Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 July 14

< July 13	July 15 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep; nomination withdrawn; non-admin closure. John Vandenberg 11:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Akop Sanasaryan

Non-notable Alan Liefting 23:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page has had a significant update and a name change to the correct spelling after I had placed the AfD. I would now like to withdraw my nomination. Alan Liefting 10:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - he seems borderline non-notable; there are some mentions in reliable sources, like this, but none are personal. On a related note, could you expand your rationales for deletion - they're a little terse? --Haemo 23:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been a stub for almost a year, google gives 87 hits, google scholar gives no hits and one quotation in a magazine surely does not establish notability. Alan Liefting 02:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep that article is from New Scientist, so i would assume that if they noticed his campaign, that others have also.DGG (talk) 00:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he is notable. Callelinea 03:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think. An environmental campaigner from Armenia who I suspect from a quick perusal of the google hits is reasonably well known in that field. Note that his name is also spelt 'Hakob Sanasaryan' (probably something to do with the transliteration) and that this returns a further 200 hits on google. There's even a press picture of him here[1] --Malcolmxl5 04:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Stands borderline in notability. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 07:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I stubbed this a while back and had forgotten about it. Akop Sanasaryan is a major environmentalist and chemist in Armenia who has been an active player in nuclear politics in the country. One thing I dislkie about wikipedia is uneven coverage -that some small time university professor or blog operator in America is considered "notable" yet an Armenian chemist isn't because the article was a stub?? I'd have appreciated the nominator personally asking me to expand it before going through this process - as always what is "notable" is often POV. Sanasaryan is also chairman of the Green Union of Armenia which I believe is a noted Armenian environmental group. Secondly I don't create articles if I don't believe they have an element of benefit for the encyclopedia and could quite reasonably be developed into articles. PLease don't give me a what wikipedia is and WP:Not and all that -I'm far from a beginner!!. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 09:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If New Scientist says he's notable, other sources do as well -- even if we haven't found them yet. More sourcing is in order, not deletion. Spazure 09:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Ponce Silén

Non-notable Alan Liefting 23:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - he seems borderline non-notable. He's mentioned in a few reliable sources, like this, but not in a personal context. Maybe merge to his NGO articles? --Haemo 23:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, seams notable enough.Callelinea 03:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I agree with Haemo that this is borderline but I think a short separate article is better than a merge in this case since the article could be relevant to several articles and it is better to keep the information on the individual in one single place. -- DS1953 ^talk 17:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Little presence on the internet. No Spanish Wikipedia article FWIW. On the other hand, seems to have collaborated with Amnesty, the UN, etc. From what info is available, Mr Ponce Silén has credentials comparable to scores of people I know personally - and I wouldn't put any of those people on Wikipedia. A very borderline case...--Targeman 00:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - seems this is on the borderline since other than the nominator, we're all a little on the fence here. :-) So why I land weakly on this side: there's no indication that any of his NGOs are notable, what they've done etc. If more of that information were available this could be a keeper, if it just doesn't exist because the NGOs are really not notable, then delete is the right way to go. Carlossuarez46 01:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject does not really pass the notability standard. As an aside, who sets up 27 NGOs ? That seems a suspiciously high number. Eusebeus 21:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources. A UN press release isn't sufficient -- Whpq 21:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Here is the best luck I had searching for him in Google news. A cluster of major U.S. newspaper articles in June 2004 mentioning him by name, one from June 2006 quoting him (the hit on the first search page is just some press release, I think, but it's also on page 7 from the Miami Herald and on page 9 from Agence France Presse), and some false positives for entertainers and sports figures with similar names. That doesn't seem like quite enough press for someone truly notable for this sort of activity. —David Eppstein 21:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Whpq and David Eppstein. These sources are not "reliable" sources to establish his notability, and he would have more credible sources with information about him were he more notable. bwowen ^talk^•^contribs 22:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coin ring

Uncited original research with no assertion of notability. --EEMeltonIV 23:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's a ring, made out of a coin. You can make a ring out of pretty much any reasonably thick, circular piece of metal. Why is a coin version of this notable? Who knows! Why is this an encyclopedia article? Also, who knows! --Haemo 03:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep A Google search for "coin ring" brought up about 35,900 hits, and although at least some of the hits seem to be about rings that aren't made from actual coins, it may deserve looking into and improving. --Maltrich 03:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, per WP:NOT#DICT - Nothing but a definition now which can easily be re-added when/if recreated again Corpx 04:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Ring (finger). --Malcolmxl5 04:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - one of several novel or unique way to make a ring, though it definately needs improvingStatisticalregression 01:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, Haemo, and Corpx. Bearian 19:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting but not notable ~ JohnnyMrNinja _{talk} 23:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CIreland and Zagalejo's points prove its notability. Non-admin closure. Boricuaeddie ^hábleme 14:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kesey's Garage Sale

Article about a novel which does not assert notability, and only briefly rehashes the plot. Gilliam 23:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I think the consensus has been that books by notable authors aren't inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't see any specific notability for this book. --Haemo 23:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to say Keep. Google Books and Google Scholar suggest that the work has received a fair amount of attention by literary critics and pop culture scholars. I've also found a substantial (six column) review from the New York Times (Mordecai Richler, "A catch-all collection largely of detritus." 7 October 1973) and a two page review from The Nation (Jerry Griswold, "Plain-Speaking Allegory" 23 February 1974). Now, I don't have complete access to all of those sources, so I'm not going to be able to expand the article by myself, but I'd be damned if this doesn't pass WP:BK. Zagalejo 02:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Note that Kesey was not the sole author of this work (which, BTW, is not a novel, as the nominator asserts). It also contains contributions by Arthur Miller, Allen Ginsberg, and Hugh Romney. [2]. Zagalejo 02:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While true, that fact in my opinion only adds to its notability, rather than detracts from it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was my point, basically. I want to keep the article, too. Zagalejo 18:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The contributors to this book establish its notability per criterion 5 of WP:BK and probably criterion 1 could be easily satisfied through print (rather than online) sources. CIreland. 09:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Zagalejo and CIreland.--JayJasper 14:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We're nominating Ken Kesey books now? Madness. Notable book by an extremely notable author, easily passes any remotely reasonable notability criteria (e.g. WP:BK). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anne-Marie Horne

Non-notable Alan Liefting 23:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely minimal context in here, and the incident described doesn't seem to have made it in the Greenpeace article. A Google doesn't turn up anything of substance with regards to this person. The article is unreferenced entirely, and thus unverifiable. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) review? 02:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with David McTaggart. She herself appears not to be notable but the event appears to be notable in the context of McTaggart's career in Greenpeace. --Malcolmxl5 05:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not individually notable. Incident has not been covered by reliable sources. --Dhartung | Talk 06:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN. One famous incident does not make one notable, as per WP:BIO#Criteria_for_notability_of_people. Bearian 19:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 04:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Durant

Not even close to meeting notability standards; ran as a candidate for a political party, lost, not a notable actvist. Stump 22:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless some reliable sources can be found to establish this subject's notability, it fails. (→vish win60 - is User:O in 3 days (possibly)) 23:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability Corpx 04:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Malcolmxl5 05:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. No cites at all?! Bearian 19:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 an article on the whole series could be created though. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lost on the Darkside

Article about an anthology that reads only like a list. Not an article: does not cite sources or assert notability. Gilliam 22:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not assert notability in any way, no sources, and looks like a list. (→vish win60 - is User:O in 3 days (possibly)) 23:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Even if the stories are notable, and that's not clear to me, the anthology as such is probably not notable. Shalom ^Hello 03:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per vishwin60. --Malcolmxl5 05:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added more information to the page. The author is notable, the anthology authors are largely notable, and Roc Press is a major publisher. Since the volume is one of an anthology series, perhaps it would be more appropriate to create a page for the whole series? Eliz81 18:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 04:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thinstuff

Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be a place for people to come and advertise their companies and their products. See WP:NOT#ADVOCATE AlistairMcMillan 14:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 22:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a place to advertise. Furthermore, it's also not an indiscriminate collection of information, or a directory. (→vish win60 - is User:O in 3 days (possibly)) 23:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yeah, looks like advertising at this point. If it becomes sourced and properly written I'd reconsider. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 02:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
week keep - there are other articles about virtualiztion software, maybe it should be merged?Statisticalregression 01:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above, and because the external sources are not referenced; possibly WP:OR. Bearian 19:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite Has been mentioned in Linux Journal, an authoraitative publication about Linux, so it does satisfy WP:CORP that it's mentioned by independent reliable sources. The ad like tone can always be rewritten.--Kylohk 15:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link above is just a brief paragraph saying "X have released Y which is a Z". Basically the magazine is just reporting on a press release they have received. I don't think that is what we are looking for when we ask for "reliable sources". AlistairMcMillan 23:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Relevant details are already in parent article. If there is well-sourced material in this article that needs to be merged into the parent article, let me know and I can provide a copy of the deleted article to harvest the material. MastCell ^Talk 20:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Big Brother 2007 racism controversy (UK)

This page is currently a fork of Celebrity Big Brother 2007 (UK) with a few minor formatting changes and some content removed. Under the guideline at Wikipedia:Content forking, this should be be deleted. Another option that was considered for this page is to use it to contain details about the racism controversy associated with the series by splitting off the relevant sections from the main article. However, by looking at the methods at WP:SIZE, the size of the article alone does not justify this, so I recommend that this page is deleted. Tra (Talk) 21:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Delete I think "Fork" is misleading here. The vast majority of information in this article is a straight up cut-and-paste from Celebrity Big Brother 2007 (UK) that have nothing to do with the specific subject of the racism controversy (e.g. most of the introduction, a paragraph on each contestant, charts of evictions, etc). In fact the source article already has an extremely large section on Accusations of racism and bullying. What exactly is new in this separate article? I suspect one or two editors who had a paragraph stripped from the main article who decided they want their own competing article, a suspicion I think is backed up since there isn't a link to the original article anywhere in the introduction of the racism one. Who would write an article on a sub-subject and not link the broader context? -Markeer 21:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete per Markeer — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 21:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Merge and delete isn't possible, per the GFDL. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So merge and redirect instead. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 22:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if the GFDL section on Secondary sections applies here as the author of this offshoot is anonymous (see article history, all major contributions were by IP addresses). However, I'm not a lawyer. If secondary sections applies, delete in toto and redirect, but userfy the article to the article creator's sandbox (in this case an IP address sandbox). Theoretically that author could incorporate what he or she believes important back into the original article. Either way, this article shouldn't exist separately from the original. -Markeer 23:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Celebrity Big Brother 2007 (UK) because the article being nominated is currently a fork. Wikipedia does not need duplicate (or even near-duplicate) articles. Yes, the SIZE of the original article doesn't justify splitting this content to a whole separate article. (→vish win60 - is User:O in 3 days (possibly)) 00:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Content forks should be merged, not deleted. --SmokeyJoe 00:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Content forking suggests that they should be nominated for deletion. Should that guideline be changed or is this a special case? Tra (Talk) 01:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The guideline says that they may be nominated for deletion. Elsewhere it says that accidental forks should be merged. I think the guideline should be rewritten to clarify that by default all forks should be merged, and that deletions should be special cases. Cases like this shouldn’t be wasting time at AfD, they should be subject a straightforward editorial decisions to merge the forked articles. Whether this one should be merged depends on the quality of the stand alone article, and its sources (see WP:N), but regardless of that decision I don’t think deletion should be used here. --SmokeyJoe 01:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, that sounds better. I've changed the guideline to that effect. Tra (Talk) 01:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - ...And was reverted. Perhaps more discussion over this issue is needed? Tra (Talk) 02:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete The problem with big brother articles is they are visited a huge amount through the programs duration and shortly after, but hardly ever when its over. We're then left with hundreds of small, effectively stub sized articles which are really quite redundant. Keeping Big Brother (and similar TV show) pages to a minimum number of larger than normally accepted sized articles is preferable to keeping many small articles. This reduces AfD's 2 years down the road when no one remembers (or wants to know on wikipedia) who Emily Parr is. WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 16:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per WikipedianProlific. I think merge and delete violates the GFDL. One page per Big Brother series is quite enough, thank you. Stifle (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I'll try to remove the POVish Jade bashing and pith.--86.29.254.249 01:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC) P.S.- tagging- how come it's condemed for having both slang/buzwords and erudite/technical words by the same tagger.[reply]

Comment- Cutting and merging out some of the bezaar and unsourced entries. --86.25.49.3 03:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of pairs of colleagues

This list is an indiscriminate collection of information. It would also be unmaintainable, and the topic itself isn't clearly defined. Potentally original research as well. Sr 13 21:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It certainly is a indiscriminate collection of information. I also believe that it has to wide a base and many important "pairs of colleagues" might get left out. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 21:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, no criteria for inclusion. Indiscriminate list. Woefully incomplete. Original research. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Break it up Will never be complete, and would even crash a Vista PC. Blueboy 96 23:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly original research, an indiscriminate collection of information, and a directory. (→vish win60 - is User:O in 3 days (possibly)) 00:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - list of any two people who worked together for any reason at any time. But not three people. Three is bad, for some reason. --Haemo 03:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PURE trivia - disallowed by WP:FIVE Corpx 04:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Malcolmxl5 05:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is better covered in the more specific subgroups of Lists of pairs. You see? I don't always say "keep", but my agreement is not based on the wording of the nom with which I disagree. Also -if this is deleted, who will make sure that all of the information contained in this article has been re-assigned to the others I mentioned? Surely you don't want the work of other editors to have been wasted. I volunteer to assist in this. Tvoz |talk 19:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with a category. Bearian 20:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That idea works for me. Tvoz |talk 20:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per indiscriminate collection of information and original research. Carlosguitar 08:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Fabrictramp 14:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 both. Sr 13 07:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Myachi

Originally prodded; admin suggested I afd which I have done. Mainly I'm concerned with the notability of this. This also concerns List of All Myachis. Both articles seem to have no reliable sources. -WarthogDemon 21:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No independtely reliable sources. I also did a google search to attempt to find some sources and pulled up nothing. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 21:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While it appeared on a segment on ABC, the main article fails to assess more reliable sources than that one. Maybe it will get notable in a near future, but for now it isn't. The second article has no encyclopedic content. -- lucasbfr talk 22:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, especially the second article. The second article (list) has only one real source, which is a primary source. Given that there is a secondary source on the first article, it was greatly outnumbered by the sole primary source. It might gain notability in the future, but right now, no. (→vish win60 - is User:O in 3 days (possibly)) 00:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't freaking delete, Myachi is new; you can't expect there to be a lot of reliable sources -- BrownsFanForLife 01:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC) — BrownsFanForLife (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I actually have 24 Google News Archives hit, unfortunately most of them subscription, stretching back to 2001, but several seem to be repeats. The only actual free link that looks to be a reliable source is this one in the Tennessean from 2004. I think this is kind of on the edge at this point - but the article is terrible, and if it sticks around should be hacked way down, much like Hacky Sack. Weak delete Tony Fox (arf!) review? 02:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hack it way down? If you do that, you might as well delete it. The article is that big because there's a lot of information about Myachi. You can't just say "It's a small sack filled with sand that is tossed around on the back of the hand" because that says NOTHING about what Myachi really is or how you play the game. If anyone starts to delete info, please at least talk to me about what's going on... I'm sorry there aren't many sources available, but I want the article to at least explain the basic points of the game. -- BrownsFanForLife 03:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - right now it reads very much like advert/marketing information - and can't imagine a reason to have a list of all the color variations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Statisticalregression (talk • contribs).

