huge bonus. I'm just impressed that people wasted less time jumping down each other's throats, and more time actually addressing the concerns. Randomran (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I haven't followed enough of these AFD things to know if this is unusual. It has certainly been interesting, and it has resulted in some valuable information for me. I think the rewrite by Protonk (talk) is excellent. I don't know if I am entitled to an opinion, since I started the whole thing, but aside from the "Does this kind of thing belong in a general-purpose encyclopedia?" question, I think the article is now an example of a "real" Wikipedia article. I have no idea what forum might be appropriate for the larger question... or even if it is worth wider consideration. I thank everyone who has "voiced" an opinion so far, and in advance those who still will. sinneed (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Donna Gibbs / Kerri-Lee Krause: Cyberlines 2.0: Languages and Cultures of the Internet. James Nicholas, Albert Park (Austr.) 2006, ISBN 1-875-40842-8, S. 180
  2. Jessica Mulligan / Bridgette Patrovsky: Developing Online Games: An Insider's Guide. New Riders, Indianapolis (Ind.) 2003, ISBN 1-592-73000-0, S. 280-281: "Bug-Fixing versus Nerfing" sinneed (talk) 23:02, 16 September 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. MBisanz talk 02:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inside My Notebook[edit]

Inside My Notebook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A future debut album from a non-notable artist. No details, no release date, no label known. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL. The only google hit is the WP page[5]. Nsk92 (talk) 21:16, 13 September 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. MBisanz talk 02:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pornocracy (government)[edit]

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

Delete unsourced material and redirect to Pornocracy. We66er (talk) 21:11, 13 September 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.
Articles for deletion archivesThis is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Tara McCluskey. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Goofy. Odd, there appears to be a bug in the closing script; my reasoning didn't get posted originally. Anyway, there is no consensus to delete the article, however there also does not appear to be a consensus to overrule the previous AfD's closure. It seems that the merger tag was removed when nothing had been done to undertake the merge and it wasn't apparent that this was an AfD decision ([9]). Therefore, I am sustaining the old closure, and making it clear that the article is to be merged within one month or it may be deleted. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goofy holler[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable sound effect, used in a few dozen Disney movies and hardly at all outside the Waltpire. Few reliable sources. There have been plenty of stock sound effects used throughout the years - this one is hardly the Wilhelm scream, or even Castle thunder for that matter. Previous AfD closed as merge, unsure exactly why this was undone. Action Jackson IV (talk) 20:21, 13 September 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. MBisanz talk 02:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agent K[edit]

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

This character does not assert notability outside the films and cartoon series. It is unlikely that any third party sources will ever talk about it outside of the context of the series, so it has no reason to exist. TTN (talk) 19:24, 13 September 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. MBisanz talk 02:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frank the Pug[edit]

Frank the Pug (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not assert notability outside the films and cartoon series. It is unlikely that any third party sources will ever talk about it outside of the context of the series, so it has no reason to exist. TTN (talk) 19:26, 13 September 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. ffm 12:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agent J[edit]

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

This character does not assert notability outside the films and cartoon series. It is unlikely that any third party sources will ever talk about it outside of the context of the series, so it has no reason to exist. TTN (talk) 19:24, 13 September 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. MBisanz talk 13:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CS1000[edit]

CS1000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article, with advert like features removed, is a mere one line article on a patched IP PBX with no assertions of notability. SGGH speak! 18:30, 13 September 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 Infinite monkey theorem. MBisanz talk 02:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One Million Monkeys Typing[edit]

One Million Monkeys Typing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Ad-style self-promoting nn web article. BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 18:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an idea...what cleanup do you think it would entail? I wouldn't like to see this article go down the poop-chute, but as it stands now, it's headed that way. 67.220.16.64 (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Sorry...forgot to log in. Actually from BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 22:49, 13 September 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 Close (non-admin closure) — The first AfD nomination is still open. Please discuss the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter J. West, which has been relisted the same day as this. MuZemike (talk) 23:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walter J. West[edit]

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

"The College Football wikiproject consensus is that college football head coaches are notable". You can see the discussion about this on the article talk page. Basically, I disagree with this blanket notability agreed upon by this Wikiproject, which is in direct disagreement with WP:BIO / WP:NOTE. There is no indication that there are multiple reliable independent sources about this person. He has coached this college team, that is not disputed, but that's about all there is to say about him. His run as a coach seems to have been unremarkable, and there are no other facts which would make him notable. While he does meet the notability essay of the College Football project, this essay is so far remote from WP:NOTE, WP:BIO and even WP:ATHLETE as to make it not supported by global consensus, but only by a very local one. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It there a reason why this is here while the first nomination is still open? MuZemike (talk) 23:28, 13 September 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 Speedied as blatant hoax and possible attack page. Grutness...wha? 00:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jiffwich[edit]

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

Unfortunately, I had some trouble verifying the references. For example, there is not entry in the Compact Oxford English Dictionary according to their online search page; I can't find it in the print edition of the Concise OED either. The quoted Pepys diary entry (25 October 1668) uses a different word. Part of the text is copied verbatim from the cunt article. HaeB (talk) 17:50, 13 September 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. — Coren (talk) 04:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Kearney[edit]

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

Footballer who has never played in a fully professional league, thus failing WP:ATHLETE. No other assertion of notability beyond youth caps (on which there is a consensus that they do not confer notability) and nothing to suggest that he passes WP:BIO either. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep pending the outcome of this discussion. Basement12 (T.C) 23:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - then this needs to be laid down in a set of clearly understandable and accepted guidelines. Similar problems were brought up with this AfD. Notability criteria for football players are an absolute mess with little consistency between cases (as the very example of a keep you give above itself gives examples of articles deleted). At the moment accepted wikipedia policy does not allow for the subject discussed in this AfD to have an article. Basement12 (T.C) 01:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saying that we established that such players are notable in that AfD is tantamount to intellectual dishonesty. There was another AfD at around the same time which ended in delete. WP:ATHLETE demands "fully professional league", not "fully professional league or semi-professional top divisions". пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was a fortnight earlier, and didn't get as much discussion - looks like everyone who said Delete also chimed in on the later discussion - and with the later discussion on WP:FOOTIE that seemed to be unanamious in keeping these articles, I'd have thought that using the phrase "intellectual dishonesty" was a violation of both WP:FAITH and WP:NPA. I'd have certainly spoke against it had I known about it. Basement is correct - entire thing is a inconsistent mess.Nfitz (talk) 02:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CorkCityFCRebelArmy (talk · contribs) has almost no contributions outside this debate. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 6 million people have heard of him (or in this edit you claim that 25 million people have heard of him)? Can you provide facts to back that up, because to me that just looks like a ridiculous claim to make. In addition, telling me to "stay away from Irish football articles, if you know what's good for you"[10] is not exactly WP:CIVIL. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:19, 15 September 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 deletion as WP:CSD#G10 —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 18:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makeover travel[edit]

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

An account of the author's unfortunate experiences with cosmetic surgery in Bolivia. Original research. Jll (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:IceCreamAntisocial has tagged the page for speedy deletion as an attack page, which is probably what I should have done instead of listing it here. Jll (talk) 17:56, 13 September 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. — Coren (talk) 04:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fratire[edit]

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

Non-notable and poorly-defined neologism. It appears this has come up before, early this year, and the consensus was delete, but the article was never deleted, and there's no indication either on the page or in its discussion that it was ever nominated, which makes me suspect foul play. Twin Bird (talk) 15:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The Huffington Post is considered a leading news source for political commentary and reliable for editorial content - for which the article uses it as a reference. Besides the NY times, the article also contains commentary from The Guardian/Observer, National Public Radio, the Financial Times, the New Statesman and further reading in Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, a peer-reviewed journal. — CactusWriter | needles 14:25, 17 September 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. ffm 13:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Music of Ren and Stimpy[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Music of Ren and Stimpy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Last AFD closed as no consensus, still no sources or explanation of why this is important. Mr.Z-man 16:43, 13 September 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. Author has been username-blocked by Edgar181. Blueboy96 16:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James D. Lyons[edit]

James D. Lyons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

not notable. unsourced. COI. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:40, 13 September 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. MBisanz talk 02:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whiteowl Drop That[edit]

Whiteowl Drop That (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article was prodded previously for failing WP:MUSIC by being a non-notable mix tape. The PROD was later removed. I agree with the original PROD, and believe that this is still the case. Rockfang (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It couldn't have been speedied. None of the general criteria seem to apply. The only article criteria that seems to come close, is A7, but that "...applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on."--Rockfang (talk) 02:09, 17 September 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. — Coren (talk) 04:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Jive Aces[edit]

The Jive Aces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability - It's been tagged for notability for a year now, and the only things anyone's come up with are self-published reviews (and that I mean by self-published authors, not reviews published by the band), some club they play at every Friday calling them "The UKs No 1 [sic] Jive and Swing Band" and unsourced claims of them having worked with Van Morrison, Count Basie and John Travolta. I've done some Google searches, and can't come up with much other than self-published sources or other non-reliable sources, one article about how some members of an audience at one of their gigs in Derry were upset that they were pushing Scientology, and the Derry city council page about the award. I've also done a Google News Archive Search, and have come up with 122 hits, but they almost all seem to be either Jive Aces promotional material or promo material for jazz/swing festivals they've played at. A couple of exceptions - a couple of letters to the editor claiming they played very well, and a Guardian article briefly mentioning that the Church of Scientology allegedly used them to sweeten the City of London police. In all, they don't seem to have significant coverage, and so don't pass WP:NOTE. Darimoma (talk) 16:28, 13 September 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 Life (manga). — Coren (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ayumu Shiiba[edit]

