Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 December 6

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Zsinj under G4, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of automobiles that were commercial failures. Vary | Talk 15:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of commercial failures in the automotive industry

List of commercial failures in the automotive industry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article, like its predecessor List of automobiles that were commercial failures, suffers from dealing with a completely undefined concept. There are no definitions of what constitutes a failure and the article will inherently be prone to speculation and POV conflicts. Unfortunately there is no way to deal with this concept in a manner appropriate for Wikipedia. For the deletion of the preceeding article see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of automobiles that were commercial failures-The rational for deleting this article is the same as that of its predecessor. Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 05:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• deleteThis is largely identical to the prior list and suffers from the same problem, mainly that it is inherently NOT-NPOV, which means that the list can NEVER be NPOV, and so it must go. This isn't merely a clean-up issue, it is subjective as to what can be considered a "failure" and thus, will never be neutral. The article is also nearly entirely unreferenced, and thus fails WP:V. --Jayron32 06:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Vague listcruft. --Brianyoumans 06:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Arbitary listcruft. MER-C 06:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The issue with this sort of article is that it can (and seems to have) turn into a spree of original research and weasel words. There are articles like it that that have been kept (eg. Films considered the worst ever), but they restrict themselves to only those cases that have reliable sources. If reliable sources can be found for a few cases, and if the article is scaled back to only those cases (and entries added only as reliable sources are found), then weak keep. --Interiot 07:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point-I agree. As is, the article, does however, face severe OR and POV issues. Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 08:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and salt; it qualifies under CSD G4 ("Recreation of deleted material"). Fails to even mention how they were commercial failures (i.e. how much money they lost), never mind provide sources, which would be practically impossible since such info is not made public by manufacturers. --DeLarge 09:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good call, I didn't notice that. It has a few changes from the original version, but it is substantially a repost of the version discussed in the AfD. It has one extra source, [1] for what it's worth, but it looks like a G4 to me. Tagging it with {{db}}. --Interiot 10:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as a repost of previously AFDed content. It can go through deletion review once proper sources have been established per Interiot. -Mgm|^(talk) 10:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Qualifies under CSD G4, as a re-posting of deleted material, albeit under a new title. The previous AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of automobiles that were commercial failures) was deleted as a result. There are also POV problems, and it's ostensibly original research. If someone has reliable sources for this, then take it to deletion review, but due to lack of references, and the fact it's a re-posting of deleted material, it has to go. --SunStar Net^talk 11:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Waste of time. Who is to say what is a commercial failure and what isn't? ren0^talk 17:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, original speedy-er retracts, but tagging for expansion. Opabinia regalis 01:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Gomolvilas

Prince Gomolvilas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The article was nominated for speedy deletion per A7 (non-notability), but the notability is asserted, so A7 doesn't apply. I'm moving this to AfD instead. No opinion. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 00:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs to be cleaned up, nevertheless the topic indiviudal seems to be suffiently notable. TSO1D 00:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless reliable sources provided. Article claims lots of things, but that's meaningless unless such claims are sourced. For example, there's a claim about writing screenplays for Paramount, but there doesn't seem to be an IMDB entry under Prince Gomolvilas. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No IMDb entry because he's a playwright, not a filmmaker. Caknuck 02:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am I correct that a lack of sources is cause to put a tag on the article and then find some sources, rather than to just delete the article? --Dmz5 05:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usually that is the case, but most articles sent to AfD have other concerns besides verifiability. Caknuck 18:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A cursory Google search indicates that he has achieved local notoriety. A San Francisco Chronicle article featured the subject this summer. Caknuck 02:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The whole thing is pure of vanity. It makes alot of claims but it has nothing to back it up.--M8v2 03:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:BIO needs two coverages. Also, it's a resume. Unless someone can clean this up, it cries out for deletion. MER-C 05:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Besides that San Francisco Chronicle article on him Caknuck found, a couple of independent write-ups of his work too. [2][3] --Oakshade 05:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A Google search pulls up a bunch of articles in various papers in addition to the ones above. [4][5][6] [7][8]--Prestonkgamble 11:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep WP:CITE per Dmz5, notoriety per Caknuck, Oakshade and Prestonkgamble. --ElectricEye (talk) 11:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Subject of multiple articles, and with recent tweaks is now sourced. --Falcorian ^(talk) 16:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not notable to me, but (now sourced) clearly is to some people. DavyJonesLocker 21:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please he is notable for bio guidelines we are not built on paper Yuckfoo 00:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Sharkface217 04:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I was the person who originally tagged the article for speedy deletion, because the article in its original form did not demonstrate the subject's notability. The improvements to the article since then are sufficient to convince me that the subject merits an article on Wikipedia. As things stand, the article is brief enough to warrant marking as a stub, but should not be deleted IMO. --stephenw32768^<talk> 19:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable, but certainly needs work. StayinAnon 07:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. However, it seems clear to me that this should be a redirect to GM Grimm, and I have boldly made it one. Note that this was my own action and not part of closing this AFD. Chick Bowen 17:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gravediggaz (other rap group)

Gravediggaz (other rap group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC requirements for notability. This group never released any albums or made any news, and both members of the group (GM Grimm and Roc Raida) have their own articles to discuss their later works outside of the group. Additionally, there is a different notable group at Gravediggaz. Brad T. Cordeiro 00:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If this was a short-lived point in their respective careers, it needs to show some notability other than that it was some brief confluence of hip-hoppers. --Dennisthe2 01:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. But be sure that this information (and that it's not that other Gravediggaz, man that's confusing) is mentioned in both rappers' respective articles. Antepenultimate 02:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:MUSIC point 6. A band is notable if it had a member that is otherwise notable. Seeing as both members have their own article undisputed by the nominee, their notability appears to be a given. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:MUSIC point 6 says "note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." This is an early band that never actually did anything, so a redirect would be appropriate, except for the fact that no one looking for information on GM Grimm or Roc Raida (whose page was copyvio) would search for "Gravediggaz (other rap group)". Brad T. Cordeiro 20:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per MacGyverMagic. --ElectricEye (talk) 11:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per MacGyver. -Toptomcat 12:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The cited point from WP:MUSIC also states that it is 'often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such,' and since this group never even released a recording, I think that applies here. As there are no incoming links and the article is at such an odd location, I don't personally see any need for a redirect, either, although I wouldn't dispute if one were created. A brief mention in the articles on the band's notable members should be plenty. -- Vary | Talk 15:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A band can be notable even without recordings. Gravediggaz has had notable member(s) and satisfies notability guidelines. Are there any sources? --ElectricEye (talk) 03:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gravediggaz are not only notable because of its members, they released several albums and were covered in major publications.[9] Gravediggaz (other rap group) never had any albums or any coverage in any publication. I actually can't find any verification that they ever really existed. Brad T. Cordeiro 18:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it has notable members, but no notability on its own, which is why WP:MUSIC seems to recommend redirecting in a situation like this one. That would make sense were it not for the improbability of anyone ever typing 'Gravediggaz (other rap group)' into the search box. And no, there don't appear to be any sources at the moment. -- Vary | Talk 04:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep per Mgm and Vary. --ElectricEye (talk) 03:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Alright, I'm somewhat new here, so maybe I can claim ignorance when I say: How do you reference Vary's entry as reasoning for your keep? Seems in favor of a delete! And then you have a "Strong Keep" with a strikethrough! Instead of creating a "perCrockPot abomination" of "keeps" and "deletes," just say whatever it is you want to say! I'm so confused! Antepenultimate 05:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As per MacGyver. --Falcorian ^(talk) 16:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Vary. In my mind, Vary's thinking is impeccable. This is not a notable enough act for an article, despite technically passing WP:MUSIC, since they never actually did anything, and a redirect would be pointless since nobody would ever do a search using this phraseology. -- Kicking222 22:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment True, and well put: I'd likely argue inclusion except that keeping this article would do little except encourage confusion. Not worth it for one sentence of information! Antepenultimate 04:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per MacGyver. Sharkface217 04:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article fails to assert notability and the group has never released any recorded material. Just because someone of questionable notability had something to do with it does not mean it is notable enough to warrant its own article, if that were the case then wikipedia would be knee deep in crap. NeoFreak 18:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I named my rock bad Led Zeppelin, can I have an article too? Danny Lilithborne 22:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did your band have notable members? ^_^ --ElectricEye (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep on the grounds that they have a notable member. This is because of Wikipedia's policy on music, see guideline No.6. The reasoning is based on a technicality. --SunStar Net^talk 20:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:MUSIC: "It is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such". —ShadowHalo 23:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yanksox 00:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Life In) The Public Eye

(Life In) The Public Eye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The record company of Raven-Symoné, Hollywood Records, has not confirmed that this will be the next single on Raven's yet to be released album, nor have they confirmed that the song in question even exists. No track listing has been announced, and it is quite apparent that this page was created by someone with very limited knowledge in the subject area, most notably by the fact that they didn't even spell Raven-Symoné's name correctly. This article should be deleted because it is completely unsourced and lacks any supporting information. Rhythmnation2004 00:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It should also be noted that an unregistered user, whose IP is 141.149.208.218, removed the deletion notice without giving any explanation. Rhythmnation2004 14:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, crystalballery. --Dennisthe2 01:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. MER-C 06:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete crystalballcruft. --ElectricEye (talk) 11:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: crystalbollocks Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 17:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Cnriaczoy42 21:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per above.Bearly541 23:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: unverifiable Drunken Pirate 02:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sharkface217 05:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and all the other coming songs from her album. While we're at it, you might like to check out Category:Upcoming singles. I'm not sure just about any single is worthy of its own article (except for maybe Stairway to Heaven, Another Brick in the Wall, Thriller, etc.) - see WP:DUMB on this one. Patstuart^talk|edits 14:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Crystal ball. NeoJustin 22:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom --61.114.193.19 14:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kimchi.sg 08:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Betancourt

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

Contested prod. Fails WP:PORNBIO Otto4711 19:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Playboy model. Men (and perhaps some women) all over the world likely have slobbered over her. --Oakshade 07:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe so, but does not appear to pass WP:PORN BIO. Delete Ohconfucius 09:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly, as she's not a "pornographic actor," I don't think we apply WP:PORN BIO to this. Secondly, if she doesn't follow strictly WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO guidelines, then I'll cite the WP:BIO clause "just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted." In this case, it's warrented. --Oakshade 17:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll see your cite of the WP:BIO clause and I'll raise you Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or a database of all persons. She took off her clothes a few times. Just because she happened to take them off for Playboy doesn't make an article about her warranted. Come up with a better reason than "Men all over the world likely have slobbered over her" for inclusion. Otto4711 21:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I like that argument, actually. An as for your WP:NOTE argument, not "all persons" have posed in one of the most popular magazines in history. --Oakshade 22:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I've had men slobber over me. Should I get a Wikipedia article for it? Otto4711 05:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Was it a result of you posing in Playboy? --Oakshade 10:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it was for helping to establish the precedent that posing in Playboy does not in and of itself establish notability. [10] Otto4711 15:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:PORN BIO is clearly meant to cover playboy models, as it's specifically stated (criterion 2) that "Performer has been a Playboy Playmate or a Penthouse Pet, or similar titles in other major magazines.", and as it stands, she fails. Please feel free to offer sources if you feel one of the other criteria may apply to her. Ohconfucius 01:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly! It's criteria for porno ACTORS having modeled in Playboy, not for models. Read the title of WP:PORN BIO carefully: "Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors)". --Oakshade 01:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It really doesn't matter whether or not she's a "pornographic actor," it matters whether she's notable enough to be the subject of an encyclopedia article.

