This log documents completed deletion requests from July 2008.

Television ban

Television ban (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Chenzw  Talk  has nominated this page for deletion for the reason:

The article was originally tagged for QD by ONaNcle, as it has a strong POV and much of it needs proving. However, it doesn't fulfil QD criteria, so I am putting it here.

Please discuss this deletion below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options that are not just "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

• Delete - To me this looks like Original research (which does not belong here). It is true that TV can be addictive, and that there are problably people suffering form that (much like there are people suffering from being addiced to gambling). I would therefore propose to delete this; if anyone is sufficiently knowledgeable and wants to write a sourced article (probably under a better title); I am nt against it. That is probably faster than falsifying and relativising all these unsourced claims. --Eptalon (talk) 12:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - When I QD I'm not often giving an opinion but mainly asking another admin whether it fits or not Simple. Therefore, unless non-admins remove my QDs without saying why, I don't feel frustrated if an admin keeps the article. In this specific case, all I can say is that I'll restore my television recent edit if this article is kept. ONaNcle (talk) 12:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Original research, unverified, not simplified, etc. Would be a lot easier to just start off from scratch with an article like Television addiction.--TBC 13:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Mindless POV. Sebb ^Talk 15:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Needs proving. --Terryblack (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --American Eagle (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Original research... Hippopotamus (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome

This request is due to close seven days after it was filed; that is on approx. Monday, 28 July 2008 at 12:38 pm, although it may be closed quicker due to this.

• The outcome of this request for deletion was to  Delete. --TBC 19:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Time Monday

Movie Time Monday (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

—Giggy has nominated this page for deletion for the reason:

I can't work out the purpose of this page; it's just a list of redlinks and some associated years. If anyone can clean it up and work out what it's supposed to be I'd be happy to have it kept.

Please discuss this deletion below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options that are not just "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

• Delete, as nominator. —Giggy 10:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Is it maybe a DVD collection or something? Its all Disney videos, or at least kids videos... Perhaps its the movies on a collection called Movie Time Monday? A quick google doesn't come up with anything obvious. I think its someone who has made a list of what they are going to watch... So delete. ← κεηηε∂γ ^{(talk) (wikiproject collaboration)} 10:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As it is now it is a useless list; we need at least some info what it is about...--Eptalon (talk) 12:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Playhouse Disney (see en:Playhouse Disney). Apparently, on Mondays, Disney runs a feature-length film from 10:30 to noon. We don't need a list though (that'd be listcruft). Cassandra 16:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Playhouse Disney is currently a redlink; someone should create that article first, else this will become a broken redirect. —Giggy 01:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Casandra's comment. Also, it must be a very incomplete list. - tholly ^--Turnip-- 20:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Cassandra. -- AmericanEagle (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - Movie Time Monday is part of Play House Disney. There shouldn't be an article about this alone. -- RyanCross (talk) 10:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless someone creates Playhouse Disney to which it can be redirected. Hippopotamus (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome

The outcome of this request for deletion was to  Keep. as a redirect. Since the most obvious article to redirect to is currently a redlink, a redirect to the List of Disney movies article will have to suffice for now. If anyone does manage to create the article, feel free to change the redirect accordingly.--TBC 09:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:B-Class

Template:B-Class (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

  † ChristianMan16  has nominated this page for deletion for the reason:

We do Not classify/grade articles.

Please discuss this deletion below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options that are not just "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