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

This character does not assert notability outside the manga. It is unlikely that any third party sources will ever talk about it outside of the context of the series, so it has no reason to exist. TTN (talk) 16:19, 13 September 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. MBisanz talk 02:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karma Knows[edit]

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

Article seems to be more about Boz than the album so possibly a db-bio speedy candidate. Overly praises the artist, no evidence of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ros0709 (talk • contribs)

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

The result was delete. ffm 13:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walter J. West[edit]

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

Contested prod, basically because "the College Football wikiproject consensus is that college football head coaches are notable". You can see the discussion about this on the article talk page. Basically, I disagree with this blanket notability agreed upon by this Wikiproject, which is in direct disagreement with WP:BIO / WP:NOTE. There is no indication that there are multiple reliable independent sources about this person. He has coached this college team, that is not disputed, but that's about all there is to say about him. His run as a coach seems to have been unremarkable, and there are no other facts which would make him notable. While he does meet the notability essay of the College Football project, this essay is so far remote from WP:NOTE, WP:BIO and even WP:ATHLETE as to make it not supported by global consensus, but only by a very local one. I have suggested making a list of head coaches for this college where this info would be available, with only individual articles for the truly notable ones, but that seems to be unacceptable. Fram (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per CFB:COACH and points below:

  1. Nominator appears to be "forum shopping" -- editor admits to not liking the resulting discussion on the talk page and wants to try again. By itself, not so much--but mixed in with the rest, worth noting
  2. Nominator failed to notify other editors about the re-nomination.
  3. Nominator openly states that the issue is with CFB:N and the discussion should go there, not on this particular article. Why this article? Why this coach?
  4. Nominator says that CFB:N is in direct violation of WP:BIO and WP:NOTE but does not state how that violation occurs. We would be thrilled to discuss at [{WP:CFB]]!
  5. Nominator states "There is no indication that there are multiple reliable independent sources about this person" -- WP:GOOGLEHITS -- offline sources do indeed exist, as exist for all college football coaches through the massive ammounts of record keeping in the media. Just because you can't find it on GOOGLE doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and football coaching records from 1949-1952 fit into that historical category. Google and other search engines are useful tools in determining notability, but are not the only rule. Even for modern-day players, it is highly unlikely that a first-round draft pick at offensive line will be written about through traditional news and web channels.
  6. "His run as a coach seems to have been unremarkable": Specialist Topics are often not well known - Notability does not necessarily arrive from being widely known, but can also arrive from the importance or uniqueness in the field. He was the only coach with his team's schedule--the only coach to play the teams he played, that year in that order. To the untrained eye, yes one college football team can look a lot like another. However, each week rankings and standings are modified based on win-loss records, performance, computer analysis, and even sportswriter and head coaches opinions. At all levels of college football, team "A" defeating team "B" can dramatically affect team "C" in conference championships, weekly rankings, invitations to bowl games and/or bracket seeding in tournaments. Even ESPN.com ranks a bottom 10 every week during the regular season. In the great scheme of college football, there is no such thing as an "unimportant game" during the regular season. Additionally, detailed historical analysis continues on games that have already been played.
  7. "and there are no other facts which would make him notable" except that he was a head coach for three years in college football, an amateur sport at the highest level. Consensus has repeatedly supported notability for this accomplishment.
  8. And for all the other reasons on the talk page--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And to address a couple other of McDonald's points:
  1. Alerting Wikiprojects of pertinent AfD discussions is a courtesy, not a requirement.
  2. Why this article? Quite aside from that this tiny school with no history of NCAA football at any level makes a lot better case for non-notability than a contemporaneous coach at Penn State or Harvard? If you run into an article that doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion, it's suitable for the deletion process, period.
  3. Per deletion policy, it is explicitly the duty of editors who wish to save an article to provide reliable sources. We cannot just assume that such sources exist.  RGTraynor  16:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: It was? Have you any evidence of that? That aside, I just took a close look at the talk page for CFB:COACH, and realized that, in point of fact, only three other editors even commented on it besides yourself, one of those editors pretty much uniformly panned them, and no one else seems to wholly concur. You seem to be conflating lack of comment to Wikipedia-wide consensus to overrule WP:ATHLETE, and that's pretty startling.  RGTraynor  16:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
* None of those are discussions of your private notability essay. In the case of Dahlene, it is a heavily sourced article for the coach of a major program who wound up being a college president, a post that has been held to be de facto notable. In the case of Moulton, the nomination was withdrawn because he was an Olympic athlete, another de facto notable bit. Taylor had broad notability outside of football. Wright was inducted into the US Track and Field Hall of Fame. And so on and so forth. Truth be told, the thread linking all those AfDs are the passionate Keep votes made by yourself, User:JKBrooks85 and User:VegaDark in almost every case.  RGTraynor  17:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Yeah, and the other people that responded, too. Please don't say that because three editors are enthusiastic about a topic that no one else responded when in fact they have. Yes, I am the editor who "passionately pursued" keeping and am "the thread that ties it together" -- thanks for the compliment. But I haven't tried to bulldoze it either. Invitiations for discussion on CFB:N have been sent out to at least twelve other related WikiProjects listed at the Family of Projects as well as inclusion in the College Football Project Newsletter. A simple What Links Here check shows well over 100 articles/user pages/talk pages that link to the essay. WP:CON states "In essence, silence implies consent, if there is adequate exposure to the community." I would say that requests for input to 12 projects, contact to all editors on the CFB team, and over 100 links to other articles/user pages would at least be close to "adequate exposure" -- how can we get more?--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't conflate people voting Keep in AfDs with them participating in adopting a consensus policy at a Wikiproject. WP:CON also holds, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, can not over-ride community consensus on a wider scale," and "Consensus decisions in specific cases are not expected to automatically override consensus on a wider scale - for instance, a local debate on a WikiProject does not override the larger consensus behind a policy or guideline. The WikiProject cannot decide that for the articles within its scope, some policy does not apply, unless they can convince the broader community that doing so is the right course of action." There is even an active notability discussion for athletes over at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people); why not post your criteria there and see how many people sign off on it?  RGTraynor  19:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the twelve projects that I notified are not exactly a "limited group of editors", plus with the listing among the essays category, the newsletter announcements, and other measures taken--it's not like two or three people got together and decided this--just that a few editors were actively involved in the writing of it. Many, many, many people have viewed and reviewed the essay. The essay has stood up against multiple AFDs in the past and even been referenced on projects outside sports as a model notability essay (Wikipedia Airports, I think). The broader community has been convinced. Yes, consensus can change, and the project welcomes all input on that consensus--but here is not the place to do it. And for the notability/athlete/people project, I think we already have... but I'll go there right now.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dpmuk (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that although college football is amateur, american football as a sport is not. We do not have articles on players in the Football Conference as although this could be argued to be the top level of the amateur game, football (soccer) is, as a sport, a professional sport and there are many more notable layers above it. In the case of college football there's the NFL. I accept it's not an exact comparission given the importance of college football in the US but in my opinion it's enough to make this criteria inapplicable and mean that competitors in college football will have to meet the general WP:N guidelines, which of course many will, although this coach does not. My understanding, and intpretation, was that the "amateur sport" criteria was written to include players at the top of a sport when the entire sport was amateur, e.g. Rugby Union up to the mid-nineties, where no player was professional so would never have qualified under the first athlete criteria despite the league they were playing in having a similar standing to the top league in professional sports. This clearly does not apply for college football as the pinnacle of an American Football career is the NFL. Dpmuk (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of the NFL does not negatge the notability of college football. Please read WP:ATHLETE more carefully. The second point says "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports" not "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports unless there is a professional league for that sport." --Paul McDonald (talk) 00:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have read it carefully - it's only one sentence! It's basically all down to interpretation and what you take "highest level in amateur sports" to mean. As stated above I think this to mean "the highest level of a sport where the entire sport at all levels is amateur" (e.g. Rugby Union prior to 1995) whereas you take it to mean "the highest level of the amateur levels of a sport". I think both are valid interpretations of the sentence (don't you just love the ambiguity in the English language). However I think common wikipedia usage is more towards my interpretation. As stated above we don't automatically think the top plays in amateur football (soccer) are notable (there's a whole bunch of AfDs to support this). Likewise we don't have articles on the top amateur tennis players, top amateur baseball players etc. (unless they're notable for some other reason under general notability guidelines). Now I accept the situation in American Football is different to all these sports but it's a general guideline and it would be really odd if people interpreted it one way for one sport and another way for others. Dpmuk (talk) 01:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is only one sentence... so why are you adding so much to it instead of just what it says? I hate to be harsh in discussions like this, but seriously: If you know it's only why sentence, how can you be getting it so wrong?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to be WP:CIVIL and accept that people may intpret things differently do you. Just because they do doesn't mean it's not valid - I accept that your inpretation is a valid one I just disagree with it. Why can't you do the same with my interpretation? I'm not adding anything in to it, in this context I would take "amateur sports" to mean "a sport where the entire sport is amateur" - I only expanded it above to make that clear. I would add that I am far from the only person to intpret it like that - see WP:FOOTY/N which has been accepted by many editors. Dpmuk (talk) 11:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion invitations were sent to Sports and American Football projects.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I consider "signifcantly more non-trivial coverage" (which is what it said when I placed my "keep") to be equivalent to "lots". Anyway, seeing how many people we have in Category:American football officials and Category:Baseball umpires, I'd guess that other people than the actual sportspeople are generally considered to count under WP:ATHLETE. I'm well aware that other stuff exists, and that we're not debating whether baseball umpires should have articles, but please consider that "competitors" apparently isn't always interpreted as meaning just the people actually playing. Nyttend (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mm, that really is the overwhelming definition, actually; competitors are those who compete. As you say, this AfD isn't about baseball umpires, although I agree they don't qualify under WP:ATHLETE either and must rely upon WP:BIO's general (and far stricter) criteria. That being said, my position - and that of Wikipedia policy, come to that - is that no Wikiproject yet has the power to override broad, explicit policy and guideline. While my somewhat harsh answer to Paul's legitimate question of "How can we get more?" is "If you can't, you have no meaningful consensus," this AfD must still be decided on black letter, official policy and guideline. No such policy or guideline supports retention of a biographical article for a subject without any meaningful, reliable sources, no biographical information whatsoever, no evidence of notability and who means none of the explicit secondary criteria under WP:BIO.  RGTraynor  21:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been discussed to my satisfaction. I didn't see much of a counter argument regarding : 1) coaching as opposed to competing; 2) the "highest level" of college football; 3) lack of non trival coverage. I read people's points, I formed an opinion, I did not feel I needed to reiterate points already made, so I didn't. I'm also not quite sure how "amateur sport" is to be interpreted in WP:ATHLETE hence my mention of it. I read it as including those sports that don't have professional competition. Equendil Talk 00:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka++ 15:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment / request. Please would he /she who closes this please delete all coaches with similar non notable bios. Kittybrewster ☎ 07:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-Notable. As if WP:ATHLETE wasn't bad enough. No Wikiproject gets to give their favorite topic a free ride.Kww (talk) 13:54, 14 September 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 List of The Venture Bros. episodes. — Coren (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Lepidopterists[edit]