We know that and that's what we've been discussing outside of the semantics of "actor" vs. "model". --Oakshade 01:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 00:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTE. Tulkolahten 01:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:BIO, WP:PORN BIO, and WP:NOTE. TJ Spyke 02:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Some claim to notability for models (nude or non-nude) besides "appearing in two or three spreads in a popular magazine" needs to be made. I don't see that here. Caknuck 02:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to insufficient evidence that she satisfies WP:BIO yet. --Metropolitan90 04:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 06:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, appeared as one of many, rather than with any particular prominence. We can't write any more about her than would constitute a basic entry in a list. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep all. Sandstein 19:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note by the closing admin: If you read this message coming from one of the articles listed below, please remove the deletion messagebox at the beginning of the article, and optionally leave an {{oldafdfull}} message on the talk page. Thank you. (It's just too much clickwork for one person...) Sandstein 19:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Finnish films

List of Finnish films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Lists by someone who has mistaken Wikipedia for IMDB Lite. A series of text dumps taken from IMDB (copyvio) used to create a series of lists (better in categories) for indiscriminate information (WP:NOT#DIR), so the creator can ultimately create several thousand stubs on utterly non-notable films. (Addendum: It occurs to me that since the text dumps seem to come directly from IMDB, there's the whole reliable source issue, since, really, IMDB isn't one.) Included are the following text dumps and future text dumps:

• List of Finnish films
  • List of Finnish films: A
  • List of Finnish films: B
  • List of Finnish films: C
  • List of Finnish films: D
• List of Asian films
• List of Central American films
• List of Albanian films
• List of Argentine films
• List of Cuban films
• List of Dutch films
• List of East German films
• List of Filipino films
• List of German films
• List of Iranian films
• List of Irish films
• List of Nigerian films
• List of Norwegian films
• List of Portuguese films
• List of Romanian films
• List of Soviet films
• List of Swiss films
• List of Taiwanese films
• List of Turkish films
• List of Venezuelan films
• List of Yugoslavian films

And probably the rest of the United Nations. I gave up looking for them all. Calton | Talk 01:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people by name.--9ers 01:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC) — 9ers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Which applies how, exactly? Nothing I can see deals with my objections (text dump, copyvio, better in categories, WP:NOT#DIR, ultimately to be used in creating thousands of stubs about non-notable films). --Calton | Talk 02:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete per nom. All of the list are unmanageable/will go on forever.--M8v2 03:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Facts are not copyrightable any more than the phone book is. Categories and lists are both useful navigation guides. So long as the article space gets filled. I would prefer if the creator filled each page as they are created. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Wikipedia articles shouldn't be one line articles that would be similar to information found in a telephone book. But all lists are inherently directories, thats the reason they exist, as a form of navigation similar to categories. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• IMDB compiled the list in its present form, but even assuming you're correct about that issue, I notice you didn't address the actual usefulness of categories, the text dump issue, or why this doesn't violate WP:NOT#DIR. --Calton | Talk 05:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Let's stop this now before we get overrun with stubs for movies in every imaginable language, many of which are probably completely unnotable. These lists may be useful at some point, but let's fill them with lists of notable films, not a wholesale listing of every newsreel and training film ever made. --Brianyoumans 05:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a directory. MER-C 05:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete all as per copyvio (facts are not copyrightable, but TEXT IS. A text dump is a copyvio always) and more importantly, as an UNMAINTAINABLE list. These lists clearly cover way too broad of a grouping. The list of every X ever made, where X is a broad category without any qualifications to make the entries notable. The fact that no discriminating quality is used seperate the films on this lists make them lists of indiscriminate information, which violates WP:NOT. --Jayron32 06:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Note: Alternative solution to this problem proposed below. Remove them from the mainspace, and move to the relevent WikiProject namespace where they can be used to create GOOD lists that DO meet minimum requirements of notability and verifiability and maintainability. --Jayron32 17:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. (1) Some people find information easier to process in list form, others in categories. An encyclopedia is all about access - how to find the information you want, and these lists enable list-readers to find their information. (2) I don't know what a "text dump" is, but the lists in question are simply titles which link to the articles for the films. I don't see how listing that information is a copyvio. (3) Does this mean all the other lists by country or nationality are next? (4) I have yet to hear anyone suggest an alternative to IMDb, which (so far) I have found useful and acceptably reliable. Her Pegship 06:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply the problem is that lists are articles and thus subject to the rules of all articles, such as notability and WP:verifiability and Reliable sources and most importantly various aspects of WP:NOT such as not an indiscriminate collection of information and not a directory. Year made and Country or Origin are not discriminating factors about a subject, and thus should not be the sole basis for the creation of a list. List of Top-100 Grossing Finnish Films or List of Award Winning Finnish Films, if appropriately referened, WOULD make good list articles, as they contain descriminating qualities. Broad categorizations like these are better managed through CATAGORIES and not LISTS, since categories CAN be this general. As always, utility of the information is NOT really a keepable criteria. The fact that some users don't know how to use categories is no reason to keep these lists. --Jayron32 07:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but redirect to categories. --User:Yacht (talk) 06:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, under the condition that the editor doesn't start further articles before they have a substantial amount of information filled in. Hoverfish 07:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Addition: I agree with Wisekwai (see below) in that film is a global issue and quality and notability too. Our lists should grow to include all notable films. Hoverfish 07:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC) (see below)[reply]
• Strong keep. I maintain one of the lists and believe it is useful in tracking if articles have been written about certain notable films for the country where my interests lie. I've put a lot of work into it. It wasn't just a text dump. I view the lists as helpful resources. A film would show up in the category section only if it's been written about already. A list is more inclusive. It even lists films that are not yet on IMDb. To me, it is encyclopedic. I would expect notable films from all the countries to be covered. And what I'm getting a whiff of in the above debate is that "foreign" films aren't notable, which, frankly, is disturbing to me. — WiseKwai 07:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Full disclosure: The list I maintain is List of Thai films, which hasn't yet been flagged for deletion by User:Calton, and I'm hoping that it won't until this debate plays out. — WiseKwai 08:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. If these were categories, that would be fine. tgies 08:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, so long as the links within the article only point to notable foreign films (leaving the rest to plain text). It is beneficial for Wikipedia to have lists of films for other countries outside of the U.S./U.K. who have made significant contributions to the film world. I must also agree with Wisekwai's reasoning, as long as there is upkeep with the lists, there should be no reason for removing them. These films will start out as stubs, but if properly maintained and supported, could be an important and notable contribution to the film section of Wikipedia. --Nehrams2020 09:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all I'm a strong supporter of all film WikiProjects here, but I can't in good conscience support keeping these lists. This is clearly something which categorization was designed for rather than lists. To me, a list needs to both be clearly manageable and limited, and needs to provide information in a way that categorization cannot do. Our best lists clearly do this. Few (if any) of these pages offer much that could not be better (and more efficiently) served by means of categories. Sorry, but these articles pretty much are textbook examples of WP:CSL. Girolamo Savonarola 09:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all the articles that are direct copies from IMDB or starting stubs for alphabetic indexes. The list of Thai films cited above is sorted by decade instead of alphabetically, so it clear does something categories can't do. The nominated lists, however, are (1) copied from another source, (2) don't help in tracking articles as we don't have articles for a lot the listed films and (3) alphebetized lists without any annotations which is exactly the field categories are made for. These lists have no encyclopedic value. (side note, most of these index pages should be deleted anyway for being empty lists- Mgm|^(talk) 10:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep They "seem" to come from the IMDb, meaning this mass deletion is based on a broad generalization. Copyright violation is a heavy charge and should be dealt with specifically in a case by case basis and not brandied about in a McCathian manner. The only way categories could rival a list of all the notable films from any given country would be the creation of thousands of stubs which is not in keeping with policy. Lists don't mean more stubs, rather categories necessitate stubs en masse. The charge that the lists "go on forever" is ridiculous, everything goes on indefinitely. We should cut off the list of American presidents after 2008 maybe? What say we chop eras, mammals and stars too? Way too many of all of those already. To my mind WP:CSL supports these lists. Again, it would be impossible to do this in category form. The films can be added to the lists without creating stubs. The lists nominated here are all new and with proper maintenance will certainly be a valuable resource. Country is arguably more important than year seeing as it provides an overview of that culture. Obviously it's a huge project, as is Wikipedia itself, and it needs some time. If you can cite specific copyright violations by all means lose those but let's not be hamfisted about this. Doctor Sunshine 12:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• They "seem" to come from the IMDb, meaning this mass deletion is based on a broad generalization. Reality check: it's based on comparing the IMDB with the text dumps on Wikipedia. Example: List of Finnish films: A is, item for item, order for order, word for word, identical to the [IMDB page -- except the Wikipedia page is missing "Action Vacation in Finland (1999) (V)". Not a Finnish film to be proud of, I guess. So you can retract the overheated language and massive assumptions of bad faith any time now. --Calton | Talk 08:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• And you choose to nominate 26 articles for deletion? The objectionable material could easily be removed from the offending pages. The issues' already been addressed with the author. And, as I've said, most of the pages you've listed are empty. How do you account for their inclusion here? Doctor Sunshine 09:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the Finnish lists and List of Asian films. Neutral on everything else as they are either stubs or have content unrelated to IMDB. Copyvio is not something that that can be consensused away. Facts are not copyrightable and I suppose it could be argued that these lists are just facts, but when you use someone else's exact list right down to the way they formatted it with (year) and (TV) or (V), that's a little much. BigDT 13:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Leave IMDB in IMDB, and have articles only on films which have achieved notability via sales, reviews, and other multiple independent coverage. Edison 15:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment See List_of_films_by_country_of_production for the full list. See also the list of Finnish films - A for his progress in populating the stubs. And of course IMDB and Wikipedia have different policies about the naming of foreign language films. -- Beardo 15:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per WiseKwai. Lists in article space can be useful for find unwritten articles to fill in, and for general information, which a category can't provide. --Falcorian ^(talk) 16:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Since it's an utterly indiscriminate list (well, except for discriminating against Action Vacation in Finland), it's pretty useless for finding unwritten articles worth actually writing. --Calton | Talk 08:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternative solution I have carried on some conversation with the editor responsible for these lists. They obviously took some work, and their objective is noble, even if the execution is misguided. I propose another solution, and that is to move ALL of these lists from the Mainspace to the WikiProject Namespace. It would allow the work to continue within the scope of the project that created them, where they DO serve a purpose, and where they wouldn't clutter up the mainspace with indiscriminate info. Also, they could be recreated or moved back to the mainspace if a clear method of discrimination was used, such as List of Top 25 Grossing Finnish Films by Year or some such change that assured that this lists were finite and managable and verifiable and notable by their very title. Any ideas? --Jayron32 17:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I align 100% with this alternative solution and please, lets create clear guidelines on such things so that no more energy and enthusiasm get wasted. Hoverfish 19:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC) - I also find Beardo's comment worth serious consideration. Hoverfish 19:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete /Alt. solution The alternative solution above is acceptable, as long as those lists get off of Wikipedia. The sheer volume of these lists makes them unmanageable, and really makes Wikipedia become a database. Lists have to be of manageable size to be considered for an encyclopedia. There is also a serious issue of reliability for a database that broad. Djcastel 18:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep / Alt. solution I also find the alternative solution acceptable, but I don't think that these lists should be deleted out of hand since they do serve as a convenient navigation guide. Also, agree with Doctor Sunshine that we should not be waving around copyright infringement on a list of movies, that's silly. Vikingviolinist 19:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional comment It should be noted that almost all of the pages listed here are still empty—as they were only created yesterday—and do not violate anything. And the lists are going to end up looking mighty similar to the IMDb as that's the standard method of listing films, Title (Year) (Additional information), and is not exclusive to the IMDb. Personally, I like Year: English title (Original language title Romanization if necessary) but that's just me. I don't see why they should be moved to a different name space or why this project is in anymore of a rush to be certified than any other articles on this site. They need to be seen so that as many film buffs as possible can find and enhance them. Wikipedia has a lot more room than any corporeal dictionary and these (big) lists most definitely contribute to a comprehensive knowledge of world cinema. Doctor Sunshine 19:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to my addition I would urge everyone interested in the Namespace move to consider keeping this article as it can be moved, if necessary, at a later time but it can't be moved if it's deleted which is what's in the balance at the moment. Doctor Sunshine 20:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Why? If anyone wants it the information, they can just go back to IMDB and copy it again. Cut and paste, cut and paste. --Calton | Talk 08:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all I strongly believe that this would be viewed better and easier to keep up with/navigate in a category. I had notified the creator of these pages (Blofeld) when he started creawting them that they probably weren't a good idea and he should talk about it further at WT:FILMS, but he continued to do it (not that that in itself is bad, we love it when people are bold). Further litigations can be found at User talk:Cbrown1023#Note to the editor, User talk:Hoverfish#Lists of films, and User_talk:Ernst Stavro Blofeld#About the new lists of films (and below). Cbrown1023 20:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep from the many above points made. Sharkface217 05:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete from the many above points made and per Jayron ;-) Ohconfucius 08:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - lists of movies by country fall within Wikipedia's encyclopedic scope, and they deserve to be kept. Any text that is copyvio should be removed, but the lists themselves should remain. Also, by being in list form, these lists present the opportunity to add various enhancements later, such as annotations (brief description, directors' names, year of release, etc.).  The Transhumanist   09:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep can't anyone see how useful this navigation box is in learning about global film. Obviously for list of American films there will be a redirect to Category@American films. Not every film will be listed. Mostly notable ones which will eventually become articles in the future. The lists will just act ad navigation points to diferent articles on world film. What is the problem with this. Also the lists ar enot endless and can be managed. Look I just want to get on with it rather than waiting and debating Ernst Stavro Blofeld 09:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I have an excellent idea. Why not just keep the navigation box never delete this it is brilliant but for the countries that have a great number of films and that already have agreat number of articles on wikipedia redirect to category. E.g List of American films there is no point in creating a new list when catwegory has listed most of them automativally anyway. I suggest placing the navigatin box in the categories of country films. However for the countries that as yet do not have entries aor many films yet on wikipedia I suggest kepping these lists. Then once the films develop and a fuller list is created then redirect to categories. Look beleive it or not I would rather not have to create lists unneccesaarily I have redircted both American and British films but i really do think the serve as a start for foreign films which are not on wikipedia. Even for Finnish films once the articles develop and becomes fuller then delete the lists and redirect to categories. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 09:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However most countries as yet do not have the majority of notable films covered so I suggest the lists are drawn up for most of them and once they develop redirect to categories and remove the unotable films and then delete the lists. American films and British films I have already redirected to category and maybe french film. I will also be drawing uo naviagation boxes of Film by genre and List of actors and List of Film Directors by country and on that I will be redirecting to the categories. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 10:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for the lists of films by year I suggest that from 1940 to present a redirect is made to categories but the lists again identify what is misssing by year. All of the nominated deletion articles so far are barely covered in the categoriesErnst Stavro Blofeld 10:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but only if the lists are pruned according to notability, not kept as a text dump from IMDb. Once the pruning has been done, most lists could probably fit on one page. Lists like these, with plenty of red links, are useful for promoting the creation of new articles. Alternative solution: Move to Missing encyclopedic articles, the current List of notable films is not very extensive. Lampman 13:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Useful for cross-referencing. --Zleitzen 00:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep but adjust format