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

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

The result was delete. Bucketsofg 01:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Kerouac in popular culture

Unlike other "in popular culture" articles, this one is basically List of mentions of Jack Kerouac, making it essentially a WP:NOT vio. Bulldog123 21:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree definitely a indiscriminate collection of information. It includes every possible reference of Jack Kerouac. It might as well include an incindent when a school newspaper metioned him. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 21:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has Jack Kerouac ever existed outside of popular culture? ~ Infrangible 21:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Another trivia collection without the sources. Maybe some info can be transferred into the main article in a sub-section, but little may be salvageable. --JForget 22:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the first line says it all: "This is a list of popular culture references made to American Beat author Jack Kerouac." If only more "in pop culture" articles were so honest. --Haemo 23:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources; clearly some indiscriminate collection of information, which Wikipedia is not. (→vish win60 - is User:O in 3 days (possibly)) 00:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hopelessly unmanageable listcruft. Just a list of mentions, nothing more. Kill it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FIVE - Not a trivia collection Corpx 04:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a violation of WP:NOT#INFO. Complete and utter unencyclopedic content. María (críticame) 18:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LC (points 1, 2, 3, 4, 6) Stifle (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is doubtlessly an interesting source of Kerouac trivia for a fan, but does definitely not belong in an encyclopedia. --Targeman 00:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom., and all of the above.--JayJasper 14:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 07:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Oswald

Subject of article fails WP:ATT and WP:BIO. Cannot find any independent significant sources and cannot find his books at the major outlets Nv8200p talk 21:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. An arcane subject (runes?) if ever there was one, and there are no independent sources - indeed, one of the external links was added by Runemaker (talk · contribs), who may have a COI. Shalom ^Hello 03:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Borderline noteability. Author of the article hasn't been online since the 30th April, a shame as it would be nice to hear her opinion. Inclusion of a fairly good quality informal picture seems odd on an article of such small size. We must remember to put that forward for deletion to if this is indeed deleted. WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 16:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can't see how he meets WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I tired looking for sources and his books, couldn't find any. Nothing wrong with an arcane subject, but at this point subject doesn't seem Notable enoughStatisticalregression 02:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Bearian 19:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --ST47Talk·Desk 14:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United Studios of Self Defense

This McDojo article patently fails WP:Notability with zero reliable, independent sources and none to be found in a Google News search. Without sources, this is very clearly spam. VanTucky ^(talk) 20:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with the other editors here. This article is being abused and shaped for advertisement purposes, with little fact and large helpings of bias. I propose that it be deleted. NJM

Comment There seem to be an awful lot of these around, though - at least in my neck of the woods (Southern California). Need to look into the company more closely. If they're commercially successful they may be notable for that, even if the quality of their instruction is equivalent to McDonalds' in the food business. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly, from the simple anecdotal accounts I've read and heard, they're not too bad. The McDojo thing is mostly referencing the vast amount of schools. But simple size of the organization isn't notability, and when so vast a school-system as this doesn't have equally significant coverage...that says to me that they aren't notable enough for encyclopedic treatment. For an organization encompassing 170 separate facilities nation-wide, shouldn't they be getting more coverage if they are notable? VanTucky ^(talk) 23:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources are cited to provide verifiability and establish notability. Stifle (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if deleted a less neutral version is libable to be created, making the best of whats there might be a better option. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 08:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What might happen in the future on this subject is not an excuse for letting an unsourced, non-notable article stand. If the situation arises, we will deal with it. VanTucky ^(talk) 16:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My point was it would be better to have a cleaned version of this then nothing p.s. started to clean--Nate1481(^t/_c) 16:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - But it doesn't fundamentally matter whether it is neutral and clean or not, it patently fails WP:Notability and WP:V. I might have a really great article on myself, but it would still fail WP:BIO. VanTucky ^(talk) 16:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Blunden Harbour

The result was Speedy delete. CSD G12: copyvio. Mike Peel 21:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This subject does not meet WP:ATT. No significant third party coverage. Article looks like a promo by the distributor. Nv8200p talk 20:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G12 as a copyvio of [3]. Leaving that aside, there are only 70 Ghits for the film name plus "Robert Gardner" - theser are commercial sites, not critical reviews, so it's not a notable film. Shalom ^Hello 03:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Shalom, tagged article as such. DMacks 16:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 07:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Helicopter

The subject does not meet the criteria for notability per WP:MUSIC. I can only find one album and it is not even listed in the article. No significant media coverage. Nv8200p talk 19:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No multiple non-trivial sources asserted. I could only find a MySpace link to this band. Spellcast 19:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After Chubbles added all those sources with non-trivial mentions, I changed my decision to keep. Spellcast 22:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. - Philippe | Talk 19:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure where you're looking, but a couple search engines brought up a bunch of results. They're getting a fair bit of media coverage (no surprise, when you're on Thurston Moore's label...). Added five nontrivial media sources. Chubbles 22:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as revised. No evidence of a national tour? --Dhartung | Talk 23:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it seems they did in March of this year. Added another source (requires a subscription, but the key sentence showed up in a Yahoo cache). Chubbles 23:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the work done by Chubbles - nice work. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 02:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you look at the diff between the original AFD notice and now, there's no comparison. Good work, Chubbles, and the notability and refs are there. Shalom ^Hello 03:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets WP:BAND. Closenplay 14:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are now plenty of 3rd party reliable sources to establish notability per WP:Music. Cricket02 05:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 07:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russophobia

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Original essay, a collection of arbitrary facts from newspapers, internet sites and similar sources to prove the existence of a particular prejudice. We have already had Anti-Hellenism (deleted), Anti-Bosniak sentiment(deleted), recreated Bosniakophobia (and deleted again), Anti-Hungarian sentiment(deleted), etc. compiled in exact same way.--Mbuk 23:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and clean up - per this search --Addhoc 23:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is also [4] and [5] search. Just as convincing. That is not an argument. --Hillock65 23:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't operate on a principle of precedent, so your searches aren't relevant. The link I've provided demonstrates that multiple authors have devoted chapters to this subject and therefore a reasonable article could be written. Addhoc 23:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the same arguments stated at AfD for Estophobia. --Novelbank 00:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AfD arguments for Estophobia et al. Bigdaddy1981 01:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hesitant delete When being informed about this AfD, I noticed that we we have a lot of articles along the same lines; anglophobia, francophobia, lusophobia, serbophobia, etc. A lot of these are obviously nothing but neologisms or merely contrived terms for "hatred of" or, as many similar articles are named, "anti-XXX sentiment". Changing the article titles would actually give the articles more merit. However, it should be noted that there's a huge difference difference between, for example, racism against Chinese, which sports a long and rich tradition of Western chauvinist nastiness, and borderline cases, like lusophobia, which smacks of almost as much pouty nationalism as estophobia. Peter ^Isotalo 07:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This topic is not backed by verification in reliable sources, and most of its contents seem to be original research. And while this may be more a cleanup rather than a deletion issue, it also is extremely POV. VanTucky ^(talk) 07:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That doesn't make sense. You admit that it's not even a deletion issue, yet you vote delete? -^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 15:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As pointed out by Novelbank and Bigdaddy1981, the same principles apply as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estophobia, which also should be kept. I would support renaming this article here to Anti-Russian sentiment. Digwuren 13:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried to make this move several times, but it was usally quickly reverted by lovers of stingy terminology. `'Míkka 17:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per VanTucky. Oysterguitarist 14:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename as "anti-Russian sentiment" or something like that. Russophobia is too much of a neologism. The article is well cited and should be kepted. The nominator is misleading since he only mentioned a number of deleted articles of barely similar nature but not the many more similar articles that have been kept. Just look at the entries on Template:Discrimination sidebar. --CGM1980 16:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete and merge w/ Russo-X articles. I can't accept voting "keep" an article which has around 20 {fact} tags. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone went nuts with the fact tag, but there are 40 references in the article. --CGM1980 19:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but there are masses of unsourced claims and arguments in there also. Bigdaddy1981 23:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Though, I believe the article needs some serious improvement, and should possibly be renamed "anti-Russian sentiment", with a redirect from "Russophobia. Padishah5000 19:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect - Perhaps the best idea would be to create a general list on the subject. List of Anti-national sentiments would be the name of the new article. It would have a section for each of the many different national sentiment articles that have been created. The more well known sentiments sections could have a link to there main article, and the lesss know sentiments just the section. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 21:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a really good idea. The template solution, i.e. Template:Discrimination sidebar, doesn't work very well. I personally hate that template as it contains everything and the kitchen sink. But pulling out an article List of anti-national sentiments would probably be a much better solution. There is a need to pull these topics together more than they are right now. --CGM1980 21:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You know what creeps me out? Those little russian dolls that fit inside one another (shiver) ~ Infrangible 21:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article certainly needs some work, but historically the subject of Russophobia is a valid one. If it can be refocused on historical instances, like Britain in the Great Game and such, then it should stay. matt91486 22:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - another case of radical deletionism. This term has been used and referenced by:
- Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- The west's new Russophobia is hypocritical - and wrong The Guardian (UK)
- a book title "Bram Stoker and Russophobia: Evidence of the British Fear of Russia in Dracula and The Lady of the Shroud"

Anything with those many prominent references is a strong keep.