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

This is an article which reads as a plot summary drawn directly from the primary source. There are no other sources cited. The series does not appear to be syndicated beyond its original broadcaster, it is probably the case that this series of excessively detailed unsourced articles on individual episodes should be condensed and merged to the existing list article - I would view this as a test case in that regard. Wikipedia is not a fan-wiki for publication of plot summaries drawn direct from the original medium. Guy (Help!) 15:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will open by saying that I am an avid fan of "The Venture Brothers." That being said, I am forced to concede that a great deal of the wikipedia content on this series borders on or runs afoul of the "fancruft" line. There is undoubtedly a great deal of obsessive fans out there who want an article for every episode of this series. Further, I am positive that at some point in the future there will be enough additional content available surrounding these episodes (even things like commentary from the creators) to justify wikipedia entries. That day has not yet come.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pratap (Film)[edit]

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

A film totally lacking reliable sources to satisfy WP:MOVIE (just links to websites for participants in its production) ... PROD contested by anon single-purpose account without comment ... pure vanispamcruftisement by editors with conflict of interest who keep removing the ((Articleissues)) tag without addressing the issues. — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that no one involved with the film is notable, but that criteria cannot be considered as notability is not inherited anyway. I agree that Bollywood releases more films in a month than the U.S. does in a year, but that too cannot be considered as quantity does not reflect quality. I also agree that more films are non-notable than are so, but the film appears to be concerned with a very prominant figure from the early history of India and the Indian people. I'm simply having problems with my search for sources. Added to the points you brought up... there was an Indian film by the same name that was released in 1946 as one of the earliest post-war epics from India... and the articles about this current incarnation have attributed THIS later film by several different versions of the the article's name. These factors, and my inability to read Hindi make source hunting a bit tougher than normal. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:55, 16 September 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 a redirect to the show — Coren (talk) 04:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Jurgens[edit]

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

Not notable fictional character. PHARMBOY (TALK) 15:28, 13 September 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 deleted (G3). Alexf42 22:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Benson[edit]

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

Blatant hoax as a quick google search shows. Speedy declined by an IP. Nsk92 (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please look through the history log of this page. The description of the subject of the article, whomever he is supposed to be (actor, businessman,...), is changing almost by the second. This was the version at the time of the AfD nom: [11]. Nsk92 (talk) 15:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Tagged as A1 after a few moments of deliberation. Also endorse blocks on the anons and registered editors in what seems like a co-ordinated attack. treelo radda 21:29, 13 September 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. MBisanz talk 02:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vlad Plasmius[edit]

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

This page has not established notability in about a year. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 15:00, 13 September 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 close Wrong venue. Image is already up for speedy deletion, so this doesn't need to be moved to IFD. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

("Image:Velvet & Angelina Entrance.jpg"[edit]

AfDs for this article:
(delete) – (View AfD)

Copyrighted image.

http://www.tnawrestling.com/content/view/419/37/

Bottom of that link shows this exact picture. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't aware of that, I had assumed it was the same as an AfD. I'll follow procedure next time. My apologies. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:11, 13 September 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. ffm 13:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palmer elementary school[edit]

Palmer elementary school (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not pass WP:ORG. Elementary schools are generally not notable and would not pass even the more inclusive proposed guideline WP:SCHOOL that was recently rejected. I looked around on google and could not find substantial coverage by independent reliable sources. Based on its style, the article looks like it may have been written by a student, possibly as an experiment. Nsk92 (talk) 13:34, 13 September 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. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mortimer Goth; Snow'ed in September. seicer | talk | contribs 00:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bella Goth[edit]

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

This character does not assert notability outside of the its video game appearances. It is unlikely that any third party sources will ever talk about it outside of the context of the games, so it has no reason to exist. TTN (talk) 13:06, 13 September 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. — Coren (talk) 04:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sabreman[edit]

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

This character does not assert notability outside of the its video game appearances. It is unlikely that any third party sources will ever talk about it outside of the context of the games, so it has no reason to exist. TTN (talk) 13:05, 13 September 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. ffm 12:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jetman (character)[edit]

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

This character does not assert notability outside of the its video game appearances. It is unlikely that any third party sources will ever talk about it outside of the context of the games, so it has no reason to exist. TTN (talk) 13:04, 13 September 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. ffm 13:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Daniel Fortesque[edit]

Sir Daniel Fortesque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not assert notability outside of the its video game appearances. It is unlikely that any third party sources will ever talk about it outside of the context of the games, so it has no reason to exist. TTN (talk) 13:04, 13 September 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. ffm 12:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The CIA, al-Qaeda, and the "war on terror"[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The CIA, al-Qaeda, and the "war on terror" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Well-written essay, but that's what it is; it fails WP:NOR and WP:SYN as being original research, something the creator himself admits on the article's talk page.  RGTraynor  12:52, 13 September 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 Space Channel 5. — Coren (talk) 04:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ulala[edit]

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

This character does not assert notability outside of the its video game appearances. It is unlikely that any third party sources will ever talk about it outside of the context of the games (other than the lawsuit, which is already covered in better detail within the main article), so it has no reason to exist. TTN (talk) 12:50, 13 September 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. Consensus leans heavily toward delete with the sole keep agreeing the character is not notable enough. Deserving of a link on Pudding (dab) is not a reason to keep. While there is some minor consideration for re-direction, this is not a likely search term due to the name. TravellingCari 01:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pudding (Space Channel 5 character)[edit]

Pudding (Space Channel 5 character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not assert notability outside of the its video game appearances. It is unlikely that any third party sources will ever talk about it outside of the context of the games, so it has no reason to exist. TTN (talk) 12:47, 13 September 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. ffm 12:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point Rock, NY[edit]

Point Rock, NY (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Poorly written, no citations, and no assertion of notability. Musashi1600 (talk) 12:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by "numerous precedents" but I've never seen a town article , existing or historical, getting deleted. My Rand McNally Atlas doesn't show the town I used to live in, Tarzana, California, but that of course is not criteria for deleting an article. --Oakshade (talk) 23:13, 14 September 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 per changes made by Barberio (talk · contribs) and per one of the nominees being converted into a redirect. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 21:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Social Level Marketing[edit]

Social Level Marketing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Speedy G11 was also declined. Original research. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 11:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Mak[edit]

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

This seems an obvious hoax to me, even though it has been around for almost two years. Grahame (talk) 11:28, 13 September 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. ffm 12:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judge Karen[edit]

I find this article unnecessary on Wikipedia for now. First of all, it is hard to think of what to write in the article as far as the television series goes (although it is written like the person). Secondly, i see very little notability on the Judge Karen subject. Mythdon (talk) 08:27, 13 September 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 00:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Up North (book)[edit]

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

Article was previously deleted at Afd, but DRV determined that the new sources presented in the course of the AfD were not properly considered. The concern expressed was lack of notability as demonstrated through reliable sources. I am relisting the discussion per the consensus at DRV but have no opinion of my own at this time. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:49, 13 September 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. ffm 12:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Mackenzie[edit]