Pleas see my comments on the main Wikiproject film talk page. I propose that rather than creat A-z lists of films by country and date that they are changed into chronological order in order of date and year of release. List of films by year would be listed from January 1st to december 31st in order of release and List of films by country in order of date of release which List of thai films and others have very usefully done. Eventually you would have an extrmeely useful timeline of films in chronoligal order by year and country. However a start I think they need to be listed alphatically, unotable films removed and then sorted by order of release. I have no objections if everybody would like the bulk of the listing to be done behind the main space. Definately do not delete them yet I know thety have a potentially very encylopedic purpose. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 16:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about the list of films that are notable are drawn up first on pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/List of missing Bulgarian Films and Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/List of missing Finnish Films and then only the notable ones created. Then at a later date the List of films can be sorted by year and date of release Ernst Stavro Blofeld 17:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. I'd prefer the films just be categorized, but if the lists were to be handled properly, such as in a WikiProjet, then I don't have a major problem with this. Looks like a different issue though. --Wizardman 03:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ógra Fianna Fáil and redirect. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Barry Cumann (AfD subpage)

Kevin Barry Cumann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

non notable student branch in Irish college, previous precedents set with deletions of articles on college branches of student organisations, suggest merging with Ógra Fianna Fáil Stephenh2312 13:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom with no merge needed. --Metropolitan90 04:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I would advise against using notability issues as criterion for deletion, it's too disputed. 70.101.146.27 09:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, doesn't appear to be notable, and the long list of presidents feels like a COI. A redirect to Ogra Fianna Fail would be useful. (Radiant) 10:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• [Comments by Ernst Stavro Blofeld 11:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC) formerly placed here have been removed as they pertained to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Finnish films instead. --Metropolitan90 21:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)][reply]

Something gone wrong here? Do these comments belong here or in the AfD just above this one, the one on List of Finnish films? -- 131.111.8.97 02:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I didn't see the List of Finnish films AfD on the same page of the AfD log because this entry appears in the log for both December 3 and December 6. Seeing Blofeld's comments placed in this subpage, with no entry for List of Finnish films nearby, I thought he was commenting on this particular article. I will notify him on his user talk page of what happened. --Metropolitan90 21:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep for the moment, extreme bad faith nomination by Stephenh2312 who seems to be a member of UCD's Young Fine Gael branch from his contributions. (Fine Gael are the main opposition party to Fianna Fail in Ireland.) The KBC article seems to be of good quality and has a relatively long edit list. I went to UCD myself KBC is certainly notable within the context of UCD societies. If there is a Wikipedia policy in place regarding college societies it should be linked and we should make our minds up based on that. Note: I have NEVER voted Fianna Fail in my life so I am not partisan in this, but this is a plain abuse of the AfD procedure. -- Blorg 12:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The most relevant proposed guideline here is WP:ORG. Please assume good faith on the part of the nominator; various other political party organizations at other universities have been deleted through AfD. --Metropolitan90 15:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Blorg. I think it's worth noting that I'm utterly uninvolved in Irish politics. -Toptomcat 13:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as normal, not notable, See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent State University College Republicans, which resulted in a delete, for comparison. — Xroot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Re: Blorgs comment: I'm apolitical. I have friends in Young Fine Gael and I'm familiar with the organisation and I occasionally edit articles on subects relating to them. I'm only going on previous precedents set and users should note I'm suggesting MERGING the article with Ógra Fianna Fáil which currently is a stub. -stephenh2312 22:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would not object to a merge and redirect into Ógra Fianna Fáil, was just concerned by your nomination, apparently after UCD YFG was deleted. Basically all the articles you have edited are to do with Fine Gael, and you have uploaded UCD YFG logos. So you must excuse me if I suspected partisan deletionism! -- Blorg 16:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment. Also as you are apolitical I presume you will be listing YFG Letterkenny on AfD which I see you have edited? (for non-Irish readers, Letterkenny is a Donegal town around 1/100th the size of Dublin. -- Blorg 11:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re: Blorgs's Comment. Because of Blorgs comments I think I'll have to give some background. I'm from a Fianna Fáil voting family. I am friendly with a lot of people in YFG. I'm not sure who I would vote for in a general election, but I'm leaning twords the Green Party. Anyway I noticed in the University College Dublin article that the Kevin Barry Cumann had an article on wikipedia and out of boredom I wrote an article on UCD YFG. The information on this was got from their website. It is the only article I've ever written and in the process I edited one or two others making links to the UCD YFG article. The UCD YFG article was later deleted apparently due to non-notablity and previous precedent. I personally think Wikipedia should change their policy on this but it's up to them. I think this article should be deleted and the relevant bits merged with Ógra Fianna Fáil in a new section say, 'notable branches of'. I understand this would create a precedent of its own and while it would work in Ireland it would lead to an overload of information on articles like Young Democrats in the US or any other party. It's up to Wikipedia. Blorg is accusing me of being partisan but you could look at the other side of the coin and accuse Wikipedia of having double standards. In any case I suggest a MERGE of the more relevant bits of the article -stephenh2312 17:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Blorg. Sharkface217 05:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per plenty of precedent. There really is nowt too special about KBC, just like the vast majority of student societies. Ohconfucius 08:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep until the information can be merged into Ógra Fianna Fáil, then redirect. JamesMLane t c 11:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Ógra Fianna Fáil. There are few reliable secondary sources at the moment, maybe someone with more familiarity could add some? Inner Earth 16:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge FirefoxMan 00:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per original nom. WMMartin 17:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It was borderline between a merge or a delete, but I am uncomfortable merging something that is completely unreferenced; ergo, delete. Proto::► 11:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Shops at Biddeford Crossing

The Shops at Biddeford Crossing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Keep. Relatively notable development for an area which has not seen something of this magnitude, ever. This deletion request was started by someone out of spite for "strip malls" and his subjective opinion should have no bearing on the existence of this wiki entry.