•  Keep - My theory is that prehaps we should start classifying articles Stub > B (i.e. not a stub) > GA > VGA. This could possibly work in conjunction with WikiProject Collaboration... incidentally, how many users does it need to become WP namespace? Anyway, you may want to salt the page if you are going to delete, as it is a page that will be recreated. mC⁸ 16:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep I agree with Microchip08, it would be good to have more classification levels. - tholly ^--Turnip-- 07:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I do like the idea of grading systems, but there is no need for this type of template really. And even if there was, I don't think B would be the appropriate name for that level since there is no A level class. Besides it can be easily recreated when/if we do actually come up with a grading system. -Djsasso (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not? It fits in with what EN-WP has to say, which makes it easier for transwiki users to understand. Microchip 16:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • But this has NOTHING to do with en this has to do with Simple.--  † ChristianMan16  17:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Keep And add an A rank. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• We haven't established a grading system yet (and there hasn't really been much discussion or consensus on one). Until then, delete.--TBC 13:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - With the current number of active editors here, setting up a grading system is going to kill us all due to lack of people. (33,000 articles:40+ users?) Chenzw  Talk  13:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - We do have GA and VGA; no one has any idea what a B-class article really is; if we really want finer control than stub-normal article-GA-VGA we should discuss first, and act later. Until we have really decided to go down that route, there is no need for this template. Once a decision is reached it is easy to re-create.--Eptalon (talk) 13:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about we just rename it a Start class article? So there'd be a Stub class, Start class, Good article class, and Very good article class. That explains it pretty well - Stub is a short article, Start is an alright article that's too long to be a stub, but not good enough to be a Good article, and then we have GA and VGA. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No offense intended nor is any hostility that you sense, A Link To The Past, but I don't think you get it....We don't classify articles here...as of now that is.--  † ChristianMan16  07:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Class 1, Class 2, Class 3, Class 4; by default (nothing specified, it is class 2. What we actually name those classes is irrelevant.--Eptalon (talk) 08:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then what are we doing with Stub, GA, and VGA? We're classing them right there. Basically, we class for Good articles, Very Good articles, and Short articles, but not Okay articles - the logical midpoint for articles between stub and Good. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Classification on en started due to assessing articles for the mythical WP:1.0 project, or the earlier 0.5 and 0.7 versions. Simple English is not going on any CDs any time soon, we have no need for it. Cassandra 07:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think in VGA, GA, normal article, and stub we already have a reasonable enough set of classifications. Hippopotamus (talk) 19:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome

• Consensus appears to be delete, (6 deletes, 3 keeps), though with the possibility of being recreated if there's some consensus on WP:ST over starting a grading system. But until then: The outcome of this request for deletion was to  Delete. --TBC 09:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accidents, Not Punishments

Accidents, Not Punishments (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

The Rambling Man (talk) has nominated this page for deletion for the reason:

This article is about a sermon which is no more or less notable than any of the other thousands of sermons given by Spurgeon. While it should not be equivalent, English Wikipedia has deleted a similar page due to lack of notability.

Please discuss this deletion below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options that are not just "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

• Shrug. I went through days of work trying to keep it there. Alright, Spurgeon gave this message after devastating events in London that killed many people. His sermon was very notable in its time. And then years later, David Livingstone was found with the last known (I believe) copy of the message and wrote that he thought it was "Very Good" (I think that's right). When it was finally given back to Spurgeon, that little copy was "cherished" by him. We are not the same as EN:WP and delete any page they delete, hundreds of our articles have no interwiki links (like, ya), and I see no notability problems with this, it is very notable per what I've said. -- AmericanEagle (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I'm not convinced. The pages without interwiki links are, in general, oversights. As for this one sermon being notable, then most definitely not. Something like I Have a Dream I would consider notable. What effect did this sermon have? What was its worldwide and historical impact besides Livingstone saying it was "very good"? I imagine Dr Livingstone made similar remarks about his evening meal or a nice glass of chianti? The notability is most definitely questionable and nothing presented in the article convinces me it should have an article of its own. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into either the main article on Spurgeon or possibly a new section in List of the works of Charles Spurgeon. Of the 9 sentences in the article, the intro includes only the date the sermon was given and the "finings" section is completely covered in the main article already. The only part needed to be added (besides the date) would be the small paragraph about the background. Well.. that and something about the actual sermon as there is no mention at all about what the sermon was even about past its title. We get the date when he gave it, why he gave it, and where a copy of it was found, but no information about what it was or what (if any) effect it had on anything. -- Creol(talk) 07:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am merging it into Charles Spurgeon... -- AmericanEagle (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome

The outcome of this request for deletion was to  Keep. /Merged into Charles Spurgeon. It had mostly the same content, so I merged it. -- AmericanEagle (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pokémon items

List of Pokémon items (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

A Link to the Past has nominated this page for deletion for the reason:

A list with no value outside of an item guide.