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

this is not a notable person Himatsu Bushi (talk) 05:45, 13 September 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. ffm 12:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minato mayoral election, 2008[edit]

Minato mayoral election, 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article on a single minor mayoral election held in Japan earlier this year. No indication whatsoever of wider impact, notability, or historic associations, nor is there even a single source--reliable or otherwise--even attesting to its very existence, let alone impact. Prod tag was removed on grounds that 'an event does not have to have wide impact as long as it has local impact and importance. Elections are generally considered notable in the locations where they exist'. I'd say that's false for a global encyclopaedia generally, and untrue in this particular case, considering voter turn-out was only about 24 per cent. CalendarWatcher (talk) 04:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Except that not even a minimal attempt has been made to verify anything, nor is there the slightest claim of--nor evidence of--said verification verifying anything other than that the election took place. As for your invoking the Five Pillars, 'elements of almanacs' does not mean every element of almanacs. Certainly in your citation you seemingly overlooked 'Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information...It is not a newspaper or a collection of source documents', which seem to argue against this being the least encyclopaedic, don't you think? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added the source. --Jonte-- (talk) 15:38, 13 September 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. ffm 12:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fujimi mayoral election, 2008[edit]

Fujimi mayoral election, 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Results of a single mayoral election in a small Japanese city this year. No indication that this is significant or historic, nor any suggestion that this could rise above being an almanac entry. Prod tag was removed on grounds that 'an event does not have to have wide impact as long as it has local impact and importance. Elections are generally considered notable in the locations where they exist'. I'd say that's false for a global encyclopaedia generally, and untrue in this particular case, considering voter turn-out was only about 40 per cent. -- CalendarWatcher (talk) 04:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Except that only a minimal attempt--at best--has been made to verify anything, nor is there the slightest claim of--nor evidence of--said verification verifying anything other than that the election took place. As for your invoking the Five Pillars, 'elements of almanacs' does not mean every element of almanacs. Certainly in your citation you seemingly overlooked 'Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information...It is not a newspaper or a collection of source documents', which seem to argue against this being the least encyclopaedic, don't you think? --CalendarWatcher (talk)
The reason I choose not to add it to the citypage is that right now a user can get an overview of all local elections by using the Category:2008 elections in Japan, the overview will be lost if we merge it. --Jonte-- (talk) 17:58, 13 September 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. MBisanz talk 13:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presticogitator[edit]

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

Consists solely of a definition, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Somno (talk) 04:21, 13 September 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. ffm 12:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chi iota kappa[edit]

Chi iota kappa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable local fraternity, 24 Google hits, none saying anything. Speedy and prod tried already. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 03:59, 13 September 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. appears to be enough to establish notability and absent the neutral, it's unanimous to keep TravellingCari 01:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Careers TV[edit]

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

Un-notable television show. Emarsee (Talk • Contribs) 00:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 03:59, 13 September 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. TravellingCari 01:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legendmaker[edit]

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

Role-playing game. No suggestion of wide repute or notability, nor any sources other than a single Web review suggesting otherwise. Seems indistinguishable from an advert. CalendarWatcher (talk) 11:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: obviously non-notable. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 08:58, 13 September 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 article does not establish notability of the composer. It also is a copyright violation of this website. While it may be that the article's subject added the material himself, this has not been verified. No prejudice against creation of a new article at such time as reliable sources can be presented to verify that the individual meets notability guidelines. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noah D. Taylor[edit]

Noah D. Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article does not meet notability guidelines. Noah Taylor is not yet a significant composer. Additionally, article may violate both Autobiography and Conflict of Interest guidelines. PianoDan (talk) 03:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:19, 13 September 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 Dude, Where's My Car?. BJTalk 03:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continuum Transfunctioner[edit]

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

MacGuffin in a single film. Not notable enough for it's own article. Unsourced. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has no sources. LegoKontribsTalkM 05:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to redirect. I created this article almost four years ago. I admit that it does not meet notability criteria and is unlikely ever to. Should be a redirect to article about the movie. ike9898 (talk) 06:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good. Maybe include a note in the movie article about the KoL reference. That should direct anyone searching for this info to the right place. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 13:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's KoL? ike9898 (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kingdom of Loathing, an online game. There's a reference to the transfunctioner in that game. I've never seen the movie. I've only heard of the item through that game. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:06, 13 September 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 00:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danzhu[edit]

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

This person appears to be a thoroughly non-notable figure, whose very existence is not verifiable. Unfortunately, the article does not cite sources, and is written in a legendary style. The legend itself is so short and so simple (Emperor had a dumb son, invented Go to entertain him) that it could just be folded into the Go article. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is not clear that he is an actual historical figure, and the lack of information about him suggests that he is not important enough to have his own article. I'd say mention him in the article about Go, and his father. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It's normal for Wikipedia editors (especially those proposing the deletion of an article!) to actually do a Google Books search before proposing the deletion of an article on the grounds that the historical figure described in the article may not exist. I'd say it's clear that this editor did not do this. Please withdraw the nomination, do the research you should have done in the first place, and use that article's Discussion page to propose improvements, in a constructive manner. Badagnani (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Google Scholar has virtually nothing on him. Ditto Google Books. What little there is refers to a legend about an emperor inventing Go for his lazy son. The emperor himself is, according to one of the articles, "semi-legendary"--which means that his son's existence would be difficult to discern. Even if Dan Zhu was real, however, he is not notable, since he only appears within the context of his father's invention of Go. Notability is not inherited, and whatever the world needs to know about Dan Zhu can be in the article on his father, and on Go. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum: I just saw your sources on the talk page. In general, it is better to post such things on the deletion discussion. Many of these seem to be about the myth, and none of them seem to indicate that Dan Zhu was particularly notable. He is a very, very minor mention. Everything about him can be included in the article about his father. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Could someone who reads Chinese give us a little clarity on what those books seem to be saying about him? TallNapoleon (talk) 23:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Records of the Grand Historian says that when Yao died, his non-hereditary successor Shun fled south and gave the position to Danzhu, however the people's hearts were with Shun instead, so Shun eventually became emperor. This indicates that Danzhu was, at some time, an emperor, if only for a brief period. I believe this is notable enough. _dk (talk) 02:47, 14 September 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. This doesn't need to run for another five days. All these articles are unsourced two-line stubs which say "Country X have never entered this competition, but might do in 2009". Not in the slightest bit useful or encyclopedic. Black Kite 15:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Macedonia in the Eurovision Dance Contest[edit]

Republic of Macedonia in the Eurovision Dance Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Sub-stub, little context. Tagged as A7 but I declined since it's not a bio, group, etc. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:42, 13 September 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. Wizardman 16:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Jen[edit]

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

Non-notable: blogger who was fired from Google in early 2005 for disclosing corporate secrets on his blog (without thinking about the consequences of what he was doing). People get fired for doing dumb things all the time: not much that's special about this one. No media exposure whatsoever outside the context of this minor event. Flagboy (talk) 06:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:07, 13 September 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 Wizards_of_Waverly_Place#Characters. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harper Evans[edit]

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

A fictional figure of a minor show is Not Notable. Unreferenced. Should be merged back into main article Wizards of Waverly Place -- KelleyCook (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition I nominated the following related articles for the same reason.

Theresa Russo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Max Russo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jerry Russo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alex Russo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Justin Russo (Wizards of Waverly_Place) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xclamation point 07:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirected - Was bold and redirected articles to main article. Intothewoods29 (talk) 07:45, 13 September 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. Black Kite 22:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kaela Mensha Khaine[edit]

Kaela Mensha Khaine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:SOURCES by relying on primary sources. Article was set to redirect to Eldar (Warhammer 40,000), but has been restored - deleting the article would prevent this happening again. -- JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 09:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:05, 13 September 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. No assertion of notability (WP:A7). The speedy tag got removed at some point and was never readded. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skyclad Records[edit]

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

Article does not assert nor pass notability Canis Lupus 13:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:04, 13 September 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 REDIRECT. Clearly not worthwhile content, but we may as well redirect it to the real content. Barberio (talk) 12:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

666 B.C.[edit]

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

Not sure of what to make of this. At first I thought it was vandalism (and deleted it as such.) Then I checked the names-- and they are close enough that I just demonstrated my ignorance. I think it's a hoax, but now I'm not sure. Rewrite and formatting are desperately needed if it is kept. Dlohcierekim 03:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I though of that. But we seem to be using "BC" instead of "BCE". See 600s BC. Not sure why we aren't using BCE. Alright, I'm clueless as to why. Dlohcierekim 03:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. So I was wrong about the hoax. Dlohcierekim 03:28, 13 September 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. MBisanz talk 13:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Void power[edit]

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

Rewritten from treatment of fact so may have been a hoax, seems like modern spin on chi balls, completely unsourced (except for the demo videos) Nate1481 13:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:03, 13 September 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. ffm 12:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Lost and the Damned[edit]

The Lost and the Damned (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:SOURCES by relying on primary sources. Article has questionable notability - the faction does not have a codex (book that lists the army to enable them to be played in a game of Warhammer 40,000). -- JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 14:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:02, 13 September 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 a hoax. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AMP Broadcasting Network, Inc.[edit]