Southcoast 18:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC) Non-notable place of local interest. Almost an ad. -Nv8200p talk 20:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Biddeford, Maine Canadian-Bacon ^{t c} 21:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Canadian Bacon. Yankee Rajput 22:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NOTE. Tulkolahten 17:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. NN. WMMartin 18:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom or Merge per WP:LOCAL. No preference, but I'm not volunteering to do the merge either. :) Xtifr _tälk 02:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom -- ßottesiηi ^(talk) 18:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as above per WP:LOCAL. JYolkowski // talk 00:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Tulkolahten 01:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge it already and stop relisting, the content can be removed later. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Community consensus is not reached yet ! Tulkolahten 21:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nn. meshach 01:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. This is a strip mall rather than an enclosed shopping center, and doesn't even have its own web site. Do not relist this again as part of this same AfD; regardless of the outcome, enough people have commented by now. --Metropolitan90 04:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable because of the loss of wetlands in construction (see also the developer's preservation and restoral of other wetlands), and also because it is largest-ever commercial development in York County, Maine's southernmost county. It added a reference about the wetlands. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No verified claim of notability. Shimeru 10:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, dammit! -Toptomcat 13:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to article on the local geographic/municipal area. At 500,000 sq ft it is only half the size of a typical regional mall and not otherwise architecturally or historically notable. Edison 15:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the article and tear down the strip-mall, too. Frater Xyzzy 18:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sharkface217 05:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn. Only source is about wetlands being filled in to make it..... not promising. Shopcruft? Inner Earth 16:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Largest commerical development in Southern Maine with room for growth. Notable for bringing hundreds of jobs to the area and contributing to the local economy. 17:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.13.44.180 (talk • contribs)
• Merge into Biddeford, Maine. Appears to have great significance to the local economy, and appears to be locally controversial. --orlady 17:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP Just needs more info, thank you for your time. Rcehoppe 08:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:CORP, the relevant notability guideline. After 14 days on AFD, if there were sources, we'd have them. Southern Maine is more than just York County, Maine, it also includes at least Cumberland County, Maine (and under some definitions other counties as well), so the largest mall is probably the Maine Mall in South Portland, Maine. (The article on it was deleted under CSD G11.) Article makes the claim that "The strip center is noteworthy for being the site of the first PetSmart in Maine." That is not encyclopedic notability. If we kept the first location of every chain (store, hotel, etc...) in every state we wouldn't be an encyclopedia, we'd be a business directory, contravening the WP:NOT policy. GRBerry 03:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC) (The source page finished loading; the Maine Mall is 1.2 Million square feet, so more than twice as large. This is definitely not the largest mall in Southern Maine. http://www.ggp.com/content/live/aerialfacts/The%20Maine%20Mall_aerialfact.pdf GRBerry 03:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Looks almost notable enough for its own article, but it does fail notability. Maybe make a section on it in the Biddeford article? --Wizardman 03:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No non-trivial coverage of subject by multiple, reliable published sources. -- Satori Son 06:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Orlady. Montco 06:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a non-notable website, WP:WEB refers. (aeropagitica) 06:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turbo island

I appreciate that the article's creator has attempted to demonstrate that this site meets some of the guidelines at WP:WEB. However, I simply don't see how a forum created 4 months ago can have enough "internet presence" to justify an article here. Joyous! | Talk 01:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, urban 75 doesn't count enough for an article based solely on it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete fails WP:WEB, forum is not even on its own domain (http://www.turboisland.proboards106.com).¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per Persian--M8v2 03:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per nom. TSO1D 03:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was CSD G11 - crz crztalk 02:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Galyna Kyyashko

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

Article is self-written and self-promoting and lists no sources whatsover. Kyyashko also doesn't seem especially succesful or important. V. Joe 16:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, The creator of the article removed the Afd (and Speedy) template, which was absent the entirety of the discussion. Agent 86 01:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Reads like a resumé. Article created with a single use account, so this is a likely failure of WP:COI. Caknuck 02:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was belated Speedy Delete.--Húsönd 01:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LeBuna

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

The article is short in context and violates Wikipedia's Avoid Neologisms policy. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per nom. —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 21:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per nom. Simonkoldyk 21:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - no context. Even if there were, we'd have a problem with a dicdef of French slang. B.Wind 01:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Tulkolahten 01:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per nom. Tulkolahten 01:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• How much more discussion do we need? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DS 22:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Gosteli

Was tagged for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7 (plus the only contributor was Jgosteli which raises strong WP:COI suspicions), but nevertheless the article does attempt to assert some notability, therefore I'm bringing it to AFD instead. My position is delete, appears to fail WP:BIO. Húsönd 01:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Fails WP:BIO. Vanity--M8v2 03:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Claim to notability is running the Alberta chapter of a car enthusiast club (Mx-west car club, an article also created by Jgosteli, and which has a {{Notability}} tag on it). Doesn't do it for me. There's also a mention of a few "side roles" in movies and TV, but, as he has no IMDB credits I can find, I assume that means "extra". Fan-1967 03:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet WP:BIO requirements and ghits do not turn up anything notable.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 04:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. I prodded the club because it is a non-notable chapter per WP:ORG and WP:COI. MER-C 05:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't meet WP:BIO and it is probably an article about himself (considering the user name) which isn't what wikipedia is for. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:BIO -- Whpq 17:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as obvious self-promotion. Having "small roles" in one movie and one TV show does not merit an encyclopedia article. Wavy G 21:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as NN per nom and WP:BIO. ---J.S ^(T/C) 00:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Page has been updated to reflect less biased information - awaiting re-evaluation
• Keep per revision. Sharkface217 05:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It's probably the initial author logged out, and none of the concerns have been addressed. MER-C 07:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per everyone above. --Descendall 08:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep New Revision - In accordance to WP:BIO, relevant links to web articles have been added. Keep if this information is satisfactory. --User:Jgosteli 14:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above.Inner Earth 16:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. NeoJustin 22:00, 7 December 2006
• Delete vain vanity in vain. Danny Lilithborne 22:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 unsourced, userfy on request if someone wants to turn this into an actual, sourced article. "Alexa rank", "premier source", "number of forum members", "obvious notability" are not adequate responses for the lack of sourcing in this article, and combined with the quality of the article itself this means it can't stay in article space in the hope that it might someday get sourced. ~ trialsanderrors 06:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PocketGPSWorld.com

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

nn websites 9ers 01:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note:User's only contributions are to nominate this for deletion

• Keep - notable site that is the premier source of information on UK speed cameras for GPS users. TerriersFan 02:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Alexa rank of 31,473. Several hundred thousand forum members. Pretty good source of info. Does need alot of work though.--M8v2 03:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. While Alexa may be a poor indicator of lack of notability. Having a rank of about 30,000 indicates this site is heavily visited, further confirmed by the number of forum members. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable per above. --Falcorian ^(talk) 16:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per WP:V - I see no sources in this article, and I don't see much potential for any significant third-party sources. (0 gnews hits) Alexa of 30k isn't enough to escape WP:V. (If some sources are provided, I'm willing to revisit my !vote) ---J.S ^(T/C) 00:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for failing WP:CORP and WP:WEB. There appear to be no reliable, non-trivial hits in a Google search for pocketgpsworld -pocketgpsworld.com -pocketgpsworld.co.uk which yields only 271 unique hits. There appear to be no reliable, non-trivial hits in a Google search for pocketgpsworld -site:pocketgpsworld.com -site:pocketgpsworld.co.uk which yields 628 unique hits. Pan Dan 00:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - over 50,000 Ghits here and Maplin, who are perfectly reputable, confirm the existence of the safety camera database here. TerriersFan 03:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments (1) To show notability you have to look for external sources that have written about PocketGPSWorld. That's why you need to exclude the sites pocketgpsworld.com and pocketgpsworld.co.uk from your search. (2) Even once you've done the right Google search, you can't just cite the number of hits to show notability. You have to actually find reliable non-trivial sources among those hits. (3) Re: "confirm the existence" -- no one denies that this company & website, and its services, exist. The question is, does it pass WP:CORP? The Maplin webpage is a trivial source with respect to PocketGPSWorld. Pan Dan 12:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per obvious notability. Sharkface217 05:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by User:Guinnog. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Azn clan

Azn clan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

nn, vanity, no citations, user's first contribution, bad grammar...Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 01:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per G1. --Dennisthe2 01:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Note that a merge has already been performed. Although it is probably the case that there is now too much detail in the article, that issue does not need to be decided here. —Doug Bell ^talk 12:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shunsuke Nakamura's Goals in 1998 season

Shunsuke Nakamura's Goals in 1998 season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

New page for one table is too much. I suggest merge to Shunsuke Nakamura or delete Tulkolahten 01:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other nominated articles:
Shunsuke Nakamura's Goals in 1997 season
Shunsuke Nakamura's Goals in 1999 season
Shunsuke Nakamura's Goals in 2000 season
Shunsuke Nakamura's Goals in 2001 season
Shunsuke Nakamura's Goals in 2002 season
Shunsuke Nakamura's Goals in 2002-2003 season
Shunsuke Nakamura's Goals in 2003-2004 season
Shunsuke Nakamura's Goals in 2004-2005 season
Shunsuke Nakamura's Goals in 2005-2006 season
Shunsuke Nakamura's Goals in 2006-2007 season

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Tw6dd 01:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the content too, it's useless. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Shunsuke Nakamura. - Neier 02:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Abbreviated Merge - other Celtic players do not have such lists, nor information on which day a goal was scored. The 'Goals in x season' articles should be deleted, but not unreasonable to first add to Shunsuke Nakamura a very short table summarising the total number of goals per each season (but not per game per season) David Ruben ^Talk 03:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short table summarizing goals is already there in his parent article. Tulkolahten 08:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Smerge all No other player has articles as ludicrous as this, and if they do, those articles should also be merged (or deleted). Dare I say "Nakamuracruft"? -- Kicking222 03:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all and any others like it we may have missed. The information can be added to the Shunsuke Nakamura article as noted by David Ruben, but these articles are rediculous. Every single fact does not need its own article. --Jayron32 06:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If information is merged elsewhere, the article needs to be redirect to comply with the GFDL so the info is attributed to who put it there. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Shunsuke Nakamura's Goals in 1997 season seems to have been left off of the nomination unintentionally. Neier 08:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added too, thanks. Tulkolahten 08:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Total numbers of goals are a common statistic, details about every single goal in a match or season are too granular a topic for inclusion (be it in the main article or as a separate one). - Mgm|^(talk) 11:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I just finished merging the tables, and added it to his article after a slight format change. Neier 11:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I think we should change community consensus to delete these articles when all already mergerd in the parent article. Tulkolahten 11:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. There is always a danger of too much indiscriminate information being collected about sports figures by rapid fans, and this is Exhibit A. I accept that standards of notability are notoriously lax for sport (who else can explain why we have articles on reserve goalkeepers for English second division teams?), but this really is a bridge too far. Legis 15:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Abbreviated Merge Same as David Ruben. Nakamura is Japan's David Beckham, so there are a lot of people who would disagree that his goals aren't notable (especially if you've seem some of his goals...). But it is kind of ridiculous. Either merge them into Nakamura's main article or create one article for all his goals. Captkrob 17:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is far more detail than RSSSF.com and most sports almanacs have. We should reduce the data to total goals scored each season, merge it in Nakamura's article, and get rid of the rest. We shouldn't set a precedent leading to databases of every single goal scored by Pele, Maradona, and every other notable footballer. Djcastel 18:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Josef Bican had 643 league goals and Pelé 636 goals, pretty long article should it be :-) Tulkolahten 19:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per above. Sharkface217 05:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or just delete. I don't care. Just do something with it.Patstuart^talk|edits 13:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC) Delete per Wikipedia is not an indescriminate list of information. Patstuart^talk|edits 18:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as Neier has already merged the content with Shunsuke Nakamura, I agree with Tulkolahten. DrKiernan 15:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all: Where's all of Theirry Henry's goals of one article. Oh, that's right, there isn't one. Someone's obsessed. Very pointless 86.20.53.195 17:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Cherniak

Jason Cherniak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This looks like a vanity page for a blogger Watchsmart 01:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete None notable person/vanity--M8v2 03:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - His main claim to fame seems to be "While there has never been controversy over whether he should edit his own Wikipedia article, current policy allows him to and he has" - That pretty much says it all right there... Wickethewok 07:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Probably shouldn't be editing his own article with self-references to Wikipedia policy, but the second paragraph appears to contain at least one notable position he held. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - autobiography, check history. MER-C 12:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:BIO and disagree that any of the positions held oare of sufficient note. -- Whpq 17:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. - Triviaa 19:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable person. Bearly541 23:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Claim to fame is that he is a blogger who edited his own Wikipedia article. Article in its current state is either a personal attack or the most ridiculous form of self-promotion I've seen yet. Wavy G 01:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. His blog has received several recent mentions in The Globe and Mail and other Canadian national media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.173.222.175 (talk)
• Keep per Mgm. Sharkface217 05:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Also, the use of the word "vanity" in AFD discussions is now discouraged. Please instead use "conflict of interest" per WP:COI. NeoJustin 22:03, 7 December 2006
• Delete vanity :P Danny Lilithborne 22:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Agent 86 00:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RCSCC Victory