-- Fuzheado | Talk 02:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn't seem to be very well written or notable. Article lacks scholarly opinions and violates WP:NEO. I don't even know if Russophobia is even the proper term for the idea.--Sefringle^Talk 05:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't trust the 1911 Britannica, I suggest you consult "The Genesis of Russophobia in Great Britain" (Harvard University Press, 1950).[6] --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Sefringle^Talk 05:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletions. -- Sefringle^Talk 05:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AfD is not cleanup. Clearly a notable topic in its own right. —Xezbeth 09:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unlike the WP:POINT-violating Estophobia, this article goes well beyond the 1990s and looks at hundreds of historical cases. Likewise Russophobia is actually a genuine modern issue [7]. --Kuban Cossack 11:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why don't you attempt to delete Anti-Polish sentiment to test the reaction? Russophobia is a valid, well-established concept with 663 Google Books hits and 60,000 Google hits, including encyclopaedias ("combat a wild outbreak of Russophobia" in the 1911 Britannica[8]), monographs ("The Genesis of Russophobia in Great Britain", Harvard University Press, 1950), articles in major media outlets ("The West's New Russophobia Is Hypocritical" from The Guardian), and academic discussions (search for "Europe's periodic bouts of Russophobia" in The New York Times). --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the article would based on academic sources like Britannica, monographs or publication in peer-reviewed journals, I would never nominate it for delition. But it is now a collection of tendentiously interpreted fact, exactly like Estophobia article whose deletion you supported. Double standards?--Mbuk 19:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're confusing two rather different things here: the notability of the subject itself and the current contents of the article. If what you're claiming is true, then the contents of the article needs to be reworked, perhaps reworked extensively, to remove the "tendentious interpretations" and keep it NPOV and verifiable. But the current contents of this article being improper (not that I'm making the claim either way) doesn't change the notability of the subject itself. In my view at least, the AfD debates should be decided on that latter concept, whereas the contents of the article should determine how it gets edited, not whether it gets deleted or kept. IgorSF 05:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It exists and is not a neologism.--Urthogie 14:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Topic is noteworthy, but the article should be rewritten from scratch. Most of the article is unsourced and seems to be opinions, not facts. All of it is badly fractured into pieces, structure should be re-thought as well. Maybe move it into userspace until the article is ready for mainspace? Sander Säde 14:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if you care to extend the same curtousy to Estophobia, and put that into namespace (and keep there for good if possible ;). Although I must say, some of stuff in that article that is used as genuine refrences, will only help to expand Russophobia to newer levels, like this nationalist garbage. Lovely text, Lukashenko is nothing but a Russian puppet, Communism was also a Russian plague (although neither Lenin, Trotsky, Marx or Stalin were technically Russian) for which we Belarusans (not Belarusians btw) suffered. Forgetting to mention that Belarus was a founding republic of the USSR, and the first congress of the RSDRP took place in Minsk... extravagant :D --Kuban Cossack 15:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why you don't read the AfD about Estophobia? I supported putting article into userspace for now there as well... Sander Säde 18:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is valid. A clean up might be needed but one does not delete an article to clean it up... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable topic with existent sources. Needs a rewrite not a delete.--Konstable 19:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, trimming off items that are unreferenced. Stifle (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Anti-Russian sentiment is a very real political phenomenon, especially in the ex-Communist bloc. The political discourse of many countries (Poland nowadays, China under Mao) revolves around the issue of hatred/mistrust toward Russia. I vote for Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor's proposal to create a list on the subject. --Targeman 00:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The word exists and is not a neologism, as per a Google search, for instance. Any unreferenced material should be deleted, and any POV content NPOV'ed, but the subject itself (as well as this particular word) exists. For those wishing to compare to the Estophobia AfD debate, I applied essentially the same criteria in both cases, and the results are different. IgorSF 00:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Addhoc and the mass canvassing by the nominator. I still believe it should be renamed to Anti-Russian sentiment, however. --Pan Gerwazy 01:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the topic is valid even if the article is less that it should be (and also more than it should be; trim, trim, trim). Carlossuarez46 01:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I remember a serious scientific discussion in Finland some years ago on whether Ryssäviha (hatred of Russians) existed in Finland in the 19th century and earlier, or whether it only emerged after the Finnish Civil War. (In fact, the Finnish article discusses this at length.) -- Petri Krohn 03:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - of course. At to everyone making a connection between this article and Estophobia, I suggest a careful re-read of WP:Point. Balcer 05:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep should be kept, just like we ought to have the article Anti-Estonian sentiment. These phenomena are existent. E.J. 08:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. All these Anti-national sentiment articles should be somehow dealt with, probably tightly watched over, particularly for the adherence of their content to their scope. Currently many of these articles provide arena for the nationalists of all sorts for their POV-pushing campaigns. Russophobia is not an exception here, as it currently discusses not only its topic but also all the grievances of individual editors, including past military conflicts, modern international politics and many others. --Lysy^talk 10:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Russophobia is a very popular phenomen in Germany and other european country(GB, Finland) in wikipedia is two german Anti-German sentiment and Organised persecution of ethnic Germans--Jaro.p 10:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and also second Lysy's comment.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 11:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Russophobia is probably second only to Antisemitism (and I'd even say those fobias are struggling for supremacy with swings of political currents) in the list of Western fobias. Article is bad though, should be worked on. RJ CG 14:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable but needs cleanup Taprobanus 14:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just needs cleanup. To admit that this article is merely POV and need souces the not to delete is idiotic in my books. -^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 15:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AFDs on discrimination topics need keen attention and a higher bar than just mobs of people with poor arguments for their vote (which *FD are not supposedly based merely upon). Clearly anti-Russian sentiment does and has existed, and the article presents evidence of it. I find it very troubling that some of the people that voted to delete Estophobia are voting to keep Russophobia or likewise among other ethnic discrimination articles. BTW, bad title e.g. "it's a neologism, nuke!" is not an argument for deletion, but for the simple act of renaming. And PS: Does anyone ever actually check to see if accusations of WP:SYNTH or WP:POINT are real, or just made as the result of POV? Pointing out acts of discrimination or prejudice are just that. And prejudice -- much prejudice -- really does exist in the world, believe it or not, and as such has encyclopedic merit. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 16:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am surprized that an experienced editor does not see the difference between encyclopedic and nonencyclopedic topic. Yes discrimination exists, but I seriously doubt that anyone will write Madagascarophobia in the near future. Anti-Estonian sentiment is a current political development spurred by not very smart actions of Estonian government, i.e., the political (over)reaction to political developments, rather than blind prejudice. The authors failed to find any more older examples despite their panic efforts to dig some more anti-Estonian dirt. In the Soviet times, Estonians, along with the other two Baltic states were very respected in Soviet Union for their laborousness, higher general culture, and higher living standard. Of course, like everywhere, there were bigots, there were political repressions, but there was never "Estophobia" (nor lithuanophobia or smth), and this attempt to present the current political mishap as an ethnic hatred is sickening. `'Míkka 21:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You obviously never visited Soviet Union, when they were part of it. You would know more. While they were respected for laborousness, higher general culture, and higher living standard, there had always been a suspicion of them being "foreigners" and not truly Soviet. It went to commical - I remember when Latvian actors were complaining that the only roles they were most often asked to play was Nazis in the WWII movies. There has always been a lot of prejudice and the frequent use of racial slurs in reference to Balts is one more proof of it. Even though Estophobia was deleted, I believe, latent hatred and intolerance towards all three Baltic people is a noteworthy subject. It hasn't gone anywhere. --Hillock65 22:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Neither have you. If you are going to shoot a film about the Zulu Uprising in the United States who are you going to ask to play the Zulus? Any generic black person or specific Zulu-looking black people? And from a POV of black person, I get payed to dress up and run on set for three days, what have I got to loose? Same thing with any Latvian in 1970s offered to make a bit of cash for a few days work in German uniform. That is Latviaphobia??? You make me laugh. --Kuban Cossack 22:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh yeah, a Russian in German uniform will never look authentic, only Latvian will. Your racist theories finally persuaded me, I give up. --Hillock65 22:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        ??? So you are saying that the unrefrenced OR statement that no Russians ever played Germans in Soviet time films is based on looks alone is an example of Latviaphobia towards Latvians because a Latvian may have been chosen to act as a stuntmen. What are you on about ??? --Kuban Cossack 23:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You are obviously struggling with English, I didn't write that. Read the above section again carefully. I don't have anything new to add. --Hillock65 23:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't necessarily believe that any anti-X topic is encyclopedic, but I do believe that if it can be cataloged and identified, then it probably is, as long as the X of the topic is itself encyclopedic, and the instances of anti-X were notable enough to have press or academic attention. If there is, in fact, a trend or pattern of prejudice against Madagascarians, which has multiple and distinct covered incidents etc., then Anti-Madagascarian sentiment is IMO valid -- as valid as, say, Westboro Baptist Church. In Estophobia's case, there certainly seems to be anti-Estonian sentiment; not knowing anything about it personally, a cursory search turns up [9] [10] [11]. So it arguably exists. What I find upsetting is the increasing number of people who stamp any anti-X topic AFD with "All Anti-X topics should go". So despite whether a form of prejudice exists, it may not be covered, because coverage of ethnic prejudice topics is apparently inherently unencyclopedic. I don't agree. My main argument is that a real firm bar needs to be used in AFDs on ethnic discrimination topics, particularly recent forms, because of the potential for denial and bias. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 23:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up Wow if this much energy was put into improving the article it would jump-class. Benjiboi 19:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Demonstrates notability and is pretty well cited. Can certainly use some tightening, though. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 20:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although rename is in order as mentioned before. Also, the article requires large cleanup. Suva 14:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yet another "anti-X" or "X-phobia" article that posits an original narrative. Wikipedians should not be the ones dictating what comprises the phenomenon of "Russophobia" but unfortunately that is the case here. I'm not convinced that there exists a substantial amount of RS discussing this as a phenomenon such that we can narrate this phenomenon without original synthesis. The Behnam 16:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RS? Any history textbook on Central Europe. I agree the article sucks at times (the religious argument seems especially dubious) but I've lived in Central/Eastern Europe and believe me, many, many people there hate Russia's guts with a passion. And the hatred is much older than the latest 40-year military occupation. Anti-Russian sentiment in Poland, for instance, plays the same role that security paranoia plays in US elections. If you have any Russian connection or sympathies, you don't get elected. Sad but true. --Targeman 18:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't take a lot of looking: [12]. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't that I contest the existence of people who dislike Russians, but I don't see the grounds for Wikipedia narrating a phenomenon "Russophobia" as we do by tying together what could be disparate cases of 'anti-Russian sentiment' and presenting them as unified (part of the same story about "Russophobia"). Generally the narration of a phenomenon such as this should be done by non-fringe academics (as is the case for antisemitism) who decide what events comprise the phenomenon of Russophobia. Also this kind of academic coverage would have to be fairly mainstream or else we will have big case of placing undue weight on fringe views. Right now I'm simply not seeing any narration here that isn't original research and I'm not convinced that substantial RS scholarly narrations exist to work from. If you think that you can address this matter, please do and I will consider changing my position in this debate. The Behnam 20:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and second Lysy's comment. If we have articles about xxx-phobia, why Russians should be special? ellol 17:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 00:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Peacent 15:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Celebi Sub-Quest

This article has, as the template indicates, a context problem, but more importantly, a notability problem. If we had an article for every sub-quest or objective in the Pokémon games, we would have dozens of little stubs all around the place. Over that there is a lack of sources, and it sounds to me like the article would be more appropriate in a video game website than on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a video game guide. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 20:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's a side quest in Pokemon crystal. It's, maybe, worth one line in the main article. --Haemo 03:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as game-guide material. I'm not familiar with things Pokemon, but even a mention in the main article is probably borderline cruft. CIreland 09:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not Bulbapedia. Stifle (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks, I had never heard about this site. ^^ ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 21:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bearian 19:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 07:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B-Wanted

Previously nominated, closed as a no-consensus. This is a "stub" article about a manga series that was never translated and released in the English speaking world. There is no information on the series other than a list of characters, and ISBN numbers of the Japanese publications. A Google search turns up nothing on this series except what is already found in this article, ISBN numbers. In short, no content, no assertion of notability, very little chance that this article could be improved or expanded unless someone has translated the series into English. Not to mention that there is nothing about this series on the Japanese Wikipedia, making me question notability in general. No author's article to merge the little that is in this article with, either. Rackabello 20:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There simply aren't enough reliable/verifiable sources for an article on this subject. --Hetar 20:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 20:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It simply is not notable by WP:BK or WP:FICTION. --21:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete - no reliable sources back up notability. --Haemo 23:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There were six volumes published by a major publisher, and it was serialized in a major manga publication. So far as I'm concerned that's enough to make it noteable. Being a stub is not a crime, and the fact that none of us voting here have not read this doesn't mean that NOBODY has and cannot further expand at a later date. There are English-language fan pages, but I guess maybe none of those folks have made it here... YET. Snarfies 14:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The issue here is a complete lack of informative content, almost nothing on the web (without an understanding of Japanese) to go by, and no assertion of notability. If this is truly notable, and it can be expanded to show that, then I will withdraw the AfD. However, as it stands, this page is not even a stub; its a rephrasing of the title, a list of characters, and a list of the publication's ISBN numbers. In order for this to become a stub, some basic verifiable information above what is already there needs to be added. As far as I can tell, that doesn't exist in English at this time. Besides, this manga has never been released in English, is it so noteworthy and made such a worldwide impact that we need an article on an untranslated Japanese manga on the English Wikipedia Rackabello 16:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No Japanese Wikipedia page = not notable. Doceirias 18:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not established. Stifle (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to Diet of Worms. Non-Admin Closure New England ^{(C) (H)} 20:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edict of Worms

User:Franky210, the original nom made this comment: "The content of this article is exactly the same as the second half of the article Diet of Worms and a subsection in the article Martin Luther." Nom made discussion improperly and forgot to sign, so I fixed it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Diet of Worms ~ Infrangible 22:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete it has been merged-Turtopotamus{{SUBST:File:Turtopotamus.JPG 03:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep (for the history), merge and redirect. The Diet of Worms is an important event and it is quite possible that spin-off articles like this could be created at some point, but with the amount of content there is here now, it is better in context as part of the larger article. Deletion is out of the question, as a previous version of this page has already been merged with Diet of Worms on a previous occasion, and the page needs to be saved as a redirect for the edit history according to the GFDL. (By the way: Somebody in Worms should take a photo of the large Luther monument there.) Pharamond 05:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to Diet of Worms, I see no other reasonable option. - Fayenatic london (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Diet of Worms. Stifle (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, content already merged with Diet of Worms. --Targeman 00:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, no need for two articles on basically the same thing. Bearian 19:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Opus (magazine)

The result was Speedily deleted by SchuminWeb per CSD:A7. Stifle (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No secondary sources, nothing to establish notability, nothing to say that can't be said in the student union article. Delete view. Bridgeplayer 20:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7/A1, no assertion of notability, no context Rackabello 05:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Student publications are not inherently non-notable (see Blitz (magazine) or Tharunka). However this article needs some content and reliable sources. Recurring dreams 12:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 08:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unreleased Limp Bizkit songs

Unsourced WP:LISTCRUFT, no Relaible sources can be found for many of these songs, and being leaked on myspace isn't a source, violates WP:NOR as well Delete-- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a single source anywhere. Any editor could easily add Twinkle twinkle little star in the list. I'd still like to point out that if it was the list of all songs that were released by the band and the info could be either found in other articles and/or with reliable sources, I would've voted keep. Unfortunately this is not, and will never be the case for this article. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 20:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see any UNreliable sources, much less RELIABLE sources. Listcruft. Deletecruft. Yescruft. -WarthogDemon 21:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Loads of unsourced stuff. Listcruft as well--JForget 22:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of sourcing. Stifle (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 08:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton Mall

Sub-stub on non-notable mall. Only GHits are for the strip that replaced it, so I would assume that the enclosed mall was demolished before the Internet age. Either way, it's just not a notable mall. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete view - no secondary, reliable sources to establish notability. Bridgeplayer 20:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bridgeplayer. Stifle (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A mall with only A&P and W.T.Grant as the anchors is not likely to be notable, even if someone went to a serious effort to find sources. DGG (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a commercial entity, and we need strict requirements on sources affirming notability for such businesses, in order to discourage spam. Unless sources can be provided, the article should be deleted, or merged into the article about the parent community. --El on ka 16:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. "Merge" would not have been too different given the already-present coverage in the target article. Sandstein 06:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Student Voice (newspaper)

This newspaper is already covered in the college article. Insufficient notability for its own article. Lacks the multiple, reliable sources necessary for WP:N. Delete view. Bridgeplayer 20:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete This is borderline, it seems quite a controversial paper with some interesting history, just not enough of it to warrant its own article. Equally many SU papers have controversial surroundings as they are written by young, often idealistic individuals who are not yet fully aware or experienced with what they should and should not write. Merge and delete will be best for this content. WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 16:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think, in truth, there is already sufficient at Pensacola Christian College#The Student Voice. Bridgeplayer 02:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and mention in the college's article. Stifle (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week delete unless sourced--it might be sourcable, if there were someone with the knowledge prepared to go to the effort. DGG (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per WikipedianProlific and Bridgeplayer. Bearian 19:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete student newspaper. No opinion on merge. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Kurykh 21:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ARG Conservation Services

Completing incomplete nom made by an IP. I abstain. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this reads a lot like marketing copy. It has no independent reliable sources, and I got under 300 Google hits on the name, with three tangential mentions on Google News Archive. The company doesn't appear to meet corporate guidelines. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 02:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete I work for an engineering firm, and while this is a rather Wikified article, it still reads as engineering firm copy. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 content into Disney family, then redirect to the aforementioned article. —Kurykh 04:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Mae Disney

~~Delete and redirect~~ Merge and redirect to Disney family per WP:NN and WP:BIO. Subject is not notable. Strothra 19:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Walt Disney Lugnuts 19:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete and merge what can be salvagedMerge and redirect into Disney family. Philanthropy does not in and of itself mean notability. Blueboy 96 19:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Disney family. Nom, recall that "delete & merge" is not permissible under the GFDL.--Dhartung | Talk 19:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Disney family, per Blueboy96. This is not a keep. Stifle (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect. Not independently notable. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, spam. Sr 13 21:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Codeferret

Contested prod. Vanity and spam for a commercial product; no evidence of notability. Note that the author is User:Codeferret, and the edits to this article are his only contributions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spam. User's edits all appear self-promotional/spam.--Michig 19:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also agree that this is a spammer. Corpx 19:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as {{db-spam}}, so tagged. Total spam. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, G11 Vanispamcruftisement, high WP:COI as well. Editor warned. Blueboy 96 19:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 assertation of notability, WP:SNOW. Shell ^babelfish 05:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donkey Races Qld