AMP Broadcasting Network, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hoax article. This TV network does not exists. -Danngarcia (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because, for God's sake, what you (or the other (co-)creators of this article) wrote in doesn't hold.
To begin with, I can't find any such information (say, about an application to operate) at the National Telecommunications Commission website. TV channels can't just be created by will or claim that you (or your so-called company) owns the bandwidth for Channel 6 and 10, which don't exist...you need a franchise from both Houses of Congress, because only Congress can grant you permission to set up a TV station; specifically, there should be a Republic Act passed by both the House of Representatives and the Philippine Senate that says by virtue of the Philippine Constitution you are given permission to operate and broadcast a television and/or radio station. For you to claim that you are operating one such TV station but without the proper permits means that perhaps someone should be reporting you to the NTC so that you can be investigated for possible violation of telecommunications laws :P
87.7 FM is also one of the frequencies that is being recycled by RJ Jacinto's "wireless guitar" (which he often demonstrates on his informercials on RJ29, in case you haven't been looking), which makes your claim that your so-called company owns the bandwidth spurious; at best, you must be using an ultra-low transmitter that won't go further than your local barangay. Also, isn't 106 FM already allocated to TV5 (the former ABC5) and, incidentally, 107.1 FM in an Ormoc City radio station, as seen here and here contrary to what is written here in your self-published "source"? (And, oh, by the way, I didn't know that Blizzard Entertainment gave you permission to come up with an unauthorized/bootleg compilation of the Warcraft OST, as seen in this page. "God knows the truth" my foot...tell that to the marines.) --- Tito Pao (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because, damn it, Wikipedia is not the place where you can fulfill your midday fantasies. This is a repository of verifiable and unbiased facts. The mere fact that none of what was on this article exists means that it shouldn't be here in the Wikipedia in the first place. (And please do yourself a favor by reading the policy and guideline pages I included in my comments' links). Mag-aral kang mabuti, pondohan mo muna yung pangarap mo, tapos saka mo uli gawin yung article mo pag talagang nmeron ka nang totoong network at radio station. Tinagalog ko na yan, sana naman naiintindihan mo na yan. (Study hard, earn money for your dreams and then come back here when you really, really have your own network. I wrote that in Tagalog, I hope you would get it this time.) --- Tito Pao (talk) 03:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why this was relisted? The explanation by the anon above proves this should be speedy deleted as a hoax. Speedy delete, move on. Corvus cornixtalk 03:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It still can be speedy closed and deleted but you're right, I probably shouldn't have relisted it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:34, 13 September 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fanny Alger[edit]

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

With all due respect, I would submit that Fanny Alger is only notable for having been the alleged first polygamous wife of Joseph Smith, Jr.. Although she has been mentioned in secondary source material, it is exclusively re: the above noted alleged relationship with a famous person. I am concerned with the deletion reasoning that relationships do not confer notability. Alger was not notable for anything else, even including within the religious realm: she received no notable awards or honor, did not make a widely recognized contribution in any field, did not write anything that was published, or receive notoriety (or infamy, since the allegations were mostly made via contemporary rumors) for anything other than the allegation that she was the (secret) polygamous first wife of a famous religious figure, whom she did not live or have children with. There is also no consensus among historians that Alger was ever a polygamous wife of Smith, but that there is evidence she may have had a sexual affair with him (not a clandestine marriage) - this diminishes the need for an article even more. Alger herself never made any claims that she was married to Smith and refused to speak about the subject. Alger should not have her own article when she can be mentioned in others, such as the article on Smith, Origin of Latter Day Saint polygamy or List of the wives of Joseph Smith, Jr.. Wikipedia:Notability (people) states that if "person A has a relationship with well-known person B (it) is not a reason for a standalone article on A", yet "person A may be included in the related article on B", which is already the case with Alger. Lastly, I would note that the bulk of the article relies on three unreliable sources: a website with a newspaper clipping and two parts of a non-credible website - one now states merely LDS Archives, with no further info. Thank you. A Sniper (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are dozens of reliable secondary references that cite this letter in the LDS church archives - including Todd Compton, George Smith (Dialogue article), Fawn Brodie - and that is just off the top of my head - as I said before, Fanny Alger is a well known figure in Mormon history - you don't have to look very far to find her.--Descartes1979 (talk) 18:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...and she's famous for what exactly...perhaps having been a polygamous wife of Joseph Smith? Even the historians aren't in agreement on this - even if they mention her in their writings - and she herself never stated that she was ever married to Smith. It is all hearsay, rumor, gossip - nothing to base an article on. Alger isn't notable for anything else - she never accomplished or did anything of note, including within the church. A Sniper (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nominators shouldn't also !vote rather than commenting, especially further down in the discussion, as this can lead to confusion.John Z (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alan Shepard accomplished something - Fanny Alger did not. The few references (that aren't noted as being dubious) elevate rumor, gossip, and innuendo, with no admission from the alleged participants. There has not been a single biographical work written about this person, merely references to something that may or may not have occurred. In every instance the writing is ABOUT SMITH, not about Alger, and Alger is mentioned in passing due to the alleged relationship. Whether or not any of this speculation had an effect on Smith or anyone else isn't remotely proven. In any case, there is so little to write about Alger that it could easily be found within the several articles that already exist on the wider subject of Smith alleged polygamous wives. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:58, 13 September 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. BJTalk 08:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IM Model 3 Combined Assault Rifle/SMG[edit]

AfDs for this article:
IM Model 3 Combined Assault Rifle/SMG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Somebody tried to AfD this earlier but didn't finish the process. Unbiased delete as this doesn't even contain a complete sentence or any sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:53, 13 September 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-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SIMA Peru[edit]

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

Claims to be one of the biggest leading corporations in South America. However, I didn't find any reliable sources in English or Spanish, so I believe it fails the notability guideline. Someone else tried to afd this earlier, but didn't finish the process. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The "article" is nothing more than a translation and is suited for a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. seicer | talk | contribs 00:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mechutan[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, as per WP:DICT. The article appears to be a straight translation of an Aramaic word, without any of the usual material that would distinguish an encyclopedia entry from a dictionary. Prod was contested. RayAYang (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I responded:
Hi RayaYang, This word belongs to a group of words used by English speaking Jews; and this term is not just a word, but it represents a certain meaning when used. Perhaps it needs to be expanded to include its bigger meaning, but I just started it, and I'm sure eventually, someone will eloborate on it. It belongs to a group of (Category:Hebrew words and phrases) and (Category:Yiddish words and phrases), which has similiar words like: frum, Tzadik, Gadol, Da'as Torah, Posek, Baal teshuva, Kanai (Judaism), Tchotchke, etc. There are thousands of such words/terms in Wikipedia. I understand your concern and thanks for raising it. Itzse (talk) 18:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I already explained it above. If you think that "this" word/term merits deletion more then all the words of its category, then please look at all those words and explain the difference. Itzse (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Itzse: That something else also exists is not a good reason to keep something on Wikipedia. If the term has a cultural significance and history supported by reliable sources, then it may be viable as an encyclopedia entry. However, that it has a meaning when used does not distinguish it from every other word. RayAYang (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I've already told you that this word/term is similar to the other words/terms in that category. Do what you want, as I have no time or will to fight you. At the bare minimum, please ask some of the Jewish editors who use this term and they'll explain it to you. It is unfortunate that many here are too busy frustrating those who are contributing, and keep putting stumbling blocks in front of them instead of helping them. It looks to me that this isn't your language, so why take on this subject, when those who are expert in the English/Hebrew/Yiddish language are better equipped to decide if it should exist or not? I have no time to engage you on this, my time is precious; so do as you like. Itzse (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would you suggest that all such words be deleted? If yes, then I'll proceed in tagging a few hundred articles for deletion (maybe someone will wake up). Meanwhile we've only heard from two people who have never heard this word, and it's foreign to them. Frankly, I consider this unwarranted tagging, as harassment. Itzse (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply User:RayAYang has already answered this question earlier on. If you can establish that this is much more than just a foreign word, then please do so with reliable sources writing about "Mechutan". I can be persuaded, but pointing to other articles isn't the way to do it. Documentation with reliable sources is however much more persuasive. -- Whpq (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply How do you want me to persuade you? I've already written that it’s a term. A red link already existed before I got here, which says that someone else, when editing thought that this word needed to be a link. Look, both of you don't speak Hebrew/Aramaic/Yiddish, so you don't use it in your every day vocabulary. I think a suggestion to delete a word like this should come from someone who "knows" this word. This is going beyond "patrolling"; I think it falls in the category of "prowling". I don't think that the burden should be on me to "prove" that this word belongs in Wikipedia; I think it is the other way around, that someone who wants to delete it should do his research and then delete it. I have no time for this. I used to be a heavy contributor, but nowadays I occasionally get on and make some edits. It is wrong to request, that I should waste my time defending my edits. Again, a suggestion to delete such a word should only come from someone who knows this word; otherwise it is climbing on a straight wall. Frustrated, and for no good reason. Itzse (talk) 21:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The burden of proof lies with the contributor. There is no patrolling or prowling going on here beyond reviewing articles that have been submitted for deletion. AFD is a discussion about the merits of an article. If as you claim, there is merit to this article, then you need to put forth the evidence. The article as it is currently written is very much a dicitonary definiton. I've looked for sourcing that might indicate it is more than that, but found none. And in the disussion so far, no evidence has been offered that it is more than a dicitonary defintion. -- Whpq (talk) 21:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply, I disagree with you as to who has to prove it. We have a major disagreement about this. Let me ask you; should I tag all similar articles for deletion, and get those editors to sweat it out to prove why those articles should exist? I believe WP should be a friendly place and patrolling should be discouraged, let alone glorified. When someone has built a house, the building inspector shouldn't come and ask him to tear down the house unless he can prove that it's sound, and should have been put up in the first place. Remember, so far we haven't heard from anyone expert here and on the language. Itzse (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - You can disagree about the burtden of proof, but an administrator reviewing this discussion will take those factors into consideration. As for the other articles, if you feel that they meet the criteria for deletion, then you may tag them for deletion, but it seems to me that you would be doing it just to make a point, which isn't a good idea. -- Whpq (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply, Correct, I shoudn't do it because doing it will be, just making a point. But that point is exactly the point that needs to be made, which is; why is this article any different from hundreds of similar articles? Just because someone found this article, doesn't make it any different, and if we need to delete this article, then why shouldn't we delete hundreds of similar ones?
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:52, 13 September 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. TravellingCari 01:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DS (Drew Seeley album)[edit]