Please discuss this deletion below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options that are not just "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

• Delete has little encyclopedic potential. These in-game items have never been commented on specifically by any reliable source other than game guides. We are here to provide a general braod overview of the games and the species, but not every single detail related to them. Cassandra 05:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm thinking of AfDing the version on en wikipedia since Wikipedia is not a gaming guide. Anyway, there is no specific reliable source for Pokemon items and it is not very encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a game guide either, which may fit in this subject a bit. -- RyanCross (talk) 05:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment: - By the way, you might find interesting the AfD at Wikipedia about the article there. It was closed as "no consensus" and was kept, just a note. -- RyanCross (talk) 05:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Pokemon. Most of them are notable (ie potions, used a lot in video games), and at least 1 (Poke Ball) should have its own article. --  Da Punk '95  talk  20:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What would the point be in merging? The only thing that could be done is that descriptions could be added to the importaqnt stuff, which can be doen without the list existing. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete belongs on a Wikia about Pokémon (i.e.: The Pokémon Encyclopedia) or at least EN.--  † ChristianMan16  04:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; there is no encyclopedic value for this article. The English Wikipedia got it wrong. —Giggy 07:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• No consensus? Four delete to one merge seems like it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome

Delete - Pokecruft --  Da Punk '95  talk  20:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Not decided yet: there is no consensus yet.--Eptalon (talk) 11:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus does seem to be delete, with four deletes and one merge (though there really isn't any content suitable to be merged). As such: The outcome of this request for deletion was to  Delete. --TBC 15:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo Freeland

Angelo Freeland (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Andrew from NC (talk) has nominated this page for deletion for the reason:

No article on en.wp, does not seem notable

Please discuss this deletion below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options that are not just "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Subject is only known in the context of one particular (though tragic) news event.--TBC 13:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete... mc8 16:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - only 180 hits on Google. No notability claimed, and being criminal doesn't make you it either. Delete. -- AmericanEagle (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment: - It seems to me that if it was notable enough for a national news station, let alone two, to report about the person. The person is notable enough for an article....so I don't know what to vote on this one.--  † ChristianMan16  17:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Not true. This is an encyclopedia, not a news site. People who become known in the context of a single news event are typically not considered notable.--TBC 17:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Why was this article on wikipedia for a year before this? It even says that the title of the article may not be the man's real name. --Terryblack (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome

The outcome of this request for deletion was to  Delete. --TBC 15:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:New messages in 1.3/Board vote

Wikipedia:New messages in 1.3/Board vote (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Microchip has nominated this page for deletion for the reason:

All seems to be obsolete.

Please discuss this deletion below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options that are not just "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

• Delete as no longer required as far as I can see. —Giggy 09:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All red links. --Terryblack (talk) 23:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I don't see any need for them anymore. It's been a while, and we might as well delete them. -- Ryan†Cross (talk) 08:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --American Eagle (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome

The outcome of this request for deletion was to  Delete. --TBC 05:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

