Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 November 18

< November 17	November 19 >

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. John254 15:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Checkers

Yes, yes, I know they have a "notable label", but look at the article itself. There is nothing there. There are no good external links at all. Plus, I think it might be just on my computer, but the names of the music this band has come out with comes up as ːː on my screen. Metal Head (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The group was massively popular in Japan in the 1980s. They're even mentioned in books on the subject [1]. Needs expansion of biography; maybe a translation request should be put in from the Japanese article (the Portuguese article is still stubby). Chubbles (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources good enough to substantiate. Google books do not count as notable. This band, if it was as notable as Chubbles said, would have at least one decent link. It doesn't. Delete this band.Metal Head (talk) 14:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google books != self published book. The link by Chubbles is to a scan of a printed book. The book has an ISBN (0765605619), so unless you have a good reason to the contrary that is enough to satisfy it being a reliable source. Mdmkolbe (talk)

Delete Once again. One book is nothing special. There are no other links, no AMG links, no music website links. Nothing. Delete the band. Metal Head (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Search for them under the Japanese spelling: [2] That's 12 million hits. Maybe we should ask WP:JAPAN to help us find a decent source in the language. Chubbles (talk) 15:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is not in English. If anything, just move it to the japanese section of wikipedia. There is no use putting it on the English version with no translation.Metal Head (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closing admin: Metal Head has now !voted three times in addition to his having nominated. Chubbles (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closing admin: Yes, I have voted three times, but then again, the only opponent to me has been Chubbles. I only hope that the closing admin can see that this band is nothing special and that the miniscule sources do not give enough to it. Metal Head (talk) 03:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears that there is a Japanese language article for this band. Based on this and the ghits the topic is clearly notable. The English article does need significant work, but I don't think just throwing it away and relying on the Japanese language article is reasonable. For an English-only speaker there is a big difference between an all Japanese text and English text with Japanese song titles. Mdmkolbe (talk) 06:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per everything everybody other than Metal Head has said. I confess as to being all together mystified by Metal Head's position. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per everyone but nominator. Souces have been shown. Edward321 (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep this one please since there are sources shown now about it yuckfoo (talk) 01:31, 23 November 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)} 19:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paying the Price: Killing the Children of Iraq

Copyvio, no significant content besides copyvio, notability Pishogue (talk) 23:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC) Majority of content cut/paste with tiny changes from http://www.bullfrogfilms.com/catalog/pay.html . AfD on Coren's suggestion. Pishogue (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; spammy and at least partly copyvio - no reliable sources, and no real assertion of notability. — Coren ^(talk) 00:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utter crap. Nick mallory (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio (even with slight changes), so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:12, 19 November 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. east.718 at 05:14, November 24, 2007

Meraloma Club

Contested prod. Amateur sports association with no evidence of notability Doc^g 23:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Conflict-of-interest authorship. So the club had some of its graduates make it to the top leagues. That does not make this organization any more notable than the team Barry Bonds played for when he was 15 years old. At least not enough to warrant a separate article. --Blanchardb (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability established. RMHED (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability and lack of evidence.Metal Head (talk) 13:06, 20 November 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 --JForget 01:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blacktress

Neologism of no particular notability. [3] Been prodded twice before, still no sources to establish notability. The only source given is a mirror of one of the old versions of the article. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 23:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think it is a neo. Can't find any real sources which would validate notability. scope_creep (talk) 23:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What an awful idea for a coined word, and one that makes me lose respect for eBay. A search of newspaperarchive confirms that this term was NEVER used in the national press to refer to Negro, Black or African-American actresses. Author may have confused this with "black tressed" which is a hairstyling term. Maybe we can call Ellen DeGeneres a "thesbian". Mandsford (talk) 13:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

Even if it is an offensive term, that is not the reason I would want it deleted. For one, the link is an eBay link. Ebay sells anything. Trust me. There is nothing special there.Metal Head (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. It's a neologism, agree with all above and per nom. Doc Strange (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 06:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not as a neologism, but an anachronism. I'm old enough to remember the term, briefly used in the early 1970's, as the name of a magazine. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 14:41, 20 November 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. east.718 at 10:43, November 19, 2007

Mark Rodriguez

Non notable person. This reads like a resume. meshach (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this has been deleted before but the content was different enough that I thought a new debate was in order. meshach (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Not notable. Possible Speedy ? Hammer1980·^talk 23:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Clearly a puff piece. Hail the Speedy. scope_creep (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy this. Agreed. • Lawrence Cohen 06:42, 19 November 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, with strong suggestion sources are added to the articles. Davewild (talk) 10:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forres Thistle F.C.