RCSCC Victory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This is an article describing a sub-unit of a larger national unit that doesn't provide evidence of its individual notability. See WP:ORG Sancho McCann 02:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I would disagree on this one - the article contains several claims to notability. --Brianyoumans 04:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Claims aren't the criteria that articles about organizations need to meet - sufficient notability should be established through reliable and verifiable sources... maybe we should just tag it as needing references then. We'd need to find some third party materials or media coverage to satisfy WP:ORG though. Sancho McCann 05:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - claim of being the first sea cadet corps formed in Canada would distinguish this sub unit from the others, but no reliable sources are citeed. I've tagged with unref. -- Whpq 17:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Whpq. Sharkface217 05:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Whpq. Sancho McCann 06:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RCSCC Captain Vancouver

RCSCC Captain Vancouver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This page describes a sub-unit of a national organization and provides no evidence for its individual notability. See WP:ORG Sancho McCann 02:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This looks non-notable. --Brianyoumans 04:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable chapter per WP:ORG. MER-C 06:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this can be notable, but if so, we will have articles about each cadet corps, like we do for elementary schools.
• Delete - nothing to distinguish this unit from any other. -- Whpq 17:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mer-C. Sharkface217 05:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mer-C. NeoJustin 22:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 08:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

189 PORT AUGUSTA

189 PORT AUGUSTA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This page describes a sub-unit of a national organization and provides no evidence for its individual notability. See WP:ORG Sancho McCann 02:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with nominator on this one. --Brianyoumans 05:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 now that it's transwikied. ~ trialsanderrors 06:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fibonacci number program

Fibonacci number program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

2nd nom. First nom in March. Highly unencyclopedic - a how to manual. Lack of any verification of notability. At first AfD consensus was hard to reach because of the multiple things nominated. - crz crztalk 02:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Transwiki. Note that all other articles in the first nomination have since been deleted transwikied. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki. riana_dzasta 02:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki - yes more of a how-to, but its introduction to the topic (vs all teh examples that follow) is encyclopaedic of an important step in learning about recursive programing and limitations on algorithm calculation. Not specified above what teh other articles were, but I presume transfered to wikibooks ? So whilst virtually all of the examples should move, should teh intro remain (with link to the wikibooks article of examples ?) David Ruben ^Talk 03:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki. Add a sentence or two, or even a section, to Fibonacci number about the ability to solve it linearly or recursively. Otherwise that material could be moved to Recursion or somesuch? It's relevant to "fibonacci" or to "explaining recursive", seems like a whole page just for "using fibonacci to explain recursive" is excessive. DMacks 03:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki per above. --Fred McGarry 03:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki per above. So tagged. MER-C 05:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wikibooks where how-to's belong and leave a link in the programming section of the Fibonacci sequence. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki, this is much more of a manual than an encyclopedia article.-- danntm ^T _C 18:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki per all of the above. Sharkface217 05:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki per above reasons. --Ixfd64 08:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki per above The Fox Man of Fire 20:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Now transwikied (b:Transwiki:Fibonacci number program), as per requested on b:WB:RFI. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 15:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, don't feed the trolls. — CharlotteWebb 03:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Wilson (wrestler)

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- non-notable wrestler This is not a valid speedy deletion reason, therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 02:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable wrestler.BooyakaDell 03:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC) (see below)[reply]

According to his talk page, BooyakaDell is a suspected sockpuppet of JB196 who appears to have strong feelings with articles about wrestlers. Unless this vote is explained, I think it should not be counted. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. How do you figure he is non-notable? He is a two-time Stampede Wrestling Tag Team Champion according to the accomplishments section. According to our article: "Stampede Wrestling is a Canadian professional wrestling promotion based in Calgary, Alberta that for decades produced a weekly television series that is considered the forerunner of today's WWE." Champion in a televised Championship equals notability for me. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As much as I detest wrestling, I think this person is notable. Not a strong keep, (I wouldn't object to this article being deleted) but there is grounds for an article. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Even though Wrestling isnt usually my sort of thing I do belive this article has enough grounds to be kept. Jamesbuc
• Keep Notability is asserted in the article SirFozzie 15:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete changed to Null Vote Sheesh...BooyakaDell 16:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Competes in a professional league. Is a champion in it. --Oakshade 23:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mgm. Sharkface217 05:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see nothing wrong with the page apart from the fact it still has a stub when it's closer to a 'start'. Govvy 10:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toru (album)

Toru (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

None notable album from a group who's article was deleted itself. M8v2 02:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. MER-C 02:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. riana_dzasta 02:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it should have been deleted with the band. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delere: If the band doesn't warrant an article then the album doesn't. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 17:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sharkface217 05:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment 1) there are several other albums for this band: Special:Whatlinkshere/Moana_and_the_Moahunters. 2) The band never seem to have an article anyway: Special:Log/delete&page=Moana_and_the_Moahunters. Patstuart^talk|edits 13:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - begone --61.114.193.19 12:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per CSD A7. Yanksox 02:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak man

Weak man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not for stuff made up one day. Unreferenced and unwikified. Contested prod. MER-C 02:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. 06:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Samia Munayirji

Samia Munayirji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

edits are all from ip users that add nonsense, article created by user with no other contributions Drunken Pirate 02:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non-notable silliness. riana_dzasta 02:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Pieguy48 03:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete utterly non-notable bio (she won second place in a debate, WOW!) written by a highschool student and/or her friends. Rest of the article is overt attempts at humour. Wikipedia is not Myspace (and you are not funny--just thought I'd throw that in). Wavy G 03:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dont delete i dont know what ya'll are talking about this page is very informational. it is informing people of real things. you have no valid argument game over.

Please, while we've got you here...I'm dying to know about your invention, "The Wang Hat." Wavy G 05:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete I don't see any real claim of notability, and 80% of it is just silliness. --Brianyoumans 04:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Let me guess: Samia and a bunch of her friends were hanging out in the computer lab really bored one day... Richfife 05:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emotronic

Emotronic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- nn neologism, this is just plain odd, but needs more research and eyes. This is not a valid speedy deletion reason, therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 02:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a neologism. --Dennisthe2 02:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless there are any notable artists in the genre. riana_dzasta 03:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Taking the first half of the name of Genre A, adding the second half of the name of Genre B and declaring a new Genre halfway between the two is a time honored, but totally pointless, tradition. Term is not more than the sum of its parts. - Richfife 05:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nn neologism, 554 non-wiki ghits outside of myspace. MER-C 12:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per MER-C. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mer-C. Sharkface217 05:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mer-C. NeoJustin 22:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nonsense. Danny Lilithborne 22:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Friday (talk) 03:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler divelbiss

Tyler divelbiss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Pure nonsense. Speedy tag was taken down by articles creator. No reason given. Person and organization do not exist. M8v2 02:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Immediate speedy delete per fictional content such as "The minority group rented an ice cream truck fixed with a mounted machine-gun. A series of drive-by shooting occurred, and so far 14 were killed and 30 were wounded" in a riot at Kent State University over attitudes toward penguins. Newyorkbrad 02:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (edit conflict) - immediate speedy delete? Hard to get much faster than a speedy. =) With tongue firmly in cheek, --Dennisthe2 03:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough, but in my mind there's a difference between someone innocently adding an article about a non-notable person, and a blatantly fictional article that is being expanded with more and more bogus content even as I type these words. Newyorkbrad 03:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is now also a gross personal attack page in the opening paragraph (there is a real person with this name), and I'm invoking WP:IAR and blanking the contents. Newyorkbrad 03:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per A1. It's tagged A7 by a user named Yamaguchi, but it won't survive either way. --Dennisthe2 03:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per others, so tagged anyway. riana_dzasta 03:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Original research; unverified; appears to be self-promotion by a non-notable, new "religion" (singular). El_C 03:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific religions

Scientific religions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

(contested PROD) Article is made-up category containing a single entity that is itself WP:NFT; no citations for either entity or category, and description of notability is decidedly weak. DMacks 03:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as original research. riana_dzasta 03:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom--M8v2 03:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Pieguy48 03:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrari (Wrestler)

Ferrari (Wrestler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- not notable wrestler another one of these... more eyes please? This is not a valid speedy deletion reason, therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 03:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete None notable underground wrestler--M8v2 03:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 06:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per MER-C, no assertion of notability apart from victories over a hip-hop artist, alcoholism, a broadcasting company and one other wrestler. I'm assuming they are the names of other wrestlers without WP articles. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.BooyakaDell 16:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not worked for any notable promotions. DavyJonesLocker 21:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article was linked to on PWA Roster before being created. Chortin 23:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Just H 04:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Sharkface217 05:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mer-C. NeoJustin 22:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Ever been in WWE, TNA, WCW, ECW? No. By the way, this article, for whatever reason, looks massively created, very little facts, and with the name Ferrari (?!), I wouldn't be suprised. 86.20.53.195 17:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 non-notable wrestler. —Doug Bell ^talk 12:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Miller (wrestler)

Mike Miller (wrestler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- non-notable wrestler. (another one of these...) This is not a valid speedy deletion reason, therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 03:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete None notable wrestler. Only 335.--M8v2 03:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I checked there wasn't an arbitrary cut-off point. Professional sports people who make money doing their job are usually included, no matter what their rank. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 06:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly a professional wrestler because of the "He was ranked 335 in the list of top 500 wrestlers published in Pro Wrestling Illustrated in 2003." - Mgm|^(talk) 11:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Two of my fraternity brothers cracked the PWI top 500 in the late 90s simply by wrestling for a few months in a low-budget local circuit in Winnipeg. There's very little method to the rankings, so I wouldn't put too much stock in them. Caknuck 19:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - he was near the bottom of the barrel three years ago in a niché sport. Clearly fails WP:BIO. Should go. On a general note, we seem to have far too many articles on wrestlers compared to, say, ballet dancers (to take another form of choreographic entertainment). Legis 15:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mgm. Sharkface217 05:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - 335 of 500 in 2003? We already have far too much wrestle-cruft on here. And, has anybody actually read the article? It's unsourced, and has nothing to it. -Patstuart^talk|edits 14:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. It fails WP:BIO. NeoJustin 22:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above reasons. --James Duggan 05:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do note modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, do not that notability is not a speedy reason. Lack of an assertion of importance is —— Eagle (ask me for help) 06:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy shi

Cindy shi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Vanity page, non-notable

• Delete vanity page, non-notable. --Xtreambar 04:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Based on this profile, a college freshman who performed well in high school, but nothing to indicate top-level notability. Fan-1967 04:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looking at the original version of the page, I'm guessing it was a prank written by a friend. Still, this ain't the place, now is it? - Richfife 05:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 06:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all to their respective locales. I'd like to note that the contention that a WikiProject and not this AfD should decide this issue is contrary to both WP:OWN and the deletion policy, which characterises AfD as a public debate. On the other hand, most of those that support deletion seem not to mind a merger very much, so that's probably the most consensual outcome.