All pages in Category:Pokémon monsters

All pages in Category:Pokémon monsters

There are currently 31 pages (describing different Pokemon monsters) in that category; In total, there seem to be over 450 of such monsters. When I decided for keep the Listo of Pokemon (about two weeks ago, has since been quick deleted), I thought that there would be interest (and manpower) to maintain these pages. It however looks like the interest is omre centered around Pokemon in general and Pokemon-themed games, rather than the individual pokemons. I see two options here. Either we delete all monster-related articles (The 31 in the category), and the category, since it will then be empty. Alternatively we could come up with a way to reduce the number of pages; It looks like pokemon monsters change into other pokemon monsters, under certain conditions. An individual pokemon will not change into any other pokemon monster, but perhaps has two or three other pokemons it can change to. That would give a hint on how to group these things (into Pokemon X, and descendants). Personally, I am not interested in Pokemon monsters, so I cannot help there; my personal choice would be to delete all of them; but if somebody is interested, we might as well keep them (in some form or other).--Eptalon (talk) 09:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete some - Keep those that are notable (that means, they are featured in movies, real life, and such). Delete the rest. Chenzw  Talk  09:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With the help of pokemon-savy editors, we would need to determine which ones to keep... --Eptalon (talk) 09:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there don't seem to be any articles in that category to keep; the ones to keep are already in Category:Pokémon characters. Correct me if I am wrong. Chenzw  Talk  09:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a group. Given the unknown status as per notability of the individual articles and no indication of where to draw the line for notability, I can not see blanket deleting an entire group. Is a character with appearances in 50+ episodes, several movies, multiple video games and other merchandise not notable? Several in the list to be deleted fall under this situation. How about a character who is the main topic for a movie (and appears in a second and is central to the plot in a third)? That character is on the list also. Deleting this way leads to deleting many more character based articles with nowhere near as much notability as these have and we are pushing for these to be deleted without even understanding what their notability is for. Are the articles in good shape? Certainly not, but by that reasoning, pretty much every article on rivers in Romania should be deleted as well as most are nothing more than "Blank is a river in Romania. It is a tributary of Blah. This means it flows into Blah". If Mew and Squirtle need to go, why not take Count Olaf and Samara Morgan and many more articles along with them. Were this to delete specific articles, this would be one thing. That could be answered depending on individual needs and notability, but as a whole, I have to oppose deletion. -- Creol(talk) 10:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not be opposed to redirecting those articles into the fictional works in which they originate. They're stubby little articles that offer nothing more than a retread of the plot already in the main articles. Cassandra 22:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Creol's spot on - what makes the dozens of rivers in Romania or obscure asteroid articles any more significant than the Pokemon characters? Wikipedia does have the resources for this, so blanket deletion should be avoided. The Pokemon characters are commonplace in worldwide youth culture. Tributaries of Romanian rivers and obscure asteroids aren't commonplace in most cultures. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, if only because the nominator assumed all of the articles are not notable. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Each article has an infobox with background information, they are useful and notable. -- America ^†alk 17:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment: There was a push by RyanCross and Chenzw to mirror the en side and create 25 large lists of Pokemon to cover them. If this goes through, the category and the Pokemon in it are clearly still useful. Also, this is the en in me, but astroids and rivers are notable since they are real-life fixtures and likely have been covered in many notable, third-party publications (such as tour guide books for rivers, astroids - don't know). Pokemon and other series do not have such coverage. Cassandra 18:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: On the "notability" side, "Squirtle" draws around 3/4 million Google hits, while "Birchii River" gets 49. "Bellsprout" gets just over 100,000 while "Bozom River" gets 359. If we're happy to spend our time creating articles like Birchii River then these Pokemon are very, very far from deletable. Either that or treat the Romanian tributaries in a similar way and reduce the content by another 700 articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Ghit test doesn't indicate notability. Of course the species are giong to get a lot of hits, but I bet that almost none can be used to build the character's notability. They'll be personal blogs, websites, other encyclopedias and databases that are run by people like you and me. They are not reliable, trustworthy sources. A lot of others are primary sources, such as the ton of hits advertising "Return of the Squirtle Squad" (a good episode, by the way), whereas we need secondary sources to establish notability. Moreover, the Google test indicates precisely the skewering of what is popular and what is not. Travel guides and the such (of which I will imagine is notable) will not show up on Google because doing so would destroy the commercial value of the publication. Cassandra 20:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Comment: You're right, it doesn't guarantee notability but 10,000 times as many hits is indicative of something. Accepted, there'll be blogs and adverts, but it's undeniable that something like Squirtle deserves an article. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep - Completely notable.--  † ChristianMan16  05:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep The articles about Pokemon are not non-notable. There have been many TV episodes, movies, ect about Pokiemon that makes them notable. No really good reason to delete. -- RyanCross (talk) 05:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think every Pokemon is notable and deserves an article, though some definitely do. I could (based on my poor memory of being into it ages ago) give a list of "necessities" if anyone's interested, but I don't think we should keep all of them. Lists are probably better IMO. —Giggy 09:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result: I am (Non Admin Closing) this as  Keep. There is a consensus that each Pokemon is notable (while it does not reflect my opinion). What Creol said was also right. If we were to delete Munchlax as it is not notable (161,000 google hits), we should also delete Pakenham railway station, Melbourne as not notable (34,900). --  Da Punk '95  talk  12:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to close it, you have to assess what we have said, not what you personally think. Your "closure" sounds more like a "keep" vote. Cassandra 05:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was not intentional. What that should have been interpted as was that a article we have on this Wikipedia and has not RfD'd had less hits on Google than a Pokemon. That pretty much is what Creol said, which some people agreed with (and a consensus otherwize said keep). We all make mistakes, and that is why WP:AGF exsists. No-one here is perfect. --  Da Punk '95  talk  07:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Kept --Eptalon (talk) 10:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Young (Canadian singer)