No assertion of notability since the article was tagged in April 2007. Google searches turned up naught. I assume it's either a non-notable event, or at worst, a hoax. Eliz81 19:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, just plain non-notable. Lack of GHits only proves non-notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are some sources for donkey racing events in Queensland as part of rodeos see Google News Archive. [13]. However, there are no sources verifying the contents of this article which seems to be a hoax. The town of Buggerup referred to in the article is a clear indicator. Capitalistroadster 01:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and ors. Nothing seems to be sourcable to substanciate the article. Thewinchester ^(talk) 01:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Non-notable and mentions of Buggerup, Thorog-bred and Grayne-bred all point to a hoax article.--Melburnian 01:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if it's not a hoax, then it certainly isn't notable anyway. Lankiveil 02:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, while the subject is real, it doesnt jump out as something worthy of mention; and the article appears to be a hoax. John Vandenberg 08:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if not speedy per nom. No sources, could be a hoax per Capitalroadster's reasons. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 13:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete from ABC rural :The race involves a shot of tequila, a cup of baked beans, a sombrero and poncho, then hanging on to an unsaddled donkey as it races across the finish line. Sounds like a social club event to me!Ga rr ie 22:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, even after disconting high school, keep votes, many of the delete votes came before the article were expanded. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fairfield Union High School

Fails WP:NN. Non-notable School Kevinwong913 ^{Speak out loud!} 18:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has been agreed about a thousand times that all high schools are notable. Hawkestone 19:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Also agree on the consensus that HS are notable Corpx 19:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
N Delete no verification of notability in reliable, independent sources is provided and no WP:Notability policy supports the automatic notability of high schools. Without sources proving notability, it needs to go. VanTucky ^(talk) 21:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, this is a very short article provided very little info more then the location and school district. I would say merge with the school district or with Lancaster, Ohio JForget 22:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Strong Keep, :It was trivial finding multiple independent references for the info in this stub in the first page of Google hits. High Schools issue diplomas that are recognized by the community at large (especially employers) so this is prima facia evidence of Notability. Dhaluza 00:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are trivial mentions and dont really add to the notability of the school. Corpx 04:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said it was trivial to verify the info in the stub. Notability comes from recognition of the school's graduates by the community at large. Dhaluza 10:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been improved, and now contains info about a successful Title IX challenge, which is more than enough to establish Notability. Dhaluza 09:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no consensus that all secondary/high schools are notable. Each school has to be judged on its own merits and must conform to WP:N. The article as it currently stands is nothing more than a directory-style entry. The sources found do little more than prove that the school exists. If the article cannot be expanded it should be deleted or merged with the appropriate location article. Dahliarose 13:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my view of school notability. Eusebeus 13:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valid high school stub. -- DS1953 ^talk 16:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline Keep — Barely notable, but possibly it can be expanded or merged into the city article. — RJH (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"A school is notable only if it has attained some distinction for something other than its normal operation as a school." -from WP:SCHOOL. No longer an official WP policy, but can we take a look anyways? Kevinwong913 ^{Speak out loud!} 18:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am sorry, but this was always a silly statement. On this basis, and for consistency, we would delete most articles on malls as 'as not having attained distinction for something other than its normal operation as a mall', most footballers as 'not having attained distinction distinction for something other than their normal occupation as a footballer' etc :-) TerriersFan 18:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no third-party references present. I think the "all schools are notable" concept has fallen by now. Wikipedia is not a directory. Stifle (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This falls under Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools, and should be expanded.--Absurdist 22:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I promised myself I would never get involved with school deletions again, and I haven't even read this article, so I won't comment on it. With that said, Absurdist, I mean no disrepsect, but are you f&%!ing kidding? The guy who voiced pedestrian #162 in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City falls under the jurisdiction of Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games, but that doesn't mean we need an article on it! To whoever closes this AfD, I'd urge you to disregard the above comment, as it makes absolutely no sense and gives zero rationale as to why this page should be kept. -- Kicking222 23:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The above comments illustrate that I am not the only person who considers high schools to be notable. While I am admittedly unaware of the consensus on the issue, I am familiar with WikiProject Schools, whose members are committed to improving these articles. In addition, a beyond-trivial video game character is not a fair comparison. I would agree that the lunch lady of this school (which would be closer to your example) does not deserve her own article (although I'm willing to read a debate). --Absurdist 00:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry, but your point still is not valid. Tons of Wikiprojects have highly devoted members, but that does not mean that everything that could have an article should. For a more accurate comparison, we're talking about a school falling under the schools WProject. An indie film nobody that never saw a theatrical release is still a film, and would thus fall under the film WProject, but it should still not have a WP article. Having a project attached to something neither adds nor confirms notability. Again, I haven't read this specific article (and am consciously not doing so), but I can tell you that the mere fact that there are people devoted to creating and improving school articles does not mean that any individual school is necessarily notable. -- Kicking222 00:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no non directory content, except the quotation of the totally non-notable school song and mission statement. The first two comments say that we have agreed by consensus that all high schools are notable--they seem to be mistaken, based on the comments here, which show no such agreement, and the comments & closings of all previous high school AfDs in the last 6 months at least, where those with little content have been uniformly deleted . The argument that such even should be the consensus is not helped by content-free articles such as this one. (There is more agreement that it is possible that they might all be notable if enough effort were put into finding out, but such is true of a great many things).DGG (talk) 00:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, 400 Google News Archive results, 96 results on .oh.us, and 29 hits on .gov. A upmerge to Fairfield Union Local School District would be appropriate. John Vandenberg 02:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As currently modified by all those committed to improving school articles, the article provides multiple reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability under the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn 02:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn and others. EagleFan 15:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jayvdb, Alansohn, EagleFan, et al. High Schools should be presumed notable, although not all High school are notable. Bearian 19:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled by the distinction--given that you agree they are not all notable, are you arguing they should have articles in WP anyway? DGG (talk) 00:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am sorry but because high schools issue diplomas does not equate to validating an article on every dang one of them. Just have one article about high schools, state they issue dipolmas; if you feel a need for a list of schools add it in that single article. These caliber of articles are a melange of trivia and almamatercruft. This is an encyclopedia; not the farmer's almanac, the local newspaper, or trivial pursuits. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a significant high school with the necessary secondary sources to meet WP:N and involved with newsworthy controversy. TerriersFan 23:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimella Tunstall

I propose to delete this article on the base of WP:NOT#NEWS. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 18:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A shocking crime, but coverage has been primarily local except for some of the early reports. News filler, if it bleeds it leads, etc. --Dhartung | Talk 20:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Appears to list links to Fox news articles. Do you have any reputable news sources? ~ Infrangible 22:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thought the subject was notable at when I produced the article, but Wikipedia is not a news source and time has shown the subject to not be notable. Gold Nitrate 04:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 08:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orc Creation

Unsourced original research. Prod removed by author. OnoremDil 18:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, original reseach, per nom. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 18:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fictional topics arent notable unless they've received "significant coverage" from (non-fictional) independent sources Corpx 19:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:OR on a topic that is treated more fully (and more judiciously) in Orc (Middle-earth). Deor 01:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom; my head is spinning. I thought I was an SF fan, but this is cruft. Bearian 20:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 08:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Wars clone trooper legions

Vague definition of what a "legion" is ("just a group"), suggesting WP:OR for some entries' inclusion here (e.g. "squads" and "regiments"). In general, looks like an arbitrary list of non-notable make-believe units. No citations to reliable sources. --EEMeltonIV 18:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Fails WP:NOR.--Bryson 19:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Transwiki to Wookieepedia - No notablity established for these and no citations Corpx 19:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet more listcruft, and as per WP:NORPedro | Chat 20:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - So in-universe and devoid of references as to be potentially unsalvageable, little reason to believe that some of the groups described in the article exist in any officially released fiction from Lucasarts et al, no assertion of notability. I'd be a little iffy on even transwiki'ing it in its current state. MrZaius^talk 15:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-noteable, unreferenced and uninteresting to the average reader. If there was some clear military structure behind the 'Clone trooper legions' then perhaps this could be downsized and placed into an appropriate star wars related article but its effectively just a list of random fictional military units. WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 16:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 08:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ged Dalton

Contested Prod. Never played 1st team football in the 4 league divisions failing WP:BIO. Delete. BlueValour 18:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. BlueValour 19:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see he's on trial at Carlisle United. If he is successful, he may then meet the criteria and the article can be resurrected but, yes, as it stands now, 'not notable'. --Malcolmxl5 19:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Never played a game in a fully-professional league. Number 5 7 13:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lets wait for the result of this trial, he looks like he is impressing Carlisle United [14]. Kingjamie 19:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as never having played for a team in a fully professional league. Maybe he will do if this trial goes well, but as it stands, this has been created prematurely. Robotforaday 21:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - waiting for the result of a trial is not a strong enough reason to keep. Non-notable, with pointless name-dropping (Blackburn Rovers) included in the article. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result wasSpeedy deleted by administrator NawlinWiki (talk · contribs). — Pascal.Tesson 09:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Stops Time

Procedural nomination. There's been a bit of a fight over the speedy-deletion tag. There is a minimal claim of notability made in the article (namely participation in the Montreal POP festival). However this is a very very minor festival and there seems to be little third-party coverage to support an article for the band right now. Pascal.Tesson 17:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notability established Corpx 19:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I looked at this when I was reviewing new articles and considered tagging it for speedy deletion. The mention of the (future) festival appearance was the only thing that stopped me. Nevertheless, this is basically just another myspace band with no evidence of notability. Deor 01:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shiny Pokémon

Very non-notable game mechanic, this garbage only merits one sentence much less an entire article. Basically, the entire article can be summed up in this sentence: there is a 1/8600 chance of catching a Shiny. Zxcvbnm 17:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say merge into Pokemon game mechanics article. It's a good home in there. Toastypk 19:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, deserves only a one sentence mention in the main game. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Pokémon game mechanics. There really isn't much in the article except for some overly technical details and some anime references. --Brandon Dilbeck 05:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, valid Pokémon topic, but move to the correct title of Alternate colour Pokémon. Stifle (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as outlined by Brandon Dilbeck. It's such an insignificant part of the game that little more than a paragraph (at best) is warranted, especially considering there's absolutely no change to the game other than "it looks different!". AllynJ 00:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Brandon Dilbeck. Also, Non-notable? 85k+ results on Google prove otherwise. Metrackle 00:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If that was re: my comment, non-notable? Maybe not. Insignificant as to the playing of the game? Entirely. AllynJ 12:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN per nom. Bearian 19:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g7, author request. NawlinWiki 21:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sesquapedalian

This article is a dictionary defintion with the main entry misspelled (it should be "sequipedalian"). Sesquipedalian exists but as a redirect to Longest word in English, but I don't know how useful a redirect that is given that the word "sesquipedalian" is not actually used in the text of Longest word in English. I submitted this for a proposed deletion but the article creator removed the PROD tag. I recommend a delete. Metropolitan90 17:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's already in Wiktionary, and "sesquipedalian" does not mean "longest word in English" but "talking using longer words than are necessary" (long words are often necessary), so I agree a redirect to that article makes no sense. --Charlene 17:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to deletion - as creator I have considered the advice herein and have decided that as it exists in the Wikidictionary, it is unneeded as an article. However I am not the one who created the redirect. I know it is not the longest word in English (isn't the longest word antidisestablishmentarianism", anyway?). Sesquapedalian 17:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom--Zxcvbnm 17:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DICT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corpx (talk • contribs)
Delete, Just a dicdef, page is already on Wiktionary. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Philippe | Talk 19:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion per Sesquapedalian (talk · contribs), above. Adjectives are poor starting places for articles, generally. --Dhartung | Talk 20:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 10:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Folie de pourquoi

Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Reference given is a three word definition. Gsearch only gives a book that lists the term in a passing mention. Previous prod was contested. Fabrictramp 16:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Folie du pourquoi, the correct term (note "du", not "de") and one found in hundreds and hundreds of medical dictionaries, including many found on a Google search. Alternatively, transwiki to Wiktionary. I think that if something shows up in numerous independent medical dictionaries it's likely to be notable, but it may only be a dicdef. --Charlene 17:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move per Charlene. If this appears in medical dictionaries and encyclopedias, it is worth keeping, even if it is only a historical description of a rare symptom, and is unlikely to expand past a stub. Some subjects can be exhausted by stubs, but remain worthy of keeping, and this sounds like it might be just such a thing. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- nominator's comment: the name change sounds quite reasonable to me.--Fabrictramp 19:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and move per Charlene). I found a 2005 textbook reference, albeit brief, labeling it a rare subtype of OCD. --Dhartung | Talk 20:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've moved the page since this should be done in any case. Although I have to say I'm still not convinced that we can reasonably expect this article to be anything but a sub-stub. Why not simply list it in the "Symptoms and prevalence" section of OCD? Pascal.Tesson 21:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Because it isn't a symptom of standard OCD. It's a separate form of OCD. Listing it under "Symptoms and prevalence" might lead people to think that it was a common symptom of standard OCD, which would be misleading. --Charlene 00:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify and delete if all that can be said is that it is defined in medical dictionaries and textbooks. That's the very essence of a dicdef. DGG (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep - I'm not convinced that there is no literature on it; is there a "Wikiproject Psychiatry" that we can get involved in this? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 08:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stage show

Article is nothing more than a definition and probably could not be expand to anything but. Perhaps redirect to something else, but I'm not quite sure what. --omtay 38 15:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to stage (theatre). I don't think that's too limiting an article. --Dhartung | Talk 16:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is a good solution. It keeps a search friendly link to a good article that covers the content. --Stormbay 02:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Christian