As is usual with mass AfDs, yours truly is kindly requesting the community to carry out the decision - i.e., merge the content and turn the article into a redirect. Please link to this AfD in the redirect edit summary and leave the AfD tags on until the merge/redirect is done. Thanks, Sandstein 20:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adams County Public Library

Adams County Public Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non notable library system in Ohio; I will also be nominating many others, all of which have similar text and do not serve major cities or metro areas. Brianyoumans 04:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated (all in Ohio, all with the same basic format): Garnet A. Wilson Public Library, Herrick Memorial Library, London Public Library (Ohio), Mary L. Cook Public Library, Monroe County District Library, Mount Sterling Public Library, Perry Public Library, Plain City Public Library, Sylvester Memorial Public Library, Wauseon Public Library, Wayne Public Library, Wellsville Carnegie Public Library, Weston Public Library, Willard Memorial Library, Wilmington Public Library of Clinton County There are others that could be nominated, but they are larger or have additional text. --Brianyoumans 04:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Keeping these seems, I dunno, kind of like professional courtesy from one repository of knowledge to another - Richfife 05:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - no assertion of notability. MER-C 06:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - This should be covered in each municipality/county where each is covered. No assertion of notability beyond mere existance. SImple existing does not make one notable. --Jayron32 06:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All - This is a project of [WikiProject_Ohio and appears on the project page. CRKingston 09:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All or Merge to their respective localities' articles. Being part of a wikiproject doesn't mean the articles don't need to show noteworthiness, and these don't assert it. In their current state, they're basically directory entries. They have no secondary sources, and convey little information. Shimeru 10:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to whatever locale they serve. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all as per Shimeru. While I am a part of the WikiProject, notability is a must-have for any article on Wikipedia. Blast 12.06.06 0718 (UTC -5)
• Merge all to respective localities, as suggested by Shimeru and WP:LOCAL.-- danntm ^T _C 15:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all. I do not see any point in someone taking an online database and creating an article for each entry. It would be better for a user to look at the source database, which is likely to have more up to date info. Will someone make it his job to update these 3 sentence articles when the library's collection of circulation stats change? Edison 15:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with Edison. If we leave out the information on circulation and number of cardholders, all that is left to merge is the name of the library and a link to its website. Is that worth merging? I think it is fair to assume that just about every locality of substantial size in America has a public library; what would be notable would be if one didn't. --Brianyoumans 15:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all into their respective communities' articles. That's the best way to handle articles on libraries, fire depts, police depts, and other local services. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and allow the Project team to decide - As this is a part of WikiProject Ohio, I would STRONGLY suggest that the folks from that project team be made aware of this deletion effort ASAP, and do not take any action until that project team has a chance to thoroughly discuss this. Deleting stuff that is maintained by a project team without their consent is against the spirit of these teams. Outsiders' opinions are fine, but let the team do its job. Scott Mingus 17:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly agree that in matters that involve a significant amount of special expertise, the team involved should be consulted and have a large say (although perhaps not the final word). In this case, I think that most of us possess the knowledge to evaluate the notabiility of stub articles about small to medium-sized library systems. I think it would also be different if the articles were brand new, but they are mostly at least a month old, as I remember, and some older - the team must have been aware of them, since they are tagged as part of the project, and chose to leave them in place. --Brianyoumans 17:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all per Shimeru. Is there really anything more than a sentence or two about any of these? As an alternative (or in addition to) merging into each locale's page, could merge all into Ohio Public Libraries. A unified article covering them all might be a viable article...more useful ("where are the libraries?" instead of "tell me about a library if I know which one I want (by name, not location!)"). And would provide more likely notability and opportunity for content beyond a mere directory listing (history of libraries in the state, interesting/unique policies, features or collections, etc). DMacks 17:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I would object to a "list of Ohio public libraries" article - to me, a list of non-notable things is almost as bad as individual articles. Wikipedia is not a directory. --Brianyoumans 18:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, but such an article could be more than a list. Presuming reliable independent sources are found, a discussion of the state library system including (and not limited to) a list would be encyclopedic. Shimeru 22:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • My impression of how libraries are organized is that most areas started with local libraries, and only much later developed regional and state systems - and often only to provide services such as inter-library loan. You could certainly talk about the history of libraries in a particular state, but there would be a lot of broad generalizations, and discussing them as a 'system' might be rather stretching it. Nine tenths of the funding, control, and activity is still on the local level. --Brianyoumans 23:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and allow the Project team to decide- I say let the WikiProject Ohio team decide how to handle this. They may opt for a more consolidated article or merging the article with an article about the location the library is in. That aside, the WikiProject Ohio team did request that this article (and several others) be written, so obviously not everyone views this as "non-notable." I would prefer to see the articles remain and expanded with more history and background. --JonRidinger 01:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. Sharkface217 05:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all, suggest individual noms, although i don't think any of these would fail to meet the required standard for media attention. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, this is a perfect example of a correct mass nomination (very similar articles about very similar subjects), so no need to make individual AfD's. No indication of notability as would be indicated by WP:V sources. I don't mind if this is made by an individual editor or by the members of a project: while the project members are perfectly free to defend the articles by showing that they are notable by providing us good sources to indicate that these libraries have any distinguishing features beyond existing, there is no reason to keep articles only because they are made by the members of a project. On the contarry, they may well lack the impartiality and distance needed to look at these articles and subjects on an AfD. This post[11] on the Project Talk page is not acceptable. Fram 14:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per Fram and Jayron. Also, please recongnise that everyone can take part in discussions and being part of a project does not imply better judgement. Inner Earth 16:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. No larger significance to society. They're important as a group, but not individually notable, just as having good transit in a city is important, but individual roads are not noteworthy. --Improv 20:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge All into their respective communities articles. NeoJustin 22:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Being a stub is not a reason for deletion. Every library is unique, and the fact that published references are missing from these articles does not mean that such references do not exist. Libraries often have collections about their communities or specific topics which are not duplicated elsewhere, such as Mount Allison University's collection of 19th-century and early 20th-century high school trigonometry textbooks, or the Toronto Reference Library's impressive Sherlock Holmes collection. In some cases, such a collection was built by a private collector and was later donated or bequeathed to the library, and bears the donor's name. See also the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chandler Public Library.

In general, I think that Wikipedia deletion process throws away a lot of good, or at least salvageable, articles, and that the damage to the encyclopedia and to the morale of individual editors caused mass deletions does outweighs any benefit. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 02:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all, Merge if necessary, and let Wikiproject Ohio decide. A library stub pops up and you guys jump on deleting it when those articles and what to do with them are all still in progress. Again, I'm keepign assuming good faith on WP Ohio's part. --Wizardman 03:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all or Merge. TruthbringerToronto couldn't have said it any better. --Rovership27 03:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all for this and similar, though there will be a few about which assertations of notability can be made, the better precedent is to merge unless others appropriate. I note that all such libraries can be easily found in web search engines, and the information on their own web sites is probably better than anything we excerpt here. DGG 08:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all mass afd nominations are in poor form, allow the wikiproject to continue its work.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong on both accounts: mass nominations are accepted standard procedure, and a project doesn't decide which articles are kept and which deleted (although their input as to why they feel any particular article should be kept can of course be valuable). So, do you have anything to say about these articles, or can your opinion (and all similar ones) be ignored as not discussing the merits of the articles wrt policies and guidelines? Fram 20:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all and allow the project team to decide, as per JonRidinger above. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This AFD is now ancient. Could an admin please either close it or relist it? --Brianyoumans 16:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD A7 -- Samir धर्म 05:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard zimmerman

Leonard zimmerman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Author whose only claim of notability is an autobiography published by a vanity press. The article was prodded, with the article's author removing the prod without comment. FreeKresge 04:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Why don't you speedy delete this one? I don't see any real claim of notability. --Brianyoumans 04:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• You've got to admit that anyone who publishes an autobiography at 21 doesn't lack for confidence, but Delete as non-notable. Fan-1967 04:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As much as an inclusionist I am, I don't see why this subject is worthy of an article at this time. --Oakshade 05:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not appear to be notable enough Alex Bakharev 05:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Um, no. If he does make good on his promise to run for office, he'll thank us for deleting this lame article just like he'll thank his editor for removing 5 chapters from his book. - Richfife 05:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technisoft, Report Manager, and Service Manager

Technisoft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

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

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

Non-notable company and products. "Technisoft" gets only self-generated g-hits and "Technisoft Report Manager" receives only hits on this company's website. Please see WP:CORP and WP:SOFT for Wikipedia's guidelines for corporation and software notability. --BigDT 04:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete them all per nom. They also sound a little adish.--M8v2 04:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Three unique GHits for a piece of software is almost willfully obscure. - Richfife 05:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per above. MER-C 06:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all mmm. Tastes like spam. --Jayron32 06:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sharkface217 05:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - at least one is a copyvio (see google's cache version; site is currently down: [12]) others are spam anyway. -Patstuart^talk|edits 13:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. NeoJustin 22:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The software listed is obscure at best, and the fact it only gets 3 ghits is testament to its obscurity. The pages also appear to read more like a spiel or advertisement. There is no reason, at this time, to keep them. --SunStar Net^talk 00:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Guidance please. Will agree to remove Report Manager, though would like to list it as a product under Technisoft. Service Manager is one of the most widely respected service management software products in use worldwide. A Google search of "technisoft service manager" will return 1100+ hits. At what point does a company or company product become notable enough to allow it to have a Wikipedia entry? Microsoft Dynamics GP is a competing product that does have a Wikipedia entry ... Accpac and The Sage Group distribute Service Manager and Report Manager worldwide. Refer http://www.sage.com/news.php?id=196 for a feature article on Service Manager. Fkrugerx 03:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• To further support my case. Service Manager certainly comforms to Notability test "The software is among the core products of a notable software developer or vendor." Refer http://sage.com "Sage is a leading supplier of business management software and services to 5.2 million customers worldwide." Technisoft is a development partner of The Sage Group and Service Manager is the company's flagship product. Fkrugerx 03:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• rm -rf * / delete - per nom --61.114.193.19 12:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP need to be cleaned up - BUT, overall I found it to be good article, thank you for your time. Rcehoppe 08:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no evidence of meeting WP:CORP/WP:SOFTWARE. "Good article" is not a criterion for inclusion. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All as insufficiently notable per WP:CORP#Criteria for products and services and, as proposed, WP:SOFTWARE. -- Satori Son 06:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan's Toy Chest

Duncan's Toy Chest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Trivial Content. This is a fictional location that appears in only one movie. There is no reason it should have its own page, when most of the information it contains can already be found in the page for Rookery Building and Home Alone 2. Duncan's toy chest is otherwise never directly referred to in any other media or Home Alone movie. Ghilz 04:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge a brief synopsis to Home Alone 2: Lost in New York - Richfife 05:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. -WarthogDemon 05:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per the nominator. This doesn't require deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I went ahead and did the merge and redirect - Richfife 02:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was The result of this AfD was Keep - Notability has been asserted. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 21:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emilia Attias

Emilia Attias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable, fails WP:BIO. Otto4711 04:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - This woman is an international supermodel. On the cover of lots of magazines, including Maxim. [13][14] [15] [16] [17] 75,300 ghits.[18]. --Oakshade 05:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I can't read Spanish, but there seem to be a lot of pages in Spanish on her. The pictures look good, though... --Brianyoumans 05:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't get supermodels and normally I like nothing better than !voting Delete, but... She's out there. 75K+ GHits. - Richfife 05:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Stubby, but there are enough references out there to expand should anyone choose to. Passes Primary Notability Criteria. Article should be expanded, not deleted. --Jayron32 06:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable per Oakshade. Needs expansion, but being a stub is not reason to delete. --Falcorian ^(talk) 16:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Guru 19:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of television personalities