DS (Drew Seeley album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely rumor-based and unreferenced. The "source" shown is Seeley's myspace page, which mentions nothing about an album title, much less a track list. The author of the article has made questionable edits, as has the author of the album cover image. A google seach on the album brings up this Wikipedia page and a blog entry (not reliable). Seeley's official website also gives no details nor confirmation about this album. I'm questioning the validity of this album and of the cover art. Would like to see it all go. - eo (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:51, 13 September 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. Consensus is to delete all TravellingCari 01:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs by African, Asian, Caribbean and Latin American artists which reached number-one on the Eurochart Hot 100[edit]

List of songs by African, Asian, Caribbean and Latin American artists which reached number-one on the Eurochart Hot 100 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A similar list like this was already deleted: This just seems to be a continuation. WP:NOT, WP:TRIVIA, WP:OCAT#byethnicity all apply. Bulldog123 (talk) 02:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated:

List of songs by British artists which reached number-one on the Eurochart Hot 100
List of songs by European artists which reached number-one on the Eurochart Hot 100
List of songs by American artists which reached number-one on the Eurochart Hot 100
List of songs by Canadian artists which reached number-one on the Eurochart Hot 100
Uh. That's a little ambiguous. Bulldog 22:15, 16 September 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 speedied under several criteria. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Exhibition[edit]

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Exhibition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Advertising for some exhibition.

Apparent copying from text of exhibition's website
Carbon Rodney
02:17, 13 September 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 speedy delete. Cirt (talk) 11:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Pruss[edit]

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

Found no reliable sources confirming his claims of notability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:10, 13 September 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 as ((A7)) non-notable web content. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 02:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indivo[edit]

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

nn website Mow3212 (talk) 02:06, 13 September 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. Website fails to meet notability standards. As pointed out by MJBurrage, this probably isn't a speedy candidate, but nonetheless still fails WP:WEB. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCrimes[edit]

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

nn website Mow3212 (talk) 02:02, 13 September 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. Notability not established. The article is borderline spam, albeit with "sources". seicer | talk | contribs 00:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewcars.com[edit]

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

nn website Mow3212 (talk) 02:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you missunderstand what Wikipedia is about - what "the general public has a right to know" has no bearing whatsoever on wether it should be included. We're not a soapbox. Pedro :  Chat  20:08, 14 September 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. Non-notable company, especially one launched only a scant two days ago... seicer | talk | contribs 00:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Passionato[edit]

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

nn website Mow3212 (talk) 01:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just one other thing. The user that added the AfD tag User:Mow3212 has an edit history that spans, as I write, about 11 minutes (13 September 2008, 03:58 to 04:09). The AfD for this page was made at 03:58 (no edit summary, by the way): this account's first ever edit. Fortunately User:Blaxthos spotted this 3 minutes later and was able to agree to the delete. Now please don't think that I'm whining about keeping the article that is the subject of this AfD, (because frankly I don't care). I'm thinking more about one of the complete newbies (who arguably write most of the content) who adds a (possibly questionable) article. If I were that person then, a) I get no notification of the delete (see above), b) if I look at the edit history I can only see a temporary account and have nowhere to go to discuss except here. Mcewan (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, all times quoted above are UTC+2 Mcewan (talk) 22:48, 13 September 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. It looks like the consensus is that there are enough sources here to justify the article. Those with COI concerns should speak to the user in question or post at WP:COIN Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Easterns Automotive Group[edit]

Easterns Automotive Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No nontrivial coverage found. High COI as well--author is Eastern Auto (talk · contribs). Blueboy96 01:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources found establish notability, so keep. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 20:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dyson, Cathy (December 19, 2007). "Fredericksburg.com - Car will help woman who's helping others". The Free Lance-Star. Retrieved 2008-09-13.
F&I Management & Technology Magazine - F&I Magazine to Name Dealer of the Year - Jan 23, 2007
The conflict-of-interest issues aren't grounds for deleting the article and can be fixed once the article has been kept. I added information about a lawsuit against the company under "Litigation". --Eastmain (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I still have a serious problem with a company editing its own article and now creating multiple accounts to add to the article or influence an AFD outcome. Additionally, I don't know if I'd classify any of those articles as non-trivial, except perhaps the F&I one. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:29, 13 September 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 Primal therapy (non-admin closure). RockManQ (talk) 19:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scream therapy[edit]

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

There are no sources to show that the term 'Scream therapy' is used in the way the article claims; it is likely not a recognized term. Shouldn't be an article on it if it is not a recognized subject. Skoojal (talk) 00:34, 13 September 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. Based on this discussion it looks clear that the article as it exists now is not a preferred solution, but as far as what the best solution is I cannot say. I would suggest that those interested in the future of this article work something out, be it through improvement, merging or redirection, so as to avoid a rehashing of this discussion in a future nomination. Shereth 18:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Newtonian calculus[edit]

Non-Newtonian calculus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable; furthermore, the primary sources are self-published. NB: The originator of the article identifies himself as one of the creators of the theory, so he has a WP:COI.

Clarification: I do not believe that a COI is a reason to delete the article. I believe that lack of notability is the reason to delete the article. I further believe that lack of notability is well-established by the lack of references to the concept in mathematical journals which I demonstrate below. Ozob (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two operations, differentiation and integration, are basic in calculus and analysis. In fact, they are the infinitesimal versions of the subtraction and addition operations on numbers, respectively. In the period from 1967 till 1970 Michael Grossman and Robert Katz gave definitions of a new kind of derivative and integral, moving the roles of subtraction and addition to division and multiplication, and thus established a new calculus, called multiplicative calculus. In the present paper our aim is to bring up this calculus to the attention of researchers and demonstrate its usefulness.
The JMAA article also cites the Lee Press book and an article in the (legitimate) journal Primus. I conclude that the subject is not OR, in the Wikipedia sense: WP:OR says "'Original research' is material for which no reliable source can be found." I also fail to see any conflict of interest in the article as written. -- Dominus (talk) 02:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it still seems non-notable to me. No one uses or teaches this--it's an intellectual diversion of the "What If?" variety. It's not akin to Infinitesimal calculus. Certainly, the term non-Newtonian calculus is not in general use among mathematicians, the way one discusses non-Newtonian fluids. JJL (talk) 03:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the name is wrong, the article can be moved. -- Dominus (talk) 03:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can I remind you that this is supposed to be a discussion, not a vote? -- Dominus (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"...you are left with some avatar of the classical calculus to unfold. The authors of this original paper do play this game. Their stated purpose is to promote this new kind of multiplicative calculus. The work is entertaining, but not fully convincing."
User:JJL has described the relevant portions of the second reference, the Grattan-Guinness book. The third reference, Grossman and Katz's Non-Newtonian Calculus, did not receive a proper review; it was indexed, but the review is an extract from the preface and a listing of the table of contents. Finally, the fourth reference was not indexed by Math Reviews.
Plugging "Non-Newtonian calculus" into the "Anywhere" field of MathSciNet turns up three references: The above-mentioned book of Grossman and Katz, the book The first systems of weighted differential and integral calculus by Grossman, Jane; Grossman, Michael; Katz, Robert, pub. Archimedes Foundation, Rockport, Mass., 1980. vi+55 pp., and the book The first nonlinear system of differential and integral calculus by Grossman, Michael, pub. MATHCO, Rockport, Mass., 1979. xi+85 pp. I think it's instructive to quote from the review of the last book:
"The system in question is based on a "derivative" of $f$ equal to $\exp{(\ln f)'}$, where the prime indicates the conventional derivative. ... It is not yet clear whether the new calculus provides enough additional insight to justify its use on a large scale."
The only one of these works which has received any citations is Non-Newtonian Calculus: There's the first reference given in the article and self-citations.
Similarly plugging "Non-Newtonian calculus" into Zentralblatt gives three references: The first reference of the article, the book of Grossman-Katz, and the book of Grossman. Ozob (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a rather trivial idea (conjugating calculus with an invertible function such as the exponential function) but it is an idea that has been published and cited, and an idea that some qualified people have stated may be useful in some situations. Since the main examples seem to be the "geometric" calculus (exponential function) and "bigeometric" calculus (power functions), we could consider moving the article to multiplicative calculus which appears to be a term with some currency beyond the work of Grossman et al. Geometry guy 13:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, I will support the move; but I would delete it, as a triviiality. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Plugging the term "multiplicative calculus" into MathSciNet produces two reviews: The J. Math. Anal. Appl. article with Turkish authors that is citation number 1 in the article, and Glickfeld, Barnett W., The theory of analytic functions in commutative Banach algebras with involution. Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. (4) 86 1970 61--77. The latter article is about interpreting the Cauchy-Riemann equations for maps C → B, where B is a Banach algebra (with certain restrictions); the author calls this "multiplicative" calculus (quotes in original) and says it is "so-called because the differentiability of a function depends on the multiplication in $B$". On Zentralblatt, "multiplicative calculus" produces only the J. Math. Anal. Appl. article. Ozob (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The mathematical community's reception of non-Newtonian calculus has been lukewarm. Naturally the subject has little appeal to mathematicians engrossed in the abstract realms of modern mathematics. Nevertheless enthusiastic interest has been expressed by some mathematicians, and by many scientists and engineers.