I've debated this one for a long time, and finally decided to nominate for deletion. For starters virtually all the infomation on the page is referenced from www.davechristian.com. As the reference material is all from the subject's website, there is no real verifiability. Second, the whole thing reads like an advertisement/shrine to David Christian. As a serious, not casual, student of American military history, I have to admit I've never heard of David Christian. While I don't doubt the man is a veteran, and probably earned the awards listed, the article claims he is the "Most Decorated American officer in the Vietnam War." Fine, except that the same has been said of many other people. "Most decorated" is a highly subjective term, and usually self awarded by people, as the Pentagon, to my knowledge, never refers to anyone as the "most highly decorated." There are plenty of people who earned Distinguished Service Crosses, are Vietnam veterans, etc. but aren't necessarily notable. The only article that links here is Silver Star, and only because one of the editors to this article added his name to that article. The article has pictures showing him with famous people, but that does not confer notability. The book he wrote is out of print, so apparently not a huge demand for it. I guess to sum up, this seems more like using wikipedia as an advertiment space/shrine than an encyclopedic article, and is unverifiable from third party sources. The tone of the article doesn't help either, nor the fact that most of the editors on the page have edited only this article, or other ones to point to this article. Nobunaga24 15:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and very speedy delete My suggestion--do it now. Obvious G11 ... the most blatant vanispamcruftisement I've ever seen. Blueboy 96 16:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin Take any "keep" votes with a truckload of salt--the article is linked on the guy's Web site. That of course assumes that this isn't speedied or snowballed. Blueboy 96 16:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. No independent third-party non-trivial sources to confirm anything that's said here, and after 20 minutes searching I can't find any on Google. You'd think Vietnam's most decorated soldier would have been written about in articles on the war or on veterans, millions of which are available online, but I can't find any, which makes me question even his existence. Anybody can create a website. I'll assume good faith and not cry WP:HOAX, but again, you'd think such a highly-decorated veteran would be mentioned by somebody. --Charlene 16:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the last reference. Callelinea 17:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:VSCA applies with all the peacock language and the passel of gladhanding photographs. Promotional activity for his motivational speaking career, basically. I can see G11 but the guy does have some claims of notability making it a little borderline. --Dhartung | Talk 16:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I've searched in the Wikipedia policy space but haven't found a policy on notability of military veterans. Are there guidelines for military people biographies? Surely being a veteran or a serving member or even a medium officer is not enough. I assume high officers (generals and admirals) are notable. Colonels? Are medal winners automatically notable? Some medal winners and not others? Hu 17:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MILHIST#Notability is probably the closest thing to a written version of the normal conventions in this area that's available; it's not all that revealing in this case, though. Kirill 21:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep, He is decorated War Veteran, SEVEN purple hearts, yes the article needs work, but it can easaly be edited. Al we have to do is neutralze the article.. This guy is VERY NOTABLE. Callelinea 17:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Keep in mind that purple hearts -- even multiple purple hearts -- are very common. They are not given out for bravery or merit but for sustaining an injury in a combat environment. Note that John Kerry famously has three and no visible injury from any.--Dhartung | Talk 20:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of independent verification. As to User:Hu's question, I think that the ordinary WP:BIO guidelines should apply. Namely, the military person should have been discussed in "published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" to warrant an article. Military rank should not be a criterion in itself. --Metropolitan90 17:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I edited the article a bit and added more references, I think this article could not satisfy most of your objections. Callelinea 17:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to neutral for the time being. --Metropolitan90 04:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Weak Keep after a thorough cleanup (especially the "Youngest Most Decorated"). Medals plus appointment to VA tips it for me. As far as I can tell, he was awarded the DSC, but how that qualifies him as the most decorated, when there were Medal of Honor recipients in the Vietnam War, is beyond me (by quantity maybe?). The Ronald Reagan reference returns "page not found" and the lack of third party references is troubling. Clarityfiend 17:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reagan Web page working now. He won the awards in the 1960's. Most of the references are third party references.Callelinea 18:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Steppin' Out reference seems to have stepped out. Clarityfiend 20:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, references have been added to assert notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I still don't see an assertion of notability based in references. --Dhartung | Talk 20:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of his multiple awards?Callelinea 20:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proof that they exist? (Note: a Purple Heart is not a highly notable award.) --Charlene 00:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seven Purple Hearts, Distinguished Service Cross, Americas 2nd highest award in Combat for valor ;Two Silver Stars America's 3rd highest award for Valor in Combat ;Bronze Star Medal, Bronze Star Twice nominated for the Medal of Honor Combat Infantryman Badge Air Medal (for 25 combat assaults from a helicopter) Two Vietnamese Crosses of Gallantry(Vietnam's second highest military honor), Not enough medals for you, not notable enough? Callelinea 02:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Darrenhusted 22:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those of you who have never heard of David Christian would do well to understand that he was also the person responsible for getting the seed money to build the The Wall in Washington D.C. for Vietnam soldiers who were killed in action. If it wasn't for David, our veterans of all wars would not be receiving the benefits they are very much in need of and definitely deserve. Someone has been messing with this page before I was asked to watch over it, and we would do ourselves and any veteran an injustice if this information was removed. Please note that David still works on behalf of veterans of all wars to this day (July 14, 2007) and continues to search for POW's. I will correct whatever is wrong or not allowed on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serinwing (talk • contribs) — Serinwing (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep -- cut down if you think there's cruft, but he's certainly notable, and Philadelphia Inquirer did a profile. Deletion is not the only answer. -- Fuzheado | Talk 02:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong~~ Keep Yes the article needs massive cleanup but I had no problem finding: ~~Association of US Army profile that documents most of the material^[1],~~ his being a major interview in two documentaries "VietNam the 10,000 Day War" and "Making Sense of the Sixties: Picking Up the Pieces, V.5", on the board of two ~~major~~ petroleum companies--including one that now has an exclusive concession from Vietnam if I understood the SEC filing correctly, that he was offered Director of the VA by Reagan, and mention of a US Senate Campaign. He's also a Fox News talking head on military matters, and may have been the one responsible for the "Baghdad Bob" nickname. ~~Hard to tell because Fox has two David Christians in the same area of expertise, the other one being a Navy vet.~~ At any rate, while I disagree with his politics in most matters he's definitely notable.Horrorshowj 07:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the AUSA page is without context, but I believe related to the release of his now out-of-print book in the early 90s. It could also be a member profile page - there are no "back to the main" page links, and a backwards links check shows nothing[15]The Philadelphia Inquirer article is also related to the release of the book I think. The AUSA bit relates his working during the Carter admin, but not which postion, and states Reagan offered him a position, but he turned it down - to be asked for a job and to do the job are two different things. Running for congress in itself is not notable; getting elected is. Many of the "keeps" here are offering further evidence of notability/outside verification, but no links to that verification. The "strong keep" above is by a user who has made all but one of his less than 100 edits (at this time) during July, and many of those edits to AfD debates. The only outside verification of an award I have seen is the DSC - and I can't get the last link on the article to open to see what it has. The other remain to be verified. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence - seven Purple Hearts and 2 noms for the MoH are notable, but they require proof, not just an assertion from the subject's website. If he is a Fox News contributor, don't just say it - give us a link, or source. If he was in documentaries, a link or some kind of proof please. I'm also surprised that if he does have these on his resume, why aren't they on his website (unless I missed it)?--Nobunaga24 10:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing the AUSA page, it's even worse than you noted. Every other hit with.../wpc/ is a member benefits type page, and the article doesn't appear to be reachable through the sitemap. I apologize for including it. I thought if that organization vetted the article, it would be an acceptable reference for confirmation of it's contents. Unfortunately, I'm not sure anyone outside their IT deparment is even aware it exists. Found proof for fox news, Navy Capt is a screwup by fox.

Strong keep was an overreaction. To make sure that I understand, are you saying that if his award history can be verified you'd agree that he meets notability?Horrorshowj 01:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say he is closer to notability if that can be verified. But as far as American service personnel, without a Medal of Honor, I would say that awards alone are not notable. Thousands and thousands have received the medals listed, and everything below the DSC are, while admirable, basically not enough to get in an encyclopedia. The DSC, IMHO, in and of itself, isn't enough notability to get an article. I guess for me, everything listed in here individually aren't notable enough to justify an article, and the sum of them really isn't either. Add to that the unverifiability, I decided to list for AfD. When I say I mulled it over a long time, I'm not exaggerating. My first edit on this was over a year ago, and I thought of listing it then for AfD, but waited to see how it evolved, checking back every once and a while. But in all that time, it hasn't improved much. Incidentally, he isn't a talking head for Fox News as far as I can tell. I found one reference that refered to a David Christian as a "consultant" to Fox News, but not what type of consultant. I also can't find anything on this particular DAC Conulting firm other than davidchritian.com--Nobunaga24 01:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you on how long you waited, and I understand nominating it for COI if nothing else. I just think the article's fixable. I didn't appreciate you taking a cheap shot about my AfD participation and time on wiki. I've participated in a lot of AfD but only voted to keep 4-5 of them. One of those was procedural, because the article was less than 8 hours old and the nom admitted he knew it didn't meet speedy. Not only against deletion policy, it's just rude. Horrorshowj 04:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article needs some good housecleaning but decorated veteran involved in advocacy activities and who's activities are covered in a book, I am for giving this BLP time to improveStatisticalregression 02:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as per back and forth above. Barely notable. Bearian 19:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.ausa.org/chapweb/wpc/david_christian.htm

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 08:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MessengerDiscovery Live

Fails WP:WEB, WP:OR and WP:COI. Google Search only brings up download links, and it's wikipedia article as it's 7th result. Wikipedia is not free advertisement. No sources, no notabilty, vanity article. Macktheknifeau 14:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, NN software, fails WP:SOFTWARE without third-party attestations of notability. --Dhartung | Talk 16:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of any coverage from media Corpx 17:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hardly any notability, could be considered WP:SPAM--♫Twinkler4♫ ^{(Talk to me!)} 03:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above.--Absurdist 18:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 08:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University Baptist Church (Waco, Texas)

Prod deleted because founder is supposedly a famous musician (Personally, if it wasn't for wiki, I never would have heard of him). But that aside, nothing in the article indicates that this is anything other than a local church providing services every other church in the world does. If it did anything notable, such as host a nationwide show where the services were broadcasted, I am sure someone would have said so by now. Postcard Cathy 14:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability asserted at all. Blueboy 96 16:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7. No assertion of notability. --Charlene 16:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability is not transferable; not everything a famous person does is notable. --Dhartung | Talk 16:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the above reasons. At best, this should be a mention in an article about the founder. --Fabrictramp 16:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked Fabric and it is listed in the founder's article. In fact, more is listed there than in this article! 172.134.46.45 07:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although the founder is notable, the church is not, based on what's in the article. - Philippe | Talk 19:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Nothing special, there 1,000's of such Baptist churches across the Bible Belt. Possible mention as per Fabrictramp. Bearian 19:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete for lack of content, not for non-notability. While our article fails to show it, an internationally noted tragedy affecting the then current pastor who is notable himself happened at the church. That incident belongs first and foremost in our article on the pastor. However, with two articles that have reason to link here, we may well want an article on the church itself. However, this is a sub-stub, not the article we would want at the title. I don't think it would hurt anything for this to be deleted due to lack of content, rather than lack of notability, leaving redlinks in place. Nice to know there are Baptist churches in Waco that aren't splits from First Baptist though. GRBerry 19:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 08:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Pavlina

DRV permitted the rewriting of this article, given new sources provided. Still, weak delete, as there remains a concern over notability. Xoloz 14:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are plenty of sources here, and while none of them go into tremendous depth about Pavlina, I think taken together they are adequate. Note that WP:N no longer requires multiple non-trivial sources: it instead requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Taken together, I'd say the depth of coverage in these sources is significant enough to warrant the article. JulesH 15:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above -- article is well sourced, and sources seem significant enough to establish notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, revised article clearly demonstrates notability. --Dhartung | Talk 20:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable for status as award-winning programmer, for multiple mainstream media references of his Personal Development blog material and for the fact that his notability extends across such different fields. --Irrevenant [ talk ] 21:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but I would add warning tags. Bearian 19:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, one of the most popular blogs in the blogosphere. That is certainly credible. Zenja72 11:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Kurykh 04:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canada national American football team

Non-notable, if such a team exists at all. I am Canadian and a lifelong sports fan, and I've never heard of such a team. Found no ghits, and article has no indication of players, coaches or a website. PKT 14:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:INEVERHEARDOFIT isn't an argument for deletion. International sports teams are notable, and this one clearly exists as a moment's research shows. JulesH 15:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, Delete. Looking through the web site of the international association (IFAF) that the team is supposedly a member of, it doesn't look as though they've played in any of their tournaments. The junior Canadian team has won several tournaments, by the looks of it, but the senior team doesn't even appear to have ever played in one. JulesH 15:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JulesH. Note that I added this to Template:National sports teams of Canada a while ago, which has the effect of bloating the "what links here" for this article. heqs ·:. 19:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's nothing here but an unsourced placeholder. I would have gone with "weak keep" on almost anything WP:V because they are playing in the top-level amateur league, but they've only joined in 2004 and seem to have no international track record even yet. --Dhartung | Talk 20:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The junior team is actually quite well known and probably should have its own article. Article would have junior or something like that in the title though. heqs ·:. 00:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed. The junior team has won international tournaments sponsored by NFL, which clearly makes them notable. JulesH 11:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Since the nomination, a ref was added to the article and it has been established that the subject in question meets the standards required by WP:PORNBIO. Non-admin closure. Boricuaeddie ^hábleme 14:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry Marie

AfDs for this article:

Second nomination, a year after the first AfD. This article has had no new sources added since then, so fails WP:V and WP:RS, and is still about a person who satisifies none of the WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO notability requirements. Valrith 14:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:PORNBIO. No awards, not a big movie list...Corpx 17:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the awards mentioned below. Corpx 20:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It's hard to judge what constitutes notability here as the WP:PORNBIO guidelines are quite subjective, but there are vague assertions that she meets criteria 1 and 3. I found a reference to support the fact that she won that Scorelands award 2 years running, but it could probably be replaced with a more reliable one. This does seem sourcable. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 17:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A complete nobody. Hawkestone 19:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being voted "Plumper of the Year" in XL magazine two years in a row seems to make this person notable per WP:PORNBIO. --Oakshade 20:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if there were a reliable source for that claim, it wouldn't satisfy the notability criteria. Valrith 03:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And make sure to add a photo. EdRooney 21:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Afro-Asians

I think there are several problems. Primarily I think that this is more of a catagory than an article. I also think that there are problems in general with the article for instance although it states that it refers to Asian in the US English sense it does not go on to define what this means. Asia contains over half of the world's population with countires as ethnicly diverse as Russia, China, India and Israel - the article does not make clear which of these it refers to. In Britain the term Asian usually refers to people from around the Indian subcontinent. The article also does not make clear what definition of african american is being used. According to the One-drop rule, a US policy, many more people may be included. I do not really think the article is neccessary and without any clearly defined parameters - geographical locations, required race percentages it can ever be complete. Guest9999 14:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree. Mlewan 14:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a point of clarification, while the one-drop rule was historically prominent in much of the United States, it is no longer "US policy." The US Census Bureau now permits citizens to self-classify their race. For those interested, the definition of "Asian" being used is roughly, "Persons with an ethnic heritage originating on the Asian continent, whose skin is non-white." Vulgar practice, but that's what it means: Indians, Chinese, Japanese, Mongolians, et al., all lumped together. Xoloz 14:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry about the mistake but if citizens now self-classify their race then it makes the article even more unfeasible. Can anyone self identify as Afro-Asian? can people considered to be Afro-Asian define themselves otherwise? And that's just Americans. [[Guest9999 15:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Comment I have mixed feelings about the list, and therefore will offer no firm opinion. On the one hand, you're correct, self-classification makes any list like this prone to great error. On the other, the positive aim of the list is to convey accurately a sense of society's racial diversity. Self-classifications that defy reality are certainly possible, but rare: most citizen don't use census forms as an opportunity for a joke. Among people with a diverse heritage (like me), self-classification can vary by context, but that method is the only just way of doing things.