List of television personalities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Indiscriminate list of anyone who's appeared on TV ever. Unmaintainable and unencyclopedic. Otto4711 05:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Certainly better served by a category, but even that strikes me as unnecessary. The subject is too all encompassing to be useful. What possible homework assignment could be aided by this article? You gotta salute the work that went into it, though. - Richfife 05:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - arbitary, useless, unmaintainable and indiscriminate listcruft. Worse still, it encourages people to create articles on non-notable losing reality TV contestants. And they have clearly been !voted off this island. MER-C 06:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What MER-C said. --Jayron32 06:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per MERC. meshach 06:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a prime example of an indiscriminate list. Listing everyone who ever appeared on TV is not useful or encyclopedic. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete phew, yeah, too indiscriminate. --Canley 13:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, a bare list of links, etc. But this article is just those things. Guy (Help!) 14:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. ← ANAS ^Talk? 16:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, too broad etc. Punkmorten 17:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unreasonably broad in scope.-- danntm ^T _C 18:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A necessarily incomplete and ultimately pointless list of names. Not in any way an appropriate encyclopedia article.--Anthony.bradbury 19:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Why are so many people creating these pointless lists? If the same energy went into improving and referencing existing articles it would have a tremendous impact the quality of Wikipedia. This is list is particularly broad, pointless and Wikipedia is not a directory. WJBscribe 20:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A full-time staff of editors could work for years and not even make this close to complete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note This article has existed for over 4 years before getting an AFD. Is that a record? - Richfife 04:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Did I say 4 years? I meant to say 5: [19] - Richfife 19:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above points. 4 years? Jesus. Sharkface217 05:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT. The article existed 4 years ago bc Wikipedia was much smaller, and had less references. Now it should go. -Patstuart^talk|edits 14:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. 4 years is a long time on Wikipedia.NeoJustin 22:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete listcruft. Danny Lilithborne 22:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete too many. However, it could be Keep, and split into countries e.g. List of English TV personalities, List of French TV personalities, so the lists will be smaller. Only a suggestion. 86.20.53.195 17:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nem con.. Guy (Help!) 13:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google Talk (game)

Google Talk (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Completely non-notable "word game". Was deleted as an uncotested prod, and that deletion was later contested. WP:NOT for things you made up on the playground one day. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Is there a "Wikipedia is not for strange things you can do with Google" rule? If not, then I need to get cracking on the fun "Extreme Googling" game I came up with. - Richfife 05:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:NFT. MER-C 06:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NN and WP:NFT. tgies 06:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not the place to promote the crap you and your buddies made up --Jayron32 06:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all. meshach 06:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just another algorithm. Fails the basic definition of a game. Because "Key components of games are goals, rules, challenge, and interactivity." (the article fails to mention it needs players too). This aims to be funny. There's no way you can "win". - Mgm|^(talk) 11:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No credible sources, no credible claim to notability. Guy (Help!) 14:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - quick, please! Snalwibma 14:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as textbook WP:NFT.-- danntm ^T _C 16:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per nom. ← ANAS ^Talk? 16:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sharkface217 05:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - if some historians sit down 100 years from now, and read this article, they will totally get the wrong opinion. The fact is, this game just isn't notable. -Patstuart^talk|edits 14:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no demonstration that this is at all widespread enough, comes across as Yet Another Clever Google Hack. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination Noclip 21:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per nom. FirefoxMan 22:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - somebody snowball this thing. -Patstuart^talk|edits 06:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Junglebop

Junglebop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Obscure and non-notable music genre. 105 ghits outside of Wikipedia and myspace. Fails WP:V. Contested prod. MER-C 05:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. tgies 08:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of notability and verifiability. Prolog 09:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. But Jazz link to this page, so I put a request of comment in that article discussion. - Cate | _Talk 10:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd just summarily remove it as this genre is too obscure and nn. I've done that before to a number of nn stuff which got woven in as spam. MER-C 12:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. James084 21:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sharkface217 05:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. NeoJustin 22:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 22:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Eagle 101. (aeropagitica) 06:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Human-capital Century

Human-capital Century (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- Non-notable neologism. 321 ghits This is not a valid speedy deletion reason, therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 05:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Doug Bell ^talk 10:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casey James

Casey James (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

NN person, I don't see how it lives up to WP:PORNBIO. I know it went through 2 other AFDs but the first I believe was breaking WP:POINT and the second was no consensus. Also, now that we have a new guideline, I feel this deserves to be revisited. Dismas|^(talk) 05:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For ease of reference by others, the first AfD is archived here and the second is here. Tabercil 06:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Clearly doesn't meet WP:PORNBIO or WP:BIO. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 09:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: checking before I run off and try and find / verify a few things, but I believe she qualifies under Criteria 6 for notability within Genre and also wondering if for genre oriented discussions, would the "playmate of the month" rule apply (Criteria 2)if they were of a similar title in a genre oriented magazine as opposed to strictly mainstream like Playboy / Penthouse? (ie. Hustler's Busty Beauties, Gent, Score, etc in this persons case)Charlam 00 15:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Doesn't come close to satisying any BIO notability guidelines. Valrith 16:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Charlam's comments and I don't see any reason to change the outcomes of the first 2 AfDs. --Oakshade 19:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sharkface217 05:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per porn --61.114.193.19 12:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails pornbio, just another retired former cam whore.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Proto::► 10:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of wrestlers in movies

List of wrestlers in movies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is pretty indiscriminate "List of [your choice of profession] appearing in movies". Delete. Ohconfucius 06:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Indiscriminate, arbitary, unmaintainable listcruft. --The Way 06:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - you stole my deletion reason. MER-C 06:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per norm. meshach 06:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete that's gotta hurt! Guy (Help!) 10:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not indiscriminate at all. Has clear inclusion criteria and appears to be of a manageable length. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, wrestling/movie crossovers aren't that common and have been something of a noted phenomenon. The Rock got a lot of press for it, so this would make sense as a list of similar examples. Needs cleanup and reformatting though. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "it's not that common" doesn't seem to be borne out by the large number of names on the list. Legis 16:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the more interesting phenomenon is the few wrestlers who have a large number of movies, demonstrating something of a career, which this makes visible at a glance. If we wanted to prune it, we could separate out those who have only appeared in one movie from those who have done several. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Night Gyr mentioned, it is an uncommon phenomenon. If you had checked that list, it covers a span of several decades with those few representing a profession whose members number in the thousands. Vladamire Steelwolf 07:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an indiscriminate list. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 16:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Night Gyr. ← ANAS ^Talk? 16:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT. The nom says it all. Agent 86 23:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep "indiscriminate:" failing to make or recognize distinctions [20]. I see some clear distinctions in what this data is. The movie-wrestler crossover is a lot more special then something like a plumber-movie crossover. Then again, this could be dealt with in a category... so I'm wishy-washy on this. ---J.S ^(T/C) 00:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories can't tell you which movies they appeared in, or how many. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Night Gyr. Sharkface217 05:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT. NeoJustin 22:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unmaintainable. Who is going to be responsible for this list the next time a wrestler appears in a film? Aside from the people adding cleanup tags to this, it has been sitting in a vacuum since creation. Salad Days 05:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling? It's not going to be that frequent an event, and usually garners some media attention. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Fancruft at best. What's next? Sports stars in movies? Reality stars in movies? RobJ1981 00:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Night Gyr. Vladamire Steelwolf 07:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• (Delete) but convert to a Category. Yep at the moment this is just a list. What the page really needs is a couple of paragraphs on how the wrestlers evolved from wrestling to acting. A few pictures inserted. This shouldn't really be a list at all. But what can be done is make a category of wrestlers in movies. That would be better. Govvy 12:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. No category is needed for this. As far as I know: we don't have a category for sports stars in movies, or anything similar to that. Wrestlers roles in movies, should be mentioned on the wrestler articles only. No article or category is needed. RobJ1981 03:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Aaru Bui ^DII 09:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — CharlotteWebb 04:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Bower (wrestler)

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- non-notable wrestler This is not a valid speedy deletion reason, therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 06:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Is 1-time International Tag Team Champion (with Chris Benoit) with Stampede Wrestling. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Competes in a fully professional league in a very popular sport. Passes WP:BIO. --Oakshade 23:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:BIO. Sharkface217 05:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 category, which is cheap and easy.. - Mailer Diablo 19:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of 1896 films

List of 1896 films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Another set lists by the same someone who has mistaken Wikipedia for IMDB Lite at List of Finnish films. The beginning of a series of text dumps taken from IMDB (copyvio, not a reliable source) used to create a series of lists (better in categories) for indiscriminate information (WP:NOT#DIR), so the creator can ultimately create several thousand stubs on utterly non-notable films. In case there's any doubt about the creator'S intentions, take a look at List of 1896 films for the letter A and the letter B. Included are future text dumps from 1888 to 1910 and any potential text dumps through 2009, as the honking big template on the page seems to threaten. Calton | Talk 06:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete more categories masquerading as lists. Indiscriminate, and thus deletable. Also, a friendly-worded cease-and-desist request for this users talk page may be in order. --Jayron32 06:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The user is working with the Films WikiProject, I believe, in good faith. Her Pegship 06:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I agree that the edits were made in good faith. I made some comments on the users talk page to explain the position that while we appreciate the effort, these organization attempts would be better served by categories than by lists. It is a noble cause, I agree, but poorly executed in this case. We want this user to continue to do good work here, just in a way that is more in line with policy. --Jayron32 07:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's no indication we have articles to put in such a category, but the list clearly isn't working. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. MER-C 12:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete good faith or not, we do nobody a service by keeping this in the pretence that it may one day be encyclopaedic. Guy (Help!) 14:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We already have year-in-film categories. We don't need lists with the same information. In response to the nominator, I don't believe lists can be copyrighted so I wouldn't call it a copyvio, and I don't consider IMDb to be a completely unreliable source either. But in any event, this list (and the others proposed) are not needed. 23skidoo 17:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per others. Punkmorten 17:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Sharkface217 05:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For God's Sake everybody. I am redirecting to categories which already have lists. However I may need to draw up lists for films betweeen 1896 and 1910 as there are practically no films in the categories. Oh yes of course a lists of films by year is really unencyclopedic. You really amaze me people. Navigation box is remaining though - useful for connecting all years in fuilms not just near years/ User:Calton is a serious knob that he wants to delete everything I do Ernst Stavro Blofeld 16:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected everything to catwgories which serve as lists and also tell us what films exist on wikipedia. Case closed, Template will remain to navigate between the entire years of film histiry because at present in the categories it is by decade. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 17:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think it would be a good idea to maintain a list of redlinked films by year and nation of origin within the Wikipedia:WikiProject Films namespace so people working on that project can use it to work from. I am just not sure such a list belongs in the Mainspace. --Jayron32 16:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Northerner (train). I don't see obvious mergeable content that isn't already in the Northerner article, but the edit history will be retained in case someone wants to move something or flesh out this article and recreate it. ~ trialsanderrors 06:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Ordinary) Express (train)

(Ordinary) Express (train) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

(contested prod) Redundant, copy of Northerner, but highlighting the original nickname of 2 trains. I'd suggest merge, but since that same information is in Northerner, there is really nothing to merge, so I say delete. Diez2 06:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This article can be fleshed out as the Ordinary Express had a pretty long history (we're talking decades here) before it was replaced by the Northerner in the 1970s. I don't really want to put work into the article if it's only going to be deleted anyway, but if there's a chance of saving it, I'll get out my sources. and see what information I can add. - Axver 07:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect the information is redundant to, and can be readily handled by, a history section in its succesor train, Northerner (train).-- danntm ^T _C 18:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that an article on this train is redundant. The Ordinary Express actually had a longer lifetime than the Northerner, so I don't see why it should be relegated to a history section of the Northerner. There is probably plenty to say about it - one of us just needs to get out some books and work on it. My previous offer stands: if there is a chance this article can be saved, I will put work into expanding it. - Axver 00:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect per danntm. --Dennisthe2 23:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sounds like there should be enough information out there to write a decent article on this, even though it's a short stub right now. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge This article seems redundant. It really is about Northerner (train) and that's where it's appropriat to merge to. --Oakshade 00:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above points. Sharkface217 05:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 content. Entry may be recreated so long as there is content. El_C 12:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Operations in Somaliland