Jimmy Young (Canadian singer) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Non-notable (no article on the English Wikipedia), needs to be wikifyied ( I tried to do some myself), and no references.  Mm40(talk | contribs)  00:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete No RS or ELs other than his own website. Article can be saved, however, by additional editing and sourcing. Bstone (talk) 02:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Google does show signs of him. I do think it is notable from what google shows, so I'll vote keep for now. The article does require some cleanup though, so if this debate is decided as keep, then I'll clean it up. Thanks, RyanCross (talk) 02:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: You have to put quotes around Jimmy Young, as the impressive 170K hits is from people who are just named "young," like en:Neil Young. Putting it in quotes drops it down to 880 hits, and after 30 results I couldn't find anything that would fit RS. Thus, I say Delete until proven otherwise. Cassandra 03:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looking more closely to what Cassandra pointed out, I did miss things that I thought were him. My mistake. I'm !voting as delete until some there is a good reason why not to delete this. Thanks, RyanCross (talk) 06:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - per Cassandra. -- America ^†alk 03:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep - Low level of information on him, but with 40 some years in the business and more importantly his cover of the Bad Company song reaching a top 20 (#20) listing on a national chart (Canada's) as well as apparently three other singles being charted, he does seem to meet general en:wp notability standards (wp:music - #2: ranked on a national chart) although the details on this are sketchy and hard to confirm (then again, try finding the top twenty list for Canada from any week in the mid-70s or 80s). -- Creol(talk) 05:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: - You gave me some leads, Creol, so I had to go check it out on my college's databases. However a search through EBSCOhost (Academic Search Elite) found only ten results, none of them pretaining to a Canadian singer. One of them is about a British broadcaster (who got CBE); the other is a boxer who beat Foreman but lost to Ali. So now I ask: is the man really this obscure? Cassandra 05:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm with Cassandra on this. Plus, articles should not stay without verifiable notability. I know getting top twenty lists of Canada for the mid 70s is difficult but a reliable source must be found to verify the notability of the subject. Until then, this article must go. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Kill... may be hard to find something, but... Microchip 18:23, Thursday, June 26 2008 Utc
• Delete as either self-promotion or non notable subject --  Da Punk '95  talk  22:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Weak 'Delete. Possibly could be worked on, but is probably too non-notable, per Cassandra. - tholly ^--Turnip-- 17:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result: I am closing this RfD as Delete. There is consensus here that it is non-notable (and a Google search didnt help), and there is no ariticle on EN about the subject. Furthermore, there has been no attempt made to create the article on EN. --  Da Punk '95  talk  21:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yot

Yot (letter) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This appears to be cross-wiki hoaxing (details). Microchip 20:04, Wednesday, June 25 2008 Utc

• Delete - It seems to be a hoax. Bstone (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per the discussion there. -- America ^†alk 21:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A non-notable hoax. There's no need for this to be in an encyclopedia like ours. ;) -- RyanCross (talk) 05:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep content already replaced to allowed - i translated it from CURRENT: http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yot 87.96.32.168 (talk) 19:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep  Comment: I have no idea if this article is necessarily accurate, but the letter "yot" certainly isn't a hoax. See, for example, US Patent 2,170,668 "Printing Method and Apparatus Therefor" (Aug 29, 1939) [1]. Hippopotamus (talk) 20:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That patentdocument mentions en:Yodh, a Hebrew letter, not relevant here even if it is misspelled as Yot. Finnrind (talk) 17:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'll stick to Simple English... Hippopotamus (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• strong delete as cross wiki hoax. --  Da Punk '95  talk  22:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Appears to be a hoax. - tholly ^--Turnip-- 17:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result: I (even though I am not a SysOp here) am closing this RfD as Delete. I am doing this not because Yot is deemed a hoax, but it is not Simple English, and there is consensus it should be deleted. I will now ask a admin to delete this article. If I have made a mistake here, please tell me. --  Da Punk '95  talk  21:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red link