For some folks (eg. Tiger Woods), a self-classification is well-known and publicized. In other cases (especially regarding the dead), records of parental ethnicity provide a de facto substitute when self-classification is unknown or unknowable. On a list like this, there will always be some folks added simply because of the way they look, an obvious problem. Xoloz 16:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment Filipinos are Asian?!? That surprises me -- I thought "Pacific Islander" fit them rather perfectly. Xoloz 16:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More Comment Americans often consider "Asian" to mean anyone with an epicanthal eye fold who is not American Indian. In Canada, "Asian" alone usually means Chinese; in the UK it usually means Indian. Hence my vote below. --Charlene 16:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIAS for only considering what United States citizens consider "Asian" and "African". A person of African heritage living in Chennai would not be considered "Afro-Asian" under the rules of this category, for instance. The US is not the world. --Charlene 16:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What if we make this List of Americans of Asian/African descent? And either way, we may choose to deal with this page next Notable persons of mixed race (black and white)
Delete: Systematic problems with definition, and purpose. Would be a source of endless controversy. Not particularly useful due to the vagueness. The greatest bias in list cruft like this is that it is ultimately divisive. If a case can be made for list cruft like this, please use Category, if you must. Hu 17:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I dont see a need to list everyone by their race Corpx 17:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is obviously that this list will never be completed. It is better to do what Hu suggested above as to Categorize only.--JForget 22:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator's reference to "the one drop rule, a US policy", as an argument for deletion, raises a lot of questions. While many have followed along with the basic idea, that the list could go on endlessly, etc., there is no such thing as a "U.S. policy" that follows a "one drop rule". Don't know if the nominator is in the U.S. or not, and it doesn't really matter, but this would appear to rebut the presumption of good faith. I notice that the nomination came soon after the nominator commented that the list of "Afro-Caucasians" was something that "seems quite distasteful", which calls into question whether this nomination is made for something more than that reason. Is there a

As to the merits of the article... not whether it makes a person squeamish or uncomfortable, or that it's politcally incorrect or offensive... this is not very well-sourced, despite six footnotes. Unlike the aforementioned Afro-Caucasian list, this one doesn't explain a person's parentage. But as to the arguments for deletion, the usual Wiki principles are strangely absent in this debate. The only principle cited is WP:BIAS, which is not about avoiding anything suggesting a "biased" (i.e. racist) person, but rather about countering the inherent biases in the average Wikipedian being a young man, and the only point made there is that Asian has other meanings outside of the U.S. I have read WP:BIAS, and it appears to support the idea of editing articles to compensate for bias, rather than the idea of deleting articles. Mandsford 03:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sorry about the mention of the one-drop rule, I admit my mistake - I heard that it was still the way they defined race in the USA but had obviously been misinformed. I would say that my comment in the other article (about it being distasteful) was not meant to be the crux of the arguement, it came after the point I wnated to make and was merely a personal opinion - I see now it did not belong in a deletion debate - as well this might not. I would though like to make the point that I made for the other article which is that I do not see why being of mixed race is a nbotable fact. I do not think it would be possible to have articles such as list of White people or List of Black people. Also whilst being of mixed race may be of particular significance in the USA it is probable that in other areas other races might be deemed distintive - i.e. there aren't many Black people in Japan, there aren't many Inuit in the U.K.. sorry about my previous mistakes [[Guest9999 23:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
Reply I owe you an apology, Guest. I'm sorry for writing anything that says or implies a lack of good faith. We all take a certain amount of pride in our ancestry, and for that reason, I don't see a problem with listing people who have the heritage of more than one race. Here in the USA, it was against the law in many states, up until the early 1960s, for people of different races to marry or cohabitate, and we've come a long way in our attitudes since then.Mandsford 12:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge into an article about Afro-Asians Taprobanus 14:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the lead to Voltron. Sandstein 10:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voltron: Fleet of Doom

This article was originally speedy-deleted under CSD A7. DRV overturned, finding an assertion of notability was present. Still, Weak delete, given notability concerns, pending other opinions. Xoloz 13:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a brief summary to Voltron. While the series as a whole is notable, I'm not sure this individual film is. JulesH 15:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge per JulesH makes sense, plausible search term and if it ever gets substantial enough it could be split back off. --W.marsh 19:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep this was a real production, there's even a DVD available at Voltron.com. [16]. Content could use work, and might well fit in Voltron well enough, so I don't insist on being kept separate. FrozenPurpleCube 01:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete might be worth a redirect to Voltron but I just don't see anything worth merging in the absence of reliable sources. Eluchil404 21:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Kurykh 04:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denys Cavendish

Non-notable character from The Great Escape film written as fact - see talk page for details Kernel Saunters 13:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Robert Stanford Tuck if non-trivial references can be found that show that the character of Denys Cavendish was patterned after Robert Tuck. Otherwise delete as non-notable character. --Charlene 16:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I don't think the character is closely enough based on Tuck for a redirect. Fails WP:FICT in any event. --Dhartung | Talk 16:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it appears that good references for the character connection cannot be found. --Stormbay 21:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to fail WP:V (per talk page). -- MarcoTolo 00:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 08:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Azerbaijani footballers

List is redundant with and inferior to Category:Azerbaijani footballers and should be deleted per concensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English footballers Jogurney 13:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Jogurney 14:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing the category doesn't cover. GiantSnowman 14:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that category fits this better Corpx 17:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Corpx. --Malcolmxl5 19:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List is obviously not redundant as it is mostly redlinks. These are notable players (all have caps with the national team) but do not have articles yet. Only delete when the articles are actually there to fill the category. Number 5 7 13:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If these are notable players, could the list not be integrated into Azerbaijan national football team where there is already a (smaller) list of notable players? --

Comment In fairness, not all notable players of a nation will have played for the national team, and so most countries will have many notable players who don't belong near the article for the national football team. Having said that, I don't necessarily think this list is necessary when a cat would suffice. Robotforaday 21:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolmxl5 15:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I agree that actageory is better than alist. Bearian 19:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Number 57. Tim Q. Wells 05:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A category is better for these kind of information, as we have agreed in past afds such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English footballers, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Scottish footballers Robotforaday 10:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Stull, Kansas. No merger, per WP:V, for lack of any reliable sources being cited. Mergers can take place from the history, though, once reliable sources are found. Sandstein 06:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stull Cemetery

Sounds like a hoax — who believes that the Devil comes onto earth at this place? Obviously a real place, but sounds like a totally non-notable place other than the hoax assertion Nyttend 13:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick Google search shows this as listed in Roadside America, etc. It seems to be a well known tourist attraction for those into this type of thing. Psu256 13:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google searches show notability, with mentions in many non-trivial reliable sources. Just because a science-based editor thinks something isn't scientifically true doesn't mean it isn't notable. Notability and 'truth' are not the same thing. --Charlene 16:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pardon, but I'm not a science-based editor; I mostly work with geography articles — that's how I found it. Nyttend 16:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the Stull, Kansas article. Hu 17:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Hu, and add a line to the list of places associated with legend tripping, since it seems that this is what this is about. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Honestly, do you think Satan has nothing better to do than hang around in Stull, Kansas? ~ Infrangible 18:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong redirect – to Stull, Kansas as this article is very hoax-like. Rlest 18:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Psu256 and Charlene. Roadside America listing and mulitiple non-trivial mentions in secondary sources. --Oakshade 22:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Stull, Kansas article keeping the relevant info Statisticalregression 02:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs cleanup, but is about a real place. Edward321 00:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't see this as sufficient reason to keep — cemeteries, even real ones, aren't inherently notable. Nyttend 17:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I live about 20 miles from Stull so I know the cemetary is basically the only interesting thing about the place, but even then it's only really interesting around Halloween. (Which drives the residents crazy, they hate all the drunk highschool kids.) 24.124.29.130 11:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 08:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael W. Wooten

Non-notable artist. Article appears to be used for promotion of commercial art sales. Leeannedy 10:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unable to find any sources that establish notability. JulesH 12:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom. The only sources I could find online were art-for-sale sites and Wikipedia mirrors. --Evb-wiki 12:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I looked and couldn't find any sources either. Psu256 13:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I found one new reference to him. Military art isn't my thing but he seams to be very good at it and is probably notable in his field.Callelinea 18:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please cite your reference? Is it anything other than the artist's own website or Wikipedia mirrors? If it is recognized within his field, other references to his notability should be available. Leeannedy 21:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Modernist 17:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Psu256. Bearian

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, but clearly the article needs some work/sourcing (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 01:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pocono Playhouse

Prod removed, bringing it here as I agree with deletion. Giggy _U^CP 10:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this playhouse is historic, if I remember correctly from reading it's website some months back. It is an important cultural institution in the area. If anything, the article can benefit from expert attention and not deletion. Postcard Cathy

Keep, but rewrite so that the article reads less like an add --Onceonthisisland 15:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, needs cleanup but historically notable as a major regional stage. --Dhartung | Talk 16:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason given for deletion. Hawkestone 19:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hawkestone, no cogent argument for deletion. Dhaluza 01:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. A Google Books search shows that many notable performers have appeared here in summer-stock productions over the years; but in the absence of sources treating this particular venue as a separate topic, I'm not seeing evidence of notability. Deor 02:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as well-known by us Broadway-lovers. Much material was deleted by unregistered users... why? 20:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment. The only material deleted was schedules, prices, and other stuff that was in clear violation of WP:NOT. If the place is so well-known, perhaps you or some of the other keep !voters could point editors toward some reliable sources that could be used to expand this article beyond a mere assertion of existence. Deor 12:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Blueboy 96 16:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lustfaust

This article has remained unsourced for so long because the band never existed. Spazure 09:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While attempting to help out the Unreferenced Articles project, I found out why no reliable sources have been found for the article's topic -- it never existed!! See the links below from very reliable sources to confirm that this is an article for a hoax, not an actual band. See links below Spazure 09:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Independent
The New York Times
Times

Keep but rewrite completely - notable hoax. Iain99 11:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have complete rewritten from the sources Spazure found. I note that the NYT article even pointed out that there was an unsourced Wikipedia article about the subject. I wonder why none of the readers of that article actually, you know, fixed it...? JulesH 12:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Damn! You beat me to it! Iain99 12:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Apparently I misunderstood deletion policy regarding hoaxes. Consider my understanding corrected. Spazure 12:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that we close this early as the article has been fixed and the nomination withdrawn. Iain99 13:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, quality reliable sources exist, and Category:Musical hoaxes is not overwhelmed so there isnt any pressing needed to quantify how notable this hoax is. John Vandenberg 15:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 07:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early childhood development

The article is original research (probably an essay), non-referenced and inaccurate. Mendors 09:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The intro sentence even admits that it's an essay and OR... Spazure 09:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. Concept is definitely encyclopedic, but current article is clearly original research. Blueboy 96 12:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait The article is only hours old with a single entry, no actual edits to the article itself other than tags. The article also end with the following statement:

This article is in the process of editing

This seems rather unfair. Give the article a chance, if it does not improve, then delete it. Dbiel ^(Talk) 16:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still, it's written in a totally essay-like form, and it's WP:OR, so it should be either rewritten from scratch or totally deleted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But don't forget:

I noticed the message you recently left to a newcomer. Please remember: do not bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. Thank you.

It is true that this template does not fit, but from the point of a new user, having one's hard work deleted would seem just as bad or worse. Lets provide help rather than censorship. Dbiel ^(Talk) 22:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:OR. We should judge the article based on its contents now and not what it might be in the future Corpx 17:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userify to allow the author to complete construction of the article. I'd note that this is a new account and the article hasn't existed for long, either. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 20:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An unsourced essay which would need restarting from scratch to fit into the encyclopedia. Espresso Addict 23:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Normally I have no objection to userfication, but this article is an entirely original essay. No amount of editing will produce a verifiable work without starting with a complete blanking of the article. Someguy1221 02:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oof. Completely unsourced as it stands, and written in a completely unencyclopedic manner. I think userfy it to give the author a chance to read the manual of style and rewrite it into an encyclopedic piece, if possible. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 03:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fear the userify option might encourage the editor to resubmit an inappropriate article to mainspace. Espresso Addict 16:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article is not owned by the creator. It is a great topic, it just needs fixing. Lots of sources exist out there, whole textbooks and web sites. Bearian 20:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are several existing articles on overlapping topics, though. Espresso Addict 22:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Rewrite: As it appears currently the article must be deleted per WP:OR. However the subject obviously deserves an article, so if someone rewrite it, it will deserve keeping. Dan Gluck 05:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator as an essay based on original research without prejudice against creation of something better based on reliable sources down the road. Burntsauce 18:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article needs a complete rewrite, but that doesn't mean the article should be deleted. --Android Mouse 18:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Peacent 15:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Noize Entertainment

Article fails on notability. "Black Noize Entertainment" has 16 matches in Google (excluding duplicates). Company does not have an active website (a link from the Wikipedia article leads to an "under construction" page). According to the Wikipedia article, they currently represent only one group. Zvika 08:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Any notability (if it exists) is local at best. Blueboy 96 11:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly sounds non-notable, and no references except to their own site. Fails WP:CORP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No multiple, non-trivial sources asserted. And that's probably because there isn't any. Spellcast 17:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 06:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rathinam College of Arts and Science

Nothing more than an advertisement. No assertion of notability made. I was thinking of speedying this one, but thought it would be better to discuss it. Mark Chovain 08:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanitisement, well wide of the notability mark. Blueboy 96 12:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as an apparently accredited post-secondary institution (with a secondary education component as well). --Dhartung | Talk 17:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think it would be better to start over, if its ever re-created. Corpx 17:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If no one is willing to rewrite this in the wikipedia format, sourced and unbiased then I'd be happy to keep it (as i'm sure we all would). But in its present state it would be quicker to delete it and have it recreated and rewritten if so desired later on.WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 16:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep now that it has been stubbidifed. ~~Delete~~ without prejudice to re-creation, as WikipedianProlific says. All post secondary institutions can and should have articles, but Google only shows directory listings for real existence, but no obvious non-trivial 3rd party sources. Better to start over. DGG (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)DGG (talk) 05:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of Google News Archive results and I have tidied up the article, and created K.P.M. Trust to deal with the other schools that are part of this technology park. John Vandenberg 01:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Be wary of straight google-counts. Of the 21 hits that come up, most are trivial (e.g. Single line comments that someone at the college has released a magazine), and not coverage of the college itself. I'd use the gnews link you provide as more evidence that this does not have enough external coverage. Mark Chovain 01:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This, attended by the principal of Government College of Technology, is trivial? The point I am making is that there is a lot of direct links in English sources that can be used to expand the article. And of course there are all the sources that are not in English, and that dont appear in Google when you or I search. John Vandenberg 02:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said most were trivial, not all. As a side point, even the link you provided is not independent: It is taken entirely from a press release from the college. I admit, it's better than nothing, but I was hoping to see something a little more substantial when I saw someone claiming "plenty of Google News Archive results". Regardless, if it's going to be rewritten, it should be done from scratch. Mark Chovain 04:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide some evidence that it was a press release? The event was mentioned a day prior and The Hindu article says it was written by "Our Staff Reporter". Anyway, here is another, which describes a "Apoorva-05" event that was held at the college; this was also mentioned on the day of the event. Also, why should the article be rewritten from scratch? John Vandenberg 15:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the present stub seems an acceptable start, once some puffery is removed from the first (& only) paragraph. DGG (talk) 05:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 08:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sedlescombe F.C.