Operations in Somaliland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- orphan. This is not a valid speedy deletion reason. The page is a redirect, if you look in the history. Therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 07:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Nothing links to Operations in Somaliland. The redirect was to Sayyid Mohammed Abdullah Hassan (Maxamed Cabdulle Xasan) aka Mad Mullah. I see no connection. Theres no need for this redirect unless someone is going to provide information about Operations in Somaliland --ElectricEye (talk) 07:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MER-C 12:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonestown, Demerara

Jonestown, Demerara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

No sources provided, and googling the name turns up nothing but references to the other Jonestown, making me think this is a possible hoax. Even our own articles on Demerara-Mahaica and Demerara make no mention of it. Needs references, or else should be deleted as unverifiable. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: No this is not a hoax. This is a real place. If in doubt, Google "Jonestown" "Mahaica" for confirmation of its existence -- for example, this. References I can do, but they might take some time. This nice little article was just about my first contribution. I sincerely hope it is not about to be done in by mere impatience. -- Lonewolf BC 08:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, but all I'm turning up on the name are mentions of people who happen to be from the place, nothing that supports anything actually stated in the article. I have no opposition to an article about a town, but we need to be able to source what we write. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was just to show the place is for real. Full referencing I can't give you with that kind of immediacy. ;-) The point is that this is not some elaborate joke, and that I'd be grateful for some slack, at least timewise. I'm not suggesting that we needn't be able to source. -- Lonewolf BC 08:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prod and AFD both take at least five days. Five days isn't that much of a rush to find a single source. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's not a hoax. Maybe the article just needs work and it's contributors need to cite sources. --ElectricEye (talk) 09:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn, reference provided. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediatpress

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

Non-notable company. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-06 07:41Z

• Delete fails WP:CORP (wow these pre-made asterisks are luxurious! only 2 left!comment and you'll see) James086^{Talk | Contribs} 13:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - and added another asterisk for the guy after next :-) Frater Xyzzy 18:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN, and thanks for the asterisk =^_^= --Dennisthe2 03:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sharkface217 05:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. NeoJustin 22:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Proto::► 10:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pandagon

Pandagon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable blog. The site fails WP:WEB. The passing mention in Playboy is trivial and does not satisfy the WP:WEB requirement. Should be deleted. RWR8189 07:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does not fail WP:WEB at all. It is a major political blog. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IrnBru001 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Folantin 08:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --ElectricEye (talk) 11:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. MER-C 12:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ← ANAS ^Talk? 16:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sharkface217 05:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: "The passing mention in Playboy" is that magazine's October 2006 list of the "Top Ten Political Blogs". This does not seem a "trivial" distinction. It thereby meets criterion #2 of WP:WEB: "The website or content has won a notable independent award from either a publication or organisation." – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 16:17, 7 Dec 2006 (UTC).
• Keep: it was just nominated as a finalist for "best liberal blog" in the 2006 Weblog Awards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.161.127.75 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

* Keep The Fox Man of Fire 20:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Pandagon is basically a hate site. It would do badly as a page in the wikipedia since it would encourage wiki nazis to police it and make sure that any evidence that it was a hate site would remain deleted. OTOH, they had a major dick fight with FARK tonight and they lost with Amanda's panty's getting so knotted up they disappeared up her slit. She then proceeded to moderate all the comments from FARK out while calling FARKers a bunch of rapists. http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=2460478 Yeah, so delete Mr.POV 06:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Its consider a major liberal political blog. If other blog have survived this (most likely POV) challenge this one should too. IrnBru001 20:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --HarmonicFeather 06:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the requirements of the standard? "Web-specific content[3] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria." Three different example have been cited to satisify criteria two "he website or content has won a notable independent award from either a publication or organisation." First the Play Boy award, second the Weblog Award, third being a featured blog at a major political conference. There is a fourth the Wampum Award that they have also won that I'm trying to find a good source for. So given these 3 example and given that I only need one how does this fail the test? IrnBru001 15:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. FirefoxMan 16:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Whether it can be fairly characterized as "a hate site" is immaterial. We're judging notability, not virtue. JamesMLane t c 17:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. yandman 17:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain why it doesn't meet the second criteria as I have suggested it does? This is a discussion not just a vote. IrnBru001 17:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Weblog Awards and the Take Back America conference do not get articles, and they are sited as awards. Awards must be notable to be counted. Being in the top ten of a major magazine is not enough, unless it was above #3. FirefoxMan 20:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion. I believe both are important enough to get their own articles. I see no reason to think that the top ten of a major magazine isn't enough. Your claim in not supported in the guideline. The article mets the current guideline, you are now trying to change the guideline. The article needs to be judged against the guideline AS IT IS WRITTEN. If you want to change that guideline then discuss it on that pages talk page. IrnBru001 20:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider it an award to be in a list, and AfDs are supposed to be ask users for their input and opinion on the noteworthiness of a article. FirefoxMan 23:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with Chandler, Arizona (which I've done). Proto::► 10:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chandler Public Library

Chandler Public Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

non notable public library system in Arizona; no particular claim to notability that I can see. Previous prod removed by User:TruthbringerToronto. Brianyoumans 08:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep It's a Public library in Arizona. --ElectricEye (talk) 11:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And my left big toe is a body part. It still doesn't get an article. What is your point? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expand. ^_^ --ElectricEye (talk) 04:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to wherever it is located. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Chandler AZ or add content and references to show notability. Edison 15:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Chandler, Arizona], or expand the article. (cf. proposed WP:LOCAL).-- danntm ^T _C 17:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Every library is different. The Chandler library has been involved with an innovative program to promote literacy and library use among people who live in public housing, for example. Maintaining a separate article for a library makes it easier to find information on the library by searching from a list or category of public libraries. Some libraries serve multiple municipalities and therefore don't merge well into a single town's article. In general, libraries have collections of books and other materials about their local areas that are not duplicated elsewhere, and the Chandler library presumably has a significant amount of information related to Chandler that may represent a notable collection, and as well a resource that a Wikipedian living in Chandler could draw upon to create articles based on print sources which are unavailable online. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge It is a public library. Sharkface217 05:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Chandler, Arizona]. I'm unable to find any useful sources for making notability claims but a town's libraries are a reasonable thing to have covered in a town's article. JoshuaZ 05:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or delete, whichever seems most appropriate. I don't really get what TruthbringerToronto tries to say here. Because someone in the Chandler region may use the library (or more specifically, some books, magazines, ... in the library) to compose articles for Wikipedia, we should keep the library article? I thought our policies indicated that subjects had to be the subjects of multiple verifiable sources by reputable publishers, not that the subject only had to be useful (or "different": every person is different, every snowflake is different, that's no reason to have an article). The sources added are interesting, but for me still too weak to keep this as a separate article (the first one is a very short mention, and the second is more of a directory entry, the Chandler public library being one of the more than 600 repositories in Arizona indexed on this site). While this library is more important than the usual village library, it still is not verifiably important enough to have its own article. Fram 14:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Edison, JoshuaZ. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was referring specifically to the library's special collections of local material that could not be easily located elsewhere, such as local history materials and hard-copy or microfilmed back volumes of local newspapers. Most libraries have such collections. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I agree: every city and town (of some size) has a public library, and almost all of them feature collections of material on local subjects. Every town also has telephone directories, published by the local phone company (and, in recent years, other companies)... should we have special articles on them, or should that info be merged to the local articles so that Wikipedia researchers can find them? I would argue that these sort of things are so common and similar from town to town as to be non notable. --Brianyoumans 00:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment . No, the special collections of each library are unique and not purely local, such as Mount Allison University's collection of 19th-century and early 20th-century high school trigonometry textbooks, or the Toronto Reference Library's impressive Sherlock Holmes collection. In some cases, such a collection was built by a private collector and was later donated or bequeathed to the library, and bears the donor's name. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 15:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If no one has talked about the collection in any detail in non-trivial sources it is very hard to see it as having any significiant notability. There's no reason not to include a note about the library details in the main articles but we simply don't have enough for a full article. JoshuaZ 17:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If we allow every public library to get its own article, we will be overrun with articles from the millions of libraries around the world. FirefoxMan 00:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If those hypothetical articles adequately demonstrate the uniqueness of each library, then the articles would make the encyclopedia better. In practice, if a library is not much different than other libraries, people are unlikely to contribute an article about it. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 15:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adams County Public Library. --Brianyoumans 17:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or delete per Fram. Inner Earth 11:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - using a bit of judgement, not a single one of those sources is reliable, anyway ... if/when a reliable source does appear, the article can be recreated. Proto::► 10:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just Cause 2

Just Cause 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Pure speculation. Contested prod. MER-C 08:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NN. tgies 08:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a rumour mill. Prolog 09:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per nom. --ElectricEye (talk) 11:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per nom. ← ANAS ^Talk? 16:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - More than speculation. According to all of these reports (and many more), Avalanche CEO Christofer Sundberg confirmed it's really being made. [21][22][23][24][25] --Oakshade 03:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This "crystalball" is real per Oakshade: [26][27][28][29][30] --ElectricEye (talk) 04:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sharkface217 05:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm surprised about this vote with the new info about it being reported that it's being made. --Oakshade 05:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, Oakshade, I agree. Sharkface, some people actually try study the AFD's you know. ^_^ --ElectricEye (talk) 06:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — CharlotteWebb 04:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wii release data

This information is already present in Wii, verbatim. I see no need for a separate article for this. tgies 08:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hangon. Jecowa 08:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's no longer verbatim. I created this article as a split from the Wii article to reduce the size of the Wii article. So far I have brought the size of the Wii article down to 47kb from 58kb. It would be nice to be able to keep this data in a seperate article while limiting the Wii article to the data on English-speaking countries. Is this acceptable? Jecowa 08:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Great info and now broken up into better categories... so im not ready to delete just yet. MrMacMan 09:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Wii. Do we really need a seperate article. --ElectricEye (talk) 11:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We don't need separate articles, but by separating them reduces clutter on the Wii article. Compare the size of the release data section of the Wii article to that of the Wii release data article. Splitting this section into a new article is desirable per Wikipedia:Summary style. This is also touched on at Wikipedia:Article size. Jecowa 11:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I see. --ElectricEye (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --ElectricEye (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, breaking out shortened the original article while maintaining useful well-sourced information. (I'm still not buying one). - Mgm|^(talk) 12:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, for the above reason (minus personal comment). Just64helpin 17:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Sosb 22:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Okay, you've convinced me :D tgies 22:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Uh... did the person requesting article deletion just vote to keep? MrMacMan 23:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. yeah no kidding kid get with the program we're trying to run an internet here tgies 04:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Can be made into a great article. Sharkface217 05:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Wii, will be irrelevant in a few months. Noclip 21:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now, anyway Tempest115 21:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep renominate in a few months FirefoxMan 00:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A needed split now that it's no longer current information. -Ryanbomber 13:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]