Robert Katz and I met personally with Dirk Struik and with Ivor Grattan-Guinness, both of whom were quite optimistic about the possibilities opened-up in science by non-Newtonian calculus. Professor Grattan-Guinness wrote: "There is enough here [in Non-Newtonian Calculus] to indicate that non-Newtonian calculi ... have considerable potential as alternative approaches to traditional problems. This very original piece of mathematics will surely expose a number of missed opportunities in the history of the subject."

In Mathematical Reviews Ralph P. Boas, Jr. made the following two assertions: 1) It is not yet clear whether the geometric calculus provides enough additional insight to justify its use on a large scale. 2) It seems plausible that people who need to study functions from this point of view might well be able to formulate problems more cleary by using bigeometric calculus instead of classical calculus. Clearly Professor Boas understood that: a) non-Newtonian calculus does provide alternatives to the classical calculus, b) non-Newtonian calculus does provide additional insight, and c) non-Newtonian calculus can be used to simplify formulations.

David Pearce MacAdam reviewed "Non-Newtonian Calculus" in the Journal Of The Optical Society Of America. Here is an excerpt: "This [Non-Newtonian Calculus] is an exciting little book. ... The greatest value of these non-Newtonian calculi may prove to be their ability to yield simpler physical laws than the Newtonian calculus. Throughout, this book exhibits a clarity of vision characteristic of important mathematical creations. ... The authors have written this book for engineers and scientists, as well as for mathematicians. ... The writing is clear, concise, and very readable. No more than a working knowledge of [classical] calculus is assumed." Clearly, Professor MacAdam (probably a physicist) is also optimistic about the possibilities of using non-Newtonian calculus in scientific work.

The omission by Wikipedia of information about non-Newtonian calculus would be a disservice to the scientific community. Non-Newtonian calculus IS a mathematical theory that provides scientists, engineers, and mathematicians with alternatives to the classical calculus of Newton and Leibniz.

I thank you all for your interest and consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.238.187 (talk) 00:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A search of google scholar shows that "multiplicative calculus" is used in several different contexts to mean different things so I would oppose any renaming. Moreover there are an infinite number of these non-newtonian calculi and the term "multiplicative calculus" is not appropriate for all of them, rather a new article should be created to cover "multiplicative calculus" (what G and K call "geometric calculus"). Delaszk (talk) 08:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left out Google Scholar before, since Mathematical Reviews/MathSciNet and Zentralblatt are the authoritative indices of published mathematical work. But since Google Scholar has been mentioned, I figured that I may as well look and see what "Non-Newtonian calculus" turns up there. I get:
  • Grossman and Katz, "Non-Newtonian Calculus"
  • Grossman, "Averages: A New Approach"
  • Grossman, "An introduction to non-Newtonian calculus"
  • Grossman and Katz, "Isomorphic calculi", International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science …, 1984 - Taylor & Francis
  • A review of Grossman and Katz, "Non-Newtonian Calculus" by Karel Berka in Theory and Decision, vol. 6, no. 2, May 1975. Those with Springerlink access can read it here.
  • The Bashirov, Kurpınar, and Özyapıcı article.
  • "BOOK NOTES", T de Chardin, F le Lionnais… - Philosophia Mathematica - Oxford Univ Press. I can't figure out what this is--there's no link, and besides Teilhard de Chardin was a philosopher and theologian.
  • Grossman, J., and Grossman, M., Dimple or no dimple, The Two-Year College Mathematics Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1 (Jan., 1982), pp. 52-55, an expository article on limaçons. Non-Newtonian calculus is only mentioned in the brief author bios at the beginning.
  • Advertisements:
    • Science News, Vol. 118, No. 25/26 (Dec. 20-27, 1980), p. 393. [24].
    • Science News, Vol. 118, No. 5 (Aug. 2, 1980), p. 78 [25].
    • Science News, Vol. 119, No. 2 (Jan. 10, 1981), p. 30 [26].
    • Science News, Vol. 118, No. 24 (Dec. 13, 1980), p. 382 [27].
  • A listing in "Books received"/"Publications received"/"Libri ricevuti" from
    • Theory and Decision, December 1972. See [28].
    • Australian & New Zealand Journal of Statistics, vol. 15, no. 3. See [29].
    • Il Nuovo Cimento A, August 1972. See [30].
  • Grossman, J., Grossman, M., and Katz, R., Which growth rate?, International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 151-154. See [31].
So only one non-self-citation in over 30 years. The citation by Meginniss which is presently the article's first reference makes two non-self-citations in 30 years.
To be honest, I'm rather surprised that this article has received any support at all. To me it seems obvious from the lack of scholarly references that this concept is not notable. I also note that all of the positive comments are of the form, "This may be useful." So far as I know nobody has actually shown that it is useful, hence the lack of interest! Ozob (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "Non-Newtonian calculus" was invented by Grossman and Katz, but the concept of alternative differentiation operators is an old idea. I have added some references in the history section of the article to earlier work. Delaszk (talk) 07:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is notable per the references and reviews already mentioned and here's another: "Bigeometric Calculus" and "Averages" are both reviewed in The Mathematical Gazette, Vol. 68, No. 443 (Mar., 1984), pp. 70-71 Delaszk (talk) 08:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are arguing that because the idea is interesting, the article should be kept. This is contrary to the instructions at WP:INTERESTING, which note, "personal interest or apathy is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article". The issue is whether the article is notable. That the idea may be interesting or useful is irrelevant; things like journal citations are. While several others here have noted that they, too, find the idea interesting, they have also said that they believe the very small number of citations the work has received are enough to establish notability. (I disagree; that's my entire reason for bringing this AfD.) If you think those citations suffice to establish notability, then go ahead and argue for keep. But please don't argue for keep on the basis of personal interest. Ozob (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that the geometric calculus can be obtained by "conjugating with the exponential function". However, infinitely many non-Newtonian calculi can NOT be obtained by "conjugating with an invertible function". For example, the bigeometric calculus can NOT be obtained that way. Smithpith (talk) 23:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you figure that? I don't understand. -- Dominus (talk) 17:39, 17 September 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 Snowball close. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bonchurch[edit]

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

Wikipedia shouldn't have an article about a relatively minor battle. OpenSeven (talk) 00:00, 13 September 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. ffm 12:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cattle coding[edit]

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

Non notable or made up term, no google hits or sources Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, it's used as the opposite of cowboy coding - and there are quite a lot of sources for that term. But this one seems to be made up. DS (talk) 00:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This term is used in other countries (in different languages), see snitko's comment:

http://www.robertnyman.com/2008/04/04/favorite-terms-about-web-developers/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.112.68 (talk) 00:28, 13 September 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. PhilKnight (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of stage mothers[edit]

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

If this deemed a necessary or useful description, then a category could be created. At the moment this list implies there is something wrong with the living people mentioned. PhilKnight (talk) 13:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, the article says "There is sometimes a negative connotation for the term, sometimes implying a mother who exerts unreasonable demands for the child's treatment, or puts undue pressure on the child, or who may take advantage of the child's income or notoriety for her own selfish purposes." PhilKnight (talk) 20:06, 13 September 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. There is sufficient consensus here that this article consists primarily of original research. Shereth 18:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Theology[edit]