Red link (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I don't believe an article like this should be in the mainspace. It seems this article is about Wikipedia editing/searching. It should either be deleted or merged/moved to link or a project space page. RyanCross (talk) 03:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Move to WP:REDLINK (as shortcut)/Wikipedia:Red links. This could be very useful...but seeing as it is about the project and basicly a guide line I guess you would say...it needs to be in the Wikipedia namespace.--  † ChristianMan16  05:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete en currently has it as a literal red link, as it's used as an example in a tutorial. I believe we should follow that lead, so delete Cassandra 05:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: While I agree with you the the page itself should be deleted...I think it contents should be move to the page I mentioned.--  † ChristianMan16  05:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Move the information to the wikipedia namespace and Salt the page. --Werdan7^{T @} 06:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it red.. in which keep is delete.. odd answer but the current situation I feel is not correct. Redlink is a wiki-term in the truest sense. It is a term that realy only exists in wikis and is only used to explain the workings of a wiki. As such, it is not encyclopedic but entirely Wikipedia: namespace material and has no use in the mainspace. I am slightly split over moving it to a wiki page (per Cman16) or keeping it deleted as an example of its actual name (per Cassandra) on the basis that both are valid. I tend to side with Cm16 though due to the project itself and the need to be certain that things are explained to the fullest. En:wp can get away with using it for an example mainly because its users can easily understand it as such, but ours may have more of a difficulty understanding that "redlink" = uncreated article. Providing that information maybe better in the long run (although overall it is more a wiktionary concept as a dicdef and realy should be either linked there or a redirect to a wiki-glossary - we have one, but it is in need of work) -- Creol(talk) 07:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And can I just mention that it is kind of freaky that my userspace is linked from the mainspace?? Definitely wikispace material.. -- Creol(talk) 07:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Whatlinkshere doesn't show anything, unless you just removed the links. Cassandra 05:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here. -- Creol(talk) 06:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Move - per CM16. About the user space link, I didn't think that it was right, but it would be discussed soon anyway. Move to WP:REDLINK (as shortcut)/Wikipedia:Red links. -- America ^†alk 18:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• It definitely shouldn't be on mainspace so  Move to WP:Red Links as above. - tholly ^--Turnip-- 20:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Creol. Cheers, Razorflame 07:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Move and Salt - That's what the EN admins did. Chenzw  Talk  06:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  MoveI support the moving, though the article needs to be expanded a bit first. Prime Contributer (talk) 08:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Moved to Wikipedia:Red link and protect Red link --Werdan7^{T @} 01:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me and My Family

Me and My Family (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I can't find any online-information on this. It seems to be edited my a bunch of IP's, perhaps a group of friends? Unless it can be fully-proved, and is not any kind of hoax, I don't see its notability. -- America ^†alk 04:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The article is indeed a hoax and it seems very suspicious how only IPs are editing this article. I did some Google searches and nothing about the subject showed about it except the article here on Simple English Wikipedia. By the way, the English Wikipedia has it red linked so contributers there probably didn't find anything either. -- RyanCross (talk) 04:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• No attempt at a hoax. They even say it in the lead: it's a fictional TV show. Cassandra 04:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Whoops, I misinterpreted that. Thanks, RyanCross (talk) 04:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean, it's still likely that it's a made-up thing, but I don't think they're trying to deceive anyone about it. Cassandra 04:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the extremely low number of aminated comedy documentary television series, it would be a safe assuption that the term fictional about the content of the series is pretty much a given. If the term fictional was used (its placement is a bit ambiguous) to say the series itself is fiction and not that about fictional situations, then it could not have been shown on CTV for eight years.

• Comment Typing "Me and my Family" brings up a Mig og min familie, an obscure Denmark film. Cassandra 04:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I am tempted to QD this one under G3. While there are millions of Ghits on the term and many variations of term and network, none of them in the first few pages actually apply to this topic. Searching for the main character should bring up some reference somewhere, but both full name and first/last point only to this article and en:wp talk page of a user about the RfD of the tv series Midge (TV Show) (QD'd June 2006 - en: afd). The IP responsible for this article has gone above and beyond in causing issues with removing redlinks in the article in much the same way it was done in the past by a vandal (wiki-linking each letter or individual terms) and may indicate that it is a repeat vandal. -- Creol(talk) 06:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is absolutely a hoax. I live in Canada, and I actually watch CTV quite a bit; the show is a hoax. Maxim _{(talk | editor review)} 13:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounds suspicously like Original Research to me Maxim ;) ← κεηηε∂γ ^{(talk) (wikiproject collaboration)} 14:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Possible hoax, as evident by all the comments above. I agree, it's definitely suspicious how only anonymous IP's have been editing this article.--TBC 00:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No evidence show existed it would at least be mention on IMDB (possibly), TV.com, or CTV's official web site. No mention on any.--  † ChristianMan16  01:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Result: Delete - clear decision that it is unreferenced and most likely a complete hoax. -- America ^†alk 02:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear controversy