The lack of notability is a concern here. The club lies in level 12 of the English football pyramid. S iva1979^{Talk to me} 07:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If level 12 then 'not notable'. Article also "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject". --Malcolmxl5 10:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A very sloppy article. If it's in 12th level, it's not notable. Shalom ^Hello 02:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to be notable. Number 5 7 08:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom, and, I wish it was possible to use as a reason just the plain awful nature of the article itself. - fchd 19:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be simply a copy and paste from a club article, and is non notable anyway. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, also suspect vanity-based article. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Kurykh 04:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced PC Media LLC

Since it's an internet entity, the google test should be good enough. a google of +"Advanced PC Media LLC" -tweakvista.com -tweakxp.com -tweaks.com comes with no secondary sources to verify any information by, notability is not inherited just because the websites they make are popular, and of course, the article itself also claims no notability Spazure 07:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to TweakVista, the only product we have an article for. --Dhartung | Talk 07:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The company had little to do with the actual development of TweakVista, so it might be best just to remove the link from that article, leaving a mention of its involvement in distribution. The person behind the company is debatably more important than the company. GreenReaper 02:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not think distribution of software warrants notability. pw 14:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing notability requirement of WP:CORP. -- MarcoTolo 00:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 08:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hanson Shuffle

Neologism at best. Appears to be made up though, as Google gets only a handful of hits for the term, none of which have anything to do with polaroids. Mark Chovain 06:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:N, WP:NEO, etc. Speedy if possible; the only assertion of notability for the term itself seems to be The Hanson Shuffle is a term that is widely used in Redmond, Washington, meaning it isn't notable at all. --Dhartung | Talk 07:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Nonsense, "original research" would be dignifying it too much. Vanity or friends vanity. Hu 17:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax. "... in the "answers" section on the Polaroid Web site, the company says that shaking photos, which once helped them to dry, is not necessary since the modern version of Polaroid film dries behind a clear plastic window." [17] ~ Infrangible 21:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this probably hoaxy local neologism - fails attribution and notability. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 03:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to admins from nominator: Can we just speedy delete this one now? Mark Chovain 04:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - under what WP:SPEEDY criterion would this fall? Note that a hoax is explicitly excluded from the patent nonsense criterion. -- Whpq 21:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 08:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgio Oscari

Generally the situation with aikido teachers ranks above 7th Dan are considered notable in itself. Those listed with 6th Dan have something else adding to their notability and that would have to be exceptional for 5th Dans. There are an awful lot of 5th Dans around. Running a small group of dojo is not very exceptional Peter Rehse 06:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletions.Peter Rehse 06:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:NOTE Corpx 17:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable.--Nate1481(^t/_c) 08:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Bearian 20:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KrakatoaKatie 04:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Estalena

trivial (WP:DICT), non-notable; and unverifiable, as there is no one "American Indian" language. Tamfang 06:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article should belong in Wiktionary. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't belong there either imho, without a bit of supporting evidence. —Tamfang 19:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-encyclopedic + no assertion of notability + no references = delete recommendation. -- MarcoTolo 00:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per A7, G11. Sr 13 21:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next Level Records

Fails to establish notability. Advert/spam. Lugnuts 06:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "back since July"? They just started back up, so clearly no notability yet. Spazure 09:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NOTE Corpx 17:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, fairly obvious spam. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, A7 as nonnotable organisation (and also incoherent rant). Sandstein 06:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The New American Revolution

This page violates the not-soapbox rule for inclusion (WP:SOAP) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natcase (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 08:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Man Who Fell to Earth (musical)

Article makes no assertion of notability. Notable source material, but the musical is ultimately NN. — MusicMaker 03:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the links at the bottom of the page are simply links to Wikipedia pages to be edited, and the one link that says this is even coming is the site for the play itself. I hope they do this, but right now, it's still crystalballery. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystalballery.--Ispy1981 05:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, may be real but is not notable. At such time as production moves forward this may change, but as yet there is no justification for an article. --Dhartung | Talk 07:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Jmlk 1 7 08:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consider Now that's very unfair to remove any content to the contrary of what you've said. The songs are real. I provided you with the means to contact the composer. The play has a website. Just because it hasn't hit the stage yet doesn't mean it shouldn't be acknoweldged. The page never once implies that it's already on Broadway. I know from experience with this particular production that it's still unclear when or if it'll hit the stage. But that's why it's classified as being in production. That certainly doesn't mean we shouldn't acknowledge it, does it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JTheGoblinKing (talk • contribs).

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

Reply JTheGoblinKing, Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists, it's an encyclopedia consisting of notable things and as such selective. Fairness isn't a policy. As it is "unclear" in your own words "when or if" it will have a performance, it would violate our policy against using a crystal ball to predict what productions are notable before they are actually notable. --Dhartung | Talk 17:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; at this point, this falls under WP:CRYSTAL - if it goes to the stage and actually becomes notable, with multiple reliable sources, then great, but right now, it doesn't have notability enough for an article. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 03:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nomination, WP:NOTE and those above. NSR77 ^T_C 04:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Default keep, no delete votes made (not even by the nominator). Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 04:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vic Harris (snooker player)

Incomplete AfD listing by unregistered user who could not complete the process. Reason given was 'Lacks notability'. The original nominator also expressed that the number of major tournament wins in the infobox might be incorrect (or lacking a verifiable source). This is a procedural nomination. I abstain. -- S ^up? 13:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Vic Harris's Player Profile, however the league that is named after him seems to have a lot more coverage. Torinir 14:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I don't know... The relevant stub category for snooker players contains hundreds of biographical entries. This one is average, neither very well-developed nor threadbare. I'd just leave it alone. YechielMan 21:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD should be based on the subject, not the article. Is the subject notable? Morgan Wick 04:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 03:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 23:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 03:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close as keep. Nobody has actually asked for a deletion; even the original attempted nominator has not come back to provide their own recommendation to delete. --Metropolitan90 03:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to Jamie Blanks. Non admin closure. --Jorvik 20:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Number

Non-notable film by notable director, not available for viewing. Corvus cornix 20:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I suppose that (by way of analogy) like George Lucas's THX 1138 gained notability because he gained enough notability that people sought it out, this film might eventually gain enough notability for its own article. But at the moment, there is no indication that has yet happened. There are no sources in the article indicating notability of this film or the potential for notability, nor are there likely to be any for the finding. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 05:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, after reading the THX 1138 article, I take it back. THX 1138 was a feature-length film produced by a studio that itself became notable. Similarities between its notability and Silent Number's are in my mind now even less likely to occur. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 05:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete per nom. Your original point would stand if you substituted Lucas's student film Electronic Labyrinth: THX 1138 4EB, which he later remade as THX 1138. Silent Number has not even achieved the status of Electronic Labyrinth yet. --Metropolitan90 04:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge because the film has 253 Google hits, independently covered by different sources. It also has a page at IMDb. Additionally, there is something at the Warner Bros. archives here that says, "Blanks graduated from film school at the Victorian College of the Arts in Melbourne, Australia, with a solid collection of short films and music videos in his portfolio. Among them was "Silent Number," which won funding from the Australian Film Commission and distribution by the Australian Film Institute." The link indicates that this is part of the background that led him to his present status as a notable director. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lots of non-notable films have pages at imdb. If this film is what led him to his present status, then why not just include that little snippet in his bio? Corvus cornix 23:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 03:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jamie Blanks NN film from notable director, might serve as a curiosity.--Ispy1981 05:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Ispy1981. Student films are what directors make when they are students; they don't automatically become notable because of their director. --Dhartung | Talk 07:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Student films are about as notable as homework assignments or drawings of turkeys made by tracing hands. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, as per Ispy1981. Lankiveil 02:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Merge to Jamie Blanks. Notability is not inherited, but an early film by a notable director could easily be mentioned in that director's article to give context for his work. bwowen ^talk^•^contribs 22:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 08:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daisuke Amaya

Notabiliy of this person is not established by the article per WP:NOTE - the only claims to notability are two obscure freeware games created, the article for one of which is currently up for AfD itself. EyeSerene^TALK 18:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge While I admit that I'm not often involved with the whole wikipedia "thing", isn't this site supposed to be an encyclopedia about everything? as opposed to deleting the article, why not merge it with cave story or ikachan? 142.68.217.108 15:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not really enough information to make a merge useful.MightyAtom 04:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 03:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 11,200 ghits from "Daisuke Amaya -wikipedia", none of which scream notability.--Ispy1981 05:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Magioladitis 06:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one freeware game of marginal notability (Cave Story). Nothing to build an article around. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marašmusïne_Talk 16:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - note him on the articles of his gamesStatisticalregression 02:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus seems to be obvious here. Sr 13 21:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrity New York Mets fans

I am also nominating the following similar pages:

List of celebrity fans of ... ? Are you kidding? Could we have a less verifiable article? Umm, who counts as a celebrity? What counts as "fan"? Rick Block (talk) 03:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. This article will never be correctly referenced or verified. Moreover, the information in the article is just trivia and not something important. -- Magioladitis 06:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the very worst example of listcruft. Lugnuts 06:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per common sense Spazure 06:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - not notable, not referenced, not necessary! Complete spam. — *H¡ρρ¡ ¡ρρ¡ 13:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both , both are unecessary articles. --Onceonthisisland 15:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per trivial intersection and categories such as Category:Celebrity Gamers resulted in a delete. Spellcast 18:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as a patent example of listcruft. - Philippe | Talk 20:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both The lists will 1) never be 100% complete 2) will always be vague on the definition of a "celebrity" 3) will always be vague on the definition of a "fan". ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 21:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

you guys need to chill out...your angry over an article, get a life —Preceding unsigned comment added by JDF55 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy keep, rather dubious nomination, unanimous vote, et cetera. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sawing a woman in half

I don't think the Alliance is going to like this... TonyWonderBread 03:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Um, what? No rationale given. Ten Pound Hammer o ^{(((Broken clamshells o Otter chirps)))} 03:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-known magic trick, well-sourced. Blueboy 96 03:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I look at it--well-known magic trick, well-sourced--and the nominator has made no other edits. Speedy keep. Blueboy 96 03:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. No reason given for deletion. Well-known magic trick, numerous sources, etc. --- RockMFR 03:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, can only assume that this is an objection to the exposure but there's no policy against that. Iain99 03:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This nom is the sole contribution for the nominator. Acroterion _(talk) 03:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and expand. ~ Wikihermit 20:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TiN Radio

Appears unnotable and unencyclopaedic, and lacks reliable sources. Orderinchaos 03:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Orderinchaos 03:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I'd rather like to see how this one plays out. I encourage rewriting and sourcing, and if that doesn't happen, would happily support a future delete. - Philippe | Talk 20:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I used to do stuff with Tin radio, but I don't anymore. I can forward this to some people at the station, and see if they want to keep it. If not, then in a week or two I wouldn't care too much about a deletion. --naught101 09:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it's a radio station which broadcasts only during a festival so merge it to This Is Not Art.Ga rr ie 22:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it appears from the article that the station broadcasts online at all other times of the year. If the broadcasts are related to the festival then I'd agree with you. If not, then I'd go with a Weak Keep. I'm keeping my options open at this stage. Nicko (Talk•Contribs) 05:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I think consensus is pretty obvious here. Sr 13 21:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danville Public Library

No assertion of notability, unsourced. Was nominated for A7 speedy but denied. --Finngall ^talk 02:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, no notability asserted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable, and unsourceable beyond its mere existence. Orderinchaos 03:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless a library is in a major city or on a college campus, it shouldn't get an article. Blueboy 96 03:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Library is not a major library or well known like the Library of Alexandria. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 04:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete origional research--Sefringle^Talk 04:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Nothing special about this one. - Philippe | Talk 05:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : sounds like an ad, not well written, and not well known. --Onceonthisisland 15:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per all above--Bryson 18:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 03:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acadp

Procedural nomination, as directly related to the AfD for Australian coalition against death penalty and not included within that AfD nom.

DO NOT Delete There have been many allegations made here for deletion, none of which have any foundation whatsoever. ACADP is a very noted human rights organization in Australia and overseas. There have been many media articles over the years quoting ACADP, which can be found on internet search engines. Plus many links to other international human rights organizations including Amnesty International. In addition, the official site does not mention Wikepedia at all. The contents is no different to other human rights organizations in Wikipedia. ACADP has a right to free speech in their own words, not those of others who are obviously so self righteous and judgemental. What's the problem? Clean up does not mean deletion!

DO NOT Delete This is a Human Rights organization entitled to the democratic freedom of speech. The organization should not be deleted to suit the opinions of pro-death penalty individuals.

Freedom of speech is about the right of individuals and private organizations to speak without government interference; freedom of speech is also about the right of private organizations, such as Wikipedia, to decide what speech they will and won't make; it is not about the right of one private entity (such as an editor of Wikipedia) to dictate what information another private entity (such as Wikipedia) must or mustn't transmit.

Also, please, assume good faith. Those advocating deletion may be for or against the death penalty. The death-penalty stances of voters on this nomination are irrelevant. What is relevant is the notability of the organization and the quality of the article.