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

This article have been submitted to deletion on fr.wikipedia September 1st and deleted September 7th (cf. fr:Wikipédia:Pages à supprimer/Théologie des ordinateurs). The discussion have showe the goal of this article is to promote the book Computer Theology: Intelligent Design of the World Wide Web. This article author have also created the article Bertrand du Castel to enhance promotion. There is a great autopromotion suspiction. Furthermore, the references of the article aren't considered trustable. Dereckson (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only thing books listed in the bibliography seem to have in common is that they approach religion from a computer science (or a subset) perspective, or the opposite. The article would likely fail WP:SYNTH if it was a decent synthesis, instead it is too confused to qualify: one sentence, "Computer Theology" is about "the role of religion in computer networks", the next it's "the use of religion to understand the evolution of computer networks", and then a bunch of unrelated ideas. That the article bears the same name as a book recently published and was created by a single purpose account (User:Computertheology) is another indication that this article should not be included. Equendil Talk 22:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Answer has already be given on many of these points at Talk:Computer_Theology. Here are comments on the other points: [1](Deletion of the French article): The French translation, admittedly weak, was a courtesy to the French audience. Immediately after the creation of the article the French Wikipedia comment pages started showing insults instead of attempts at making the translation better, and therefore the effort was abandoned. Next to the insults on the French version where comments in other parts of the text where the authors complained about the "anglophone" world ignoring the "francophone" world. Therein may lay a reason. 2](Furthermore, the references of the article aren't considered trustable): Considered by whom? On which basis? [3](One sentence, "Computer Theology" is about "the role of religion in computer networks", the next it's "the use of religion to understand the evolution of computer networks"). While the first citation is in the text, the second citation is made up and not in the text of the article. Regards. Computertheology (talk) 13:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)ComputerTheology.[reply]
The sentence, which I admitedly botched, is "Computer Theology uses religious studies (a perspective external to religion) and theology (a perspective internal to religion) to understand the evolution of computer networks in regards to that of human societies and to formalize their constituting concepts." which doesn't quite evoke the same idea to me as the study of "the role of religion in computer networks" but ok, this is downright bizarre anyway. Hey, I am just a lowly software engineer who somehow has never heard of this "branch of computer science".
Anyway, that doesn't explain the bulleted themes and selected bibliography. To quote just the first bullet: "Illustration of theological concepts using computer science methodology" which I assume refer to Knuth's illuminated Bible texts, and doesn't seem to be about computer networks (but I haven't read the book, entertain me).
Now there's the possibility that the article was meant to be broader in scope than just what the introduction sentence suggests, but as I hinted to, this would likely constitute (if content was significant) original research through synthesis of published material and Wikipedia is not the place for that.
Or there's another possibility, that the article was just meant to exist and be called the same as a book recently published and source material was improvised to give the article a semblance of legitimacy. This may explain why for instance, an essay ("Computer Theology: A New Era for Theology") that discusses the use of computer technology for Theological purposes is a reference here, despite bearing no relation to the study of "the role of religion in computer networks".
Which is it ? Just *what* is this article supposed to be about ? Equendil Talk 23:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The terms "downright bizarre" are downright insulting and breach the number one principle of Wikipedia, i.e. good faith. The terms "lowly software engineer" and "I haven't read the book" are also derogatory. If you decide to read Knuth, you may want to start with Things a Computer Scientist Rarely Talks About, where he answers your question directly. Page 19 you'll find this question and answer (the book is a series of lectures follows by question and answer session): "Q: What influence might computers have on future developments in theology? A: The simple answer is that Web-based resources have recently appeared that make it much easier now to approach the vast theological literature." Then a little further in the answer: "Could advances in computer technology actually influence the manner of divine revelation?" Here, Knuth speaks of exactly the same subject as Deane William Ferm. Please read the book. If you are a software engineer, you'll see that it speaks directly to you. It is also worth reading our answer to Ningauble below, because it also bears on the subject of how the concepts of accessing information and using it merge in the Computer Theology perspective.
The same subject as Deane William Ferm ? That reference is another essay, entirely unrelated to computer science or computer networks, the term "computer theology" only appears as a parenthesis "(megatrend theology? computer theology? multinational theology?)", and is evidently not defined as it is merely a fleeting suggestion of a name. I reiterate my question: what is the article supposed to be about exactly ? Equendil Talk 03:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article of Deane William Ferm articulates that theologies are culturally determined (a proposition which is certainly both debatable and debated, but that doesn't bear on our discussion right now), and illustrates this point in particular regarding eastern cultures. Then the article raises the question of modifications of modern culture, such as the obvious expansion afforded in particular by computer networks, but also other aspects of recent expansions. Deane William Ferm did purposely not develop how such modifications map with new theologies. However Computer Theology does precisely that. Somehow you're not getting that from the article: is there anything we could do to make that clearer to you? Any suggestion? Or do still desire more explanation of this point? Computertheology (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)ComputerTheology[reply]
I was asking, as before, what the article on Wikipedia we are discussing here is supposed to be about, not Ferm's essay. Besides I'm sorry, but there is nothing about computer networks in that essay. I am not very good at assuming good faith when confronted to seemingly promotional material in the first place, but I definitively cannot assume good faith when bad faith is demonstrated. Equendil Talk 23:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The essay dates back to 1984, a time where networks were merely emerging in academic and some industrial use. The point of Ferm's article is that theologies are culturally defined. The author thought about computer theology as a cultural phenomenon, but didn't specify the culture itself; today, it is impossible to consider the computer culture outside of the network culture. We've already discussed the promotional accusation, but let's repeat it here. There is promotion of the knowledge represented in the article, but that's what Wikipedia is for. For example, look at the Golem article. If you read the Golem legend, there is no mention of automata in it. However, automata are a central feature of the article. It is just that in the Prague gettho at the inception of the legend automata were not a common cultural reference. But automata would become a reference to the Golem, a metaphor akin to that found in Computer Theology. Certainly you will not propose the Golem article for deletion. To conclude that particular point, it's proper to mention here that you'll find this exact reference to the Golem in Anne Foerst' book. We'd like to thank you in a kind of backhanded way since you force a very nice discussion of issues. Nevertheless, we definitely prefer the civil tone. It appears that we are all volunteers here, all interested in propagation (should we say "promotion"?) of knowledge. Computertheology (talk) 05:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)ComputerTheology.[reply]
The "non-notable" argument is not substantiated, so it's hard to debate. In contrast, the "original research" argument is based on the term "loosely". When scholarly articles and books dating back to more than 20 years ago mention explicitly "computer theology" in their title or/and text on exactly the same subject, what's original and loose about that? Computertheology (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)ComputerTheology[reply]
Are you refering to W. Paul Jones' essay : "Computer Theology: A New Era for Theology" ? "How can computers be used, not only in theological education, but in the service of theology itself?" ? *How* is that the same subject ? Equendil Talk 23:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are not referring only to that article, but we can talk about this one as you mention it. A key sentence in the article is "Such a role correlates roughly with the functions of a computer - remembering, condensing, interconnecting" (p. 46). You may be familiar with Merlin Donald's work A Mind So Rare, which includes external representations (p. 321) into the "theoretic" part of modern culture (p. 260), which he also denotes as "External symbolic universe." With "Remembering, condensing, interconnecting," Paul Jones includes theology in Merlin Donald's model. That merges religion and networks (and storage therein) and the article can be considered the foundation of Computer Theology.
Comment on improving the article: The principle objection to the article (non-notable synthesis) is due to the lack of a citation for the lead section, in which it is asserted that there is an integrated field of study involving the four aspects mentioned. The perceived defect may be cured by citing multiple independent reliable secondary sources that treat all of these aspects together as an established field. This is what is meant by notability of the field. In particular, what is meant by secondary sources is not those that propose, endorse, or posit such an integrated approach, but those that treat it objectively as an established field. Positing and arguing the thesis is what is meant by original research, no matter how good the argument. On the other hand, one could write an article on a book about this thesis, but only if the book itself is notable. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for finally articulating what you consider the issue. It is extremely frustrating to see posts which have no explanation other than a reference to a Wikipedia article (WP:SYN) that actually doesn't contain a description that makes the article "original" research. Now either your position is correct, and it should be added to the Wikipedia article, or it is incorrect, and the issue is moot. Both would be fine, as they would represent a verifiable reference; what's not fine is using a non-documented feature to seek deletion of an article. Now, to speak specifically of the issue you mention, we think it is indeed correctly reflecting the current status of the article. While the references provided all combine some of the elements of the Computer Theology list, we do not know of a reference which would encompass the four at once. Certainly there is not one of the references that are in the article right now which covers at once the four items of the list. We think we know the field quite well and we have not seen the four being covered at once in articles and/or presentations so far. It's not clear to us why this makes the article "original" still, but if there is a definition of "original" that says that all the elements of a list need to be covered by a single reference, it would be interesting to have a pointer to it, because it would make, for example, the article on archaeology "original". If you look at archeology, you'll find the following: "The goals of archaeology vary, and there is debate as to what its aims and responsibilities are". (There is no citation). Would you propose deletion of the archeology article? Thank you again for taking the pain of sifting through the hubris so that we get to the core of the matter. It looks like the process is useful but it is sure seems painful for everyone involved. Computertheology (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)ComputerTheology[reply]
The first Wikipedia policy is good faith. The present discussion doesn't belong to a "deletion" page, but rather to the article discussion page. Actually, we are moving it there as it may be of interest to readers of the article at large. There is no reason for this deletion page to be. We hope the discussion (which is now becoming interesting) will continue on the talk page of the article. Particularly welcome would be suggestions to improve the article.Computertheology (talk) 01:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)ComputerTheology[reply]
This deletion process cannot be interrupted until an administrator decides to close it. That process is not up for discussion here and removing the notice again will only get you blocked from editing. Equendil Talk 03:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. It was not clear to us that this was a bona fide process. We'll assume (albeit admittedly with some befuzzlment) good faith.Computertheology (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)ComputerTheology.[reply]
See the answer above to the specific comments on the subject by Ningauble.
Why not now? How do you propose to improve the article? Regards. Computertheology (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)ComputerTheology[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More