Nuclear controversy (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Absolutely violation NPOV; no existing en.wiki article (it was deleted at AfD). Maxim _{(talk | editor review)} 00:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete NPOV and OR --Werdan7^{T @} 01:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to List of nuclear power plants. Cassandra 01:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a comprehensive list; and categories fulfill that purpose better, IMHO. Maxim _{(talk | editor review)} 01:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point. Delete then. Cassandra 03:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A neutral point of view (NPOV) violation with no article at en[2]. Even though "if an article is not at en, then the article can't be at Simple English Wikipedia" is not a policy (it would be silly if it was one :P), it seems there is no need for it. -- RyanCross (talk) 04:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• neutral, it existed at en.wiki (otherwise I wouldn't have made the iw) but has been deleted. It not being on en.wiki can not be the reason for delete. Not really sure if it is an NPOV violation, maybe someone should find some sources/citations why these power plants are more controversial than those that are not mentionned? JurgenG (talk) 05:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AFD discussion was pretty unequivocal. Cassandra 06:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Definately delete. Why are those ones the worst? ← κεηηε∂γ ^(talk) 10:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep - But rename to something like List of accidents involving nuclear energy. Just very briefly: Mayak is the worst-ever disaster (It is at level 6 of the International Nuclear Event Scale; some of the victims received over 20 times the amount of radiation of Chernobyl victims; The area around Mayak can be seen as the worst nuclear contamintion on Earth (The Bhopal disaster is comparable to that, but involved Chemicals, not nuclear energy.) Chernobyl disaster. Rated at level 7 (mainly because the fallout area was much larger; the actual radiation was lower than Mayak); Windscale fire/Three mile island: level 5 of the scale ; TOkaimura is at level 4; there are also 5 incidents at sellafield at that level. In short, the list perhaps needs a little revorking; but will then contain fine examples for International Nuclear Event Scale.--Eptalon (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Controversy over nuclear power is a legitimate issue, but the current article is just a short list of nuclear accidents. I think it would be best if we just merge the list into nuclear power, then add in some information on the safety concerns of nuclear power to accompany it (making sure to mention both sides of the debate, to maintain a NPOV).--TBC 00:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the list into nuclear power or rename. --Dezidor (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have added some references now. Clarity (talk) 00:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but why must we base everything we do on enWP as we are our own Wikipedia?--  † ChristianMan16  01:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment: If this gets merged anywhere, it should be into Nuclear accident and not Nuclear power. Nuclear accident already includes many of the larger, more well known acidents listed by Eptalon above. This list would be in keeping with that article more than nuclear power in general.-- Creol(talk) 03:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Speaking of which, that article is absolutely horrific. Anyone want to pitch in and help simplfiy? I've already tried to tackle Chernobyl. Cassandra 05:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment: Not being English-mother-tongued-native, I have no idea on POV or not NPOV about those poor horrific sentences. Anyway, this text is too confusing and I wonder whether it should be deleted or written all over again from the very start. ONaNcle (talk) 06:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I wont close this but I'll vote delete as if it was binned at EN RFD it can here as well. --  Da Punk '95  talk  20:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Delete per consensus. --  Da Punk '95  talk  06:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing with the Stars: Keyshia Cole

Dancing with the Stars: Keyshia Cole (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Future video game with 2 Ghits (neither of which relate to the game). en-wiki article for Dancing with the Stars is pure spam, this is no better and this relates to a game that doesn't even exist. No verifiable evidence of the existence (future or otherwise) of the game. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still, I feel that no spammer would bother to spend so much time just to write the article. We should acknowlege the fact that no one come across this article if the article is about a non-existant thing. Prime Contributer (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, is that oppose or support deletion? No evidence of notability. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Only two hits on Google, and they're just a MySpace, and I'm guessing a celebrity gossip site. Not notable -- America ^†alk 04:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Could it be a hoax? No information found about this. Chenzw  Talk  06:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not supporting the deletion. I don't know what the template is. I don't believe that the user who made this article bothered to do so much just to vandalize. If you feel it trivial, you can delete it, I'm just stating my opinion. Prime Contributer (talk) 08:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable.-  † ChristianMan16  17:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No reliable sources or even mentions.--Werdan7^{T @} 01:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Well, I did a Google search and nothing about the subject showed up except Keyshia Cole herself, but nothing about the article. The article is non-notable and possibly a hoax. -- RyanCross (talk) 04:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not notable. No references. Nothing. Nada. Niet. Ta-Ta. ← κεηηε∂γ ^(talk) 10:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No information about the subject. --Dezidor (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result: I am closing this RfD as Delete as a G-hit test did not bring up anything to do with the game, only the article on THIS Wikipedia, therefore it is deemed a hoax. Also, the fact that all but a couple of the edits are by anoms further leads me to believe it is a hoax. — This unsigned comment was added by Da Punk '95 (talk • changes).