— President Lethe 17:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable organisation with extremely trivial coverage. Thewinchester ^(talk) 01:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Thewinchester ^(talk) 01:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable community organisation which fails WP:ORG. It should be noted that Australia does not have, and is not likely to reintroduce, the death penalty, so this is essentially an ideological opposition group against the death penalty in other parts of the world. Orderinchaos 03:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above, not a notable political organisation. Lankiveil 04:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Lankiveil. - Philippe | Talk 05:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another one for TWinSwat. (per Win). Twenty Years 12:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable organization. --Bryson 18:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They aren't notable enough for mine as per similar nomination. Capitalistroadster 01:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable in any way. NSR77 ^T_C 04:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as while the issue is notable, the org is not. Sorry. :-( Bearian 20:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Derrial Book. —Kurykh 04:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shepherd (Firefly)

This is an article about a fictional profession in Firefly (TV series), whose only documented member is Derrial Book. (There would no doubt be many more, but in this excellent but brief series, he's the only Shepherd we ever hear of.) There is nothing in the series about Shepherds that isn't drawn from Book's activities and explanations, a fact reflected by the article. Furthermore, the article seems to be using these experiences of Book for unsourced speculation and generalizations (e.g., attempting to generalize Book's one-time comment about "a special Hell" into a cultural comment on levels of Hell; drawing an inference about the prevalance of atheism). This is an incredibly common problem with these ultra-specific fictional-universe articles, which undermines the case to have reasonably encyclopedic articles on these subjects. In short, we won't get anything from reliable sources (even primary) that isn't more appropriately placed in the Book article. As I've said elsewhere, I'm a Browncoat, but on Wikipedia I'm I Wikipedian first, so I recommend delete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lot of speculation and original research, not a lot of sources, as per the nomination. Delete, or failing that very weak merge and redirect to the article on Book. -- saberwyn 01:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Derrial Book. As per nom, most of the article is about him anyway.--Ispy1981 05:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Derrial Book, as Ispy1981 suggested. INBN 05:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Derrial Book, per above. I'll never forgive the film for killing off two of my favorite characters, but realistically, there just isn't any justification per WP:FICT for this article. --Dhartung | Talk 07:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Ispy1981. - Philippe | Talk 19:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per all the above. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, as a possible potential search term with regards to the character. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 03:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I based the existence of this article on Companion (Firefly) and followed its form as a guideline. Aside from one character in one episode who was a confirmed (former!) Companion, Inara Serra is the only one, and the Companion article is wholly based on her portrayal. Saffron is only suspected to be one, and background extras in the film are hardly substantial. I suppose this is an argument for a Companion AFD, not a defense of this one, but I'm no fan of double standards. No, it's not a perfect article, but it commits no egregious crimes. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 17:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You make a good point, Keith. Where is the line between reasonable side-article on a fictional subject and redundancy or superfluity? One measurement is the amount of reliable sourcing in the article, suggesting a decent amount of independent sources. On this count, Companion (Firefly) is only slightly better than Shepherd (Firefly), the former having one formal source and several episode citations (all primary sources) to the latter's zero sources. My concern is that both of these articles are too peripheral for a general encyclopedia, given the extreme unlikelihood of any truly independent sourcing. We may (for now) get away with that in episode and character articles, but not if we develop even more tangential material. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd like to call attention to the fact that Keith has done a lot of sourcing since my last post, actually making this article better sourced that Companion (Firefly). But the problem with primary-only sources remains, and I still don't see the need for a separate article for "Shepherd". ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~ Wikihermit 04:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UKGameshows.com

Non-noteable website. Pure and simple. Dalejenkins 13:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The "recognition" section at the bottom of the article makes clear, referenced assertions of notability. In particular, the "3" link to the Times newspaper is a whole article about this website in a major newspaper, so the website is notable. Shalom ^Hello 13:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. These may just be trivial mentions. Notability generally requires multiple reliable independent published sources with more than mere trivial mentions of the subject of the article. Ideally, the source would be about the subject of the article.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It has also had several mentions on radio. I can upload a radio interview with the owner if you wish. Jw6aa 18:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The mention in the Guardian which is cited is trivial, but the one in the Times is a (short) article devoted to the site. As the other links in "Recognition" are mostly trivial as well, at the moment the existence of multiple non-trivial sources seems to hinge on whether a "Yahoo find of the year" qualifies as one. Not sure myself so Neutral Iain99 19:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 00:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notability asserted by means of reliable sources, but could use better sourcing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, OK, I buy it. There are sources that assert notability, and that's what I'm always asking for, so... - Philippe | Talk 19:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only slightly noteable website, I don't agree that its noteable enough despite its discussion in two newspapers, one of which seems extremely trivial. If it grows in time perhaps then it may warrant an entry? WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 16:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The site's been around for 10 years - not bad by internet standards - and regularly gets mentioned as a "Site of the Week" in the British media. Opportunitycost 21:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another possibility is to to re-merge back into David J. Bodycombe, from whence the original version of this article was split off in the first place. -- PinkEllie 22:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As most of that site is now written by gameshow wiki contributors, and Bodycombe only helps manage it (with others), it's possibly not the best move. Also, this article is long enough to justify its own entry, I feel. Opportunitycost 12:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per overriding policy WP:V. No-one disputes that the content is factually suspect and unverified. Sandstein 10:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hardgainer

This article is very short with mostly uncited material. It's material is either factually incorrected or totally uncited and it is unlikely any new information will be added to this article in the future to improve it or ever could be added. This article could be merged into any number of numerous articles which contain the exact same information including Somatotype or Bodybuilding. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr 13 07:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously since I nominated it, But since it's being re-listed I thought I'd re-vote just to make sure. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Transwiki & Stub it Commonly used term, but the article is factually suspect. Being associated with weight-lifting and body-building for almost three years now, I can vouch for the fact that this blanket term is misleading, and the article reflects that confusion. Perhaps it could merit a proper article in future. At this point it might be better to transwiki it to dictionary and stub the article down to the verifiable facts.xC | ☎ 08:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep? What's the difference between a "Hard gainer" and an "Ectomorph"? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 08:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, all ectomorphs are not hardgainers, while all hardgainers are not hardgainers simply because they are ectomorphs. Secondly, one term refers to the body type, whereas the other refers to lack of progress in terms of building muscle size/strength. Thirdly, hardgainers are usually products of counter-productive habits and lack of motivation, whereas being ectomorphic is merely the product of genetics. Lastly, I'd just like to point out that both terms are quite subjective, ie. you may or may not agree with what I said above, but thats what I believe and given the vague definitions of both, it seems both of us may be rightxC | ☎ 10:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to bodybuilding. It would be better suited as 2 lines, then as an article that lacks credible sources, and is extremely speculative. the_undertow ^talk 08:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to bodybuilding per Undertow, unless anyone can expand the article with more reliable sources, in which case I'll go for weak keep.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 00:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, A1. Sandstein 06:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of classic concentration cars

This is nothing more than a list of the names of nine cars. It has no context, no explanation, no claim of notability, no sources. I do not even know what this means. If someone can prove me wrong, I will withdraw the nomination. ●DanMS • Talk 00:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pointless list, seems to be a list of cars used on Classic Concentration, but it seems like they used more than nine cars... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see now. They played for cars as prizes in the game. I never heard of this show before (I don't watch much TV). There does not seem to be much value in this list. ●DanMS • Talk 01:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as no context. So tagged. The only thing it contains is a list of various makes and models of cars - and it's poorly formatted to boot. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as no context. Oysterguitarist 01:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete no context, AfD was unnecessary. Morgan Wick 02:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Test page, no context. Blueboy 96 02:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of context and general listcruft. - Philippe | Talk 05:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. per Morgan Wick. -- Magioladitis 06:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 01:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heat Project

Article gives no indication of notability with multiple independent reliable sources. Whispe ring 15:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick google turns up some links, e.g. [18] and [19] - that is some Malaysian news source tells us the game has won the "Favourite First Person Shooting (FPS) Game at the 4th Asia Game Show and Digital Entertainment Expo Asia 2005" award, and it is cited as one of the current notable online FPS games in a ("true", IEEE and all) scientific paper about game satisfaction (i can't access the paper, but google scholar shows that text line..). Also, as the game is only available in some Asian countries, it's certainly not notable outside those countries (i'm not sure what WP policy is about cases like that), but likely more references could be added to the article by someone knowing whatever non-English writing system is used in those countries and searching for references in that. --Allefant 10:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 00:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but the article needs some clean-up. --Onceonthisisland 15:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marašmusïne_Talk 16:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Allefant's googling sounds like this game is notable. Deleting it would be a case of geographical bias. --User:Krator (t c) 11:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has been mentioned by Sina, a broad and popular Chinese website. This gives it another non-trivial source.--Kylohk 12:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus reached, already listed for over five days from last listing. Sr 13 21:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Galexia

The subject of the article does not meet the criteria for notability per WP:MUSIC. Has not released an album yet. Nv8200p talk 15:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment if deleted, this should redirect to Galaxia as a reasonable mispelling. 70.51.11.252 03:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the articles are non-trivial, most of them are just mentions of notable artists who are making cameos on the album. Might get enough press when the album comes out, but nothing yet. Precious Roy 08:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 00:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete thay havan't even released an album yet. Oysterguitarist 01:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Blatant crystalballery, and only source is their Myspace page. Blueboy 96 03:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. No album released thus far, only expectations of one - that would be in violation of WP:CRYSTAL. No other notability, only sites are myspace, a youtube video, and a band site. Fails WP:N accordignly. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. - Philippe | Talk 05:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Revive - Did nobody else see all the articles at the bottom of the page showing that it is real? This is a rather hyped album in the Progressive World...

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSDs G11/A7. Xoloz 15:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Courchevel Enquirer

Pretty clearly a non notable local magazine. No sources provided. Nine Google hits. Daniel J. Leivick 00:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as {{db-spam}}, absolutely no notability at work here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam and the magazine is not notable. Oysterguitarist 01:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, but maybe not as spam. Meh, either way, it probably won't survive the night. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. - Philippe | Talk 05:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Declining usage of libraies

Self-proclaimed OR essay. Delete Owen× ☎ 00:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close; take it to DRV. --Golbez 12:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Companies in Bangladesh

Wikipedia is not a yellow pages (WP:NOT#DIR). Besides, the blue links on these lists already belong the categories, and the red links are attractive destination for spammers (WP:NN and WP:SPAM). And on top of that, the scope for these lists are way too broad. The mother list for all these lists has already been deleted (see here), now it's time for the children too. Aditya Kabir 10:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletions. -- → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 10:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 10:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am bundling similar pages here:

'Delete all. Aditya Kabir 12:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. —Aditya Kabir 12:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is shaping to be an identical debate to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Greek companies which closed recently. The result was Keep. No point having the debate again. -- Barrylb 12:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. These were nominated last week, and were closed as a keep. If you dispute the close, take that to WP:DRV. I see no other reason to go through this again. Rebecca 12:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentTo return on what Barrylb, said many of these lists had their debate closen on July 11. To see it reopened only three days later a keep vote, is one of the most absurd things I have yet seen in two years on wikipedia.--Aldux 12:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, but a few sources wouldn't hurt. Non-admin closure. Boricuaeddie ^hábleme 14:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

De Bellis Multitudinis

This is an unreferenced article advertising a product. The only source is the home page of the manufacturer of the product. It amounts to little more than grandiose spam. Mr Maxim 13:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, worldcat indicates that "De Bellis Multitudinis" is used by groups on both side of the Atlantic. Wargames Research Group (WRG) appears to be quite notable, having produced a lot of books on this topic, with a number of them being cited in google scholar results. If it is found that "De Bellis Multitudinis" is a brand of product produced by WRG, I think it would be appropriate to merge this article into the WRG article. John Vandenberg 14:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not into the miniatures side of wargaming, but from my understanding it is currently a popular miniatures ruleset, as the article asserts. --Groggy Dice T | C 15:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe this is popular. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Wargaming. Plus, the article desperately needs internal links - to a non-geek like myself (and most people I presume), it's abstruse, to put it mildly. --Targeman 01:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would totally unbalance an overview-level article like wargaming to import any level of detail about a single ruleset into that article. There are hundreds of miniatures rulesets and boardgames out there. The company would be a better merge target, if it comes to that. And don't feel bad, wargaming terminology is incomprehensible to most outsiders, even moreso for those who aren't into military history. --Groggy Dice T | C 02:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am surprised this is even questioned. DBM is an extremely popular ruleset for historical wargaming, and a quick google search can surely attest to the popularity it enjoys across the globe. --Agamemnon2 22:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bucketsofg 01:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cities with the most highrise buildings

This is just an outdated version of http://www.emporis.com/en/bu/sk/st/ma/ci/, which in itself is highly inaccurate. Nutmegger 07:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am listing this because it was not listed correctly by Nutmegger. --Bryson 18:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see a lot of legitimate articles in Category:Lists of cities, but there is no notable intersection between a city and the number of high rise buildings it has. Spellcast 19:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable intersection, directory, etc. etc. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per that very heavy hammer.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Philippe (talk • contribs)
Delete. Gosh, I wonder what definition of "highrise" they're using in this. Over ten stories? Over 20? Over 30? And who decided what the definition would be? --Charlene 00:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete As per Charlene... the article doesn't say what a highrise is, or where all these numbers came from, for that matter. No excuse for the lack of citation. I saw that the link to high-rise is that it's any building more than 75 feet tall, or, say 6-7 stories, but who knows? And if that's it, who cares? Shanghai has "666" highrises... mark of the beast? Mandsford 03:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and comments above.--Targeman 01:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete how high is a highrise? does the city include its legal limits or its metropolitan area, and why again is this encyclopedic? Carlossuarez46 01:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Bearian 20:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Kurykh 04:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zvi Schreiber

Notability for an encyclopedia is not met. -- Ian¹³ /t 21:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nn and note COI issues. Creator has only contributed to articles about himself and his company, which narrowly avoided deletion with no consensus on 10 July Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G.ho.st. Emeraude 13:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is not enought reliable source material independent of Zvi Schreiber from which to develop an article composed of a neutral and unbiased compilation of previously written, verifiable facts. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 23:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Kurykh 04:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jimmy

Non-notable song, wasn't released as a single and did not enter any charts. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 22:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom - if it's not a single and didn't chart, I don't see the notability. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 03:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above — *H¡ρρ¡ ¡ρρ¡ 05:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This song has:

been performed by an artist
been ranked on a music chart.
been recognized by journalists, biographers, and/or other respected cultural critics

And there's no policy that says this article shouldn't be here. More like proposed guidelines. But you people would know better than me, so I won't vote. -Anthony- 06:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide sources for the above as none of this is mentioned on the article (apart from that it was performed as an artist, but that doesn't make a song notable)? How can it have been ranked on a music chart if it only appeared on a compilation album? Do you mean the album charted? That's a different thing totally. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 08:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Appropriate place for this is in Popjustice: 100% Solid Pop Music. --Malcolmxl5 06:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment get those 3 indy sources or it's axed. Bearian 20:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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' as CSD:A7. Owen× ☎ 00:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Christ Apostolic Ministries

Unsourced sermon about a nn cult, as preached by a member of it. Delete Owen× ☎ 23:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under A7 or G11. Absolutely no references, uses the first person and a very POV tone, notability is not asserted in any way, and the only reason it's here is because the speedy tag was removed without reason. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 23:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the author himself now wants the article deleted [20], I'll go ahead and speedy under A7. Owen× ☎ 00:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.ausa.org/chapweb/wpc/david_christian.htm