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Dudesleeper · Talk 18:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Junior football clubs are not normally notable. This nomination also applies to:

Delete all. TerriersFan (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relectant Delete all None of these teams are truly notable. Hammer1980·^talk 23:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some of these are really old names, but are junior clubs and have no place here. scope_creep (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Junior football has a different meaning in Scotland, the Scottish Junior Football Association is not a kids league. This has been discussed recently and notability asserted for the top Scottish Junior teams. I'm sure someone with more knowledge of Scottish football will clarify the situation. King of the North East 23:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - They are still quite low in the food chain since they are below the senior non-league leagues (as it were) in the structure. I specifically did not include Culter F.C. which entered the Scottish Club proper but those nominated fail to have even this claim to notability. TerriersFan (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was under the impression that Junior football runs in parallel with Non-league football in Scotland rather than below it, with level 1 junior football being at the same level as the Highland League. I'm not sure why you have chosen to nominate teams from North Region Premier League (level 1 junior football) when there are dozens of articles on teams from level 2 Junior football (Scottish Junior Football West Division One and Scottish Junior Football East Region Premier League) and level 3 Junior football (Scottish Junior Football East Region North Division, Scottish Junior Football East Region South Division & Scottish Junior Football East Region Central Division). King of the North East 01:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep In the context of Scottish football, Junior does not mean youth - Junior football runs alongside "senior" non-league football, so these teams are theoretically at the same level as Highland Football League teams such as Huntly F.C.. Most of the teams you have nominated are from the top division (Scottish Junior Football North Premier League), and are of equivalent standing to Auchinleck Talbot F.C. et al. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - One big difference is that the teams you mention have won significant honours. The ones here have no record of that in the article. TerriersFan (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Banks O' Dee F.C. one says they won the Scottish Junior Cup in 1956-57! That's about as siginificant you can get in the world of the SJFA. - fchd (talk) 17:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I see that as an argument to keep that one but what have the other five won? TerriersFan (talk) 03:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - SJFA clubs are of the equivalent standing to mid-range Non-League clubs in England, and a fair number are stronger than those in the so-called "senior" leagues. - fchd (talk) 16:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Per this past AfD nomination. - Dudesleeper · Talk 17:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Surely the fact that junior teams are "not normally notable" is a justification why they should be kept. if they are not normally notable people will struggle to find info on them, but they will find it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darryl.matheson (talk • contribs) 18:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So the articles should be kept because the subjects aren't notable? That makes no sense at all.... ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per result of previous AfD nomination. King of the North East 20:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As it stands, Forres Thistle F.C. is speediable per A1 (no context), A3 (no content) and A7 (no assertion of notability). The full content is "Logie Park, Forres Current Manager 06/07 Kevin Walker Current squad 06/07 <list of players>". If the club is notable enough for Wikipedia, it certainly doesn't become clear from the article. Aecis^Brievenbus 01:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed (or at least stubbified). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Surely if this article is not notable enough for wikipedia then it throws into question the notablity of every smallish football (or any other sports) club article into doubt. I fully agree with the user above who says about the need to keep articles like this very one on wikipedia as it is supposed to be all about people supplying local knowledge to help educate others on previously unknown subjects. All this article needs it somone with some local information about the ream to expand the article to make it more like the other articles already on wikipedia!! Dreamweaverjack (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - sorry but those are not grounds for a keep never mind a strong keep. I am buying the idea that Junior Cup winners and those teams that enter the Scottish Cup proper are notable but the others need to show compliance with WP:N in their pages. TerriersFan (talk) 04:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - All that is wrong with these six articles is that they need wikified and expanded to become acceptable football club pages. The case for them staying is listed on WP:IKNOWIT, this says that which is irrelevant to one user, could be very important to another user. This wikipedia guideline blows apart User talk:TerriersFan's case for a speedy deletion of any of these articles!! Dreamweaverjack (talk) 05:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator has still not explained the reasoning behind nomination of teams that play at level one of Scottish Junior football (Banks O' Dee F.C., F.C. Stoneywood etc) while dozens of articles remain about teams playing at level 3 of SJFA (Thornton Hibernian F.C., Crossgates Primrose F.C., Sauchie F.C. etc). Just for the record I believe that all of these teams are notable, I'm just pointing out the inconsistency of the nomination. Level 3 of SJFA has been established as equivelent to level 7 of Scottish football. Level 7 of English football is Northern Premier League Premier Division yet a quick look tells us that we have articles about teams at least down to level 12 in England (Fulbourn Institute F.C., Kimberley Town F.C. etc).King of the North East 12:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All Nothing notable. None of the teams are notable at all.Metal Head (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all- it appears that the nomination was based on a misunderstanding of what is meant by "Junior" in the context of Scottish football. All articles, however, are in need of expansion. But being a stub is no good reason to delete. Robotforaday (talk) 12:27, 23 November 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 Strong Keep (closed by non-admin) as per consensus and WP:SNOW. RMHED (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricketers called for throwing

Do we really need a list of cricketers called for chucking? It's not really what you'd consider encyclopaedic, a list of people who infringed a randomly selected law of the game, and it does rather seem to be against the spirit of WP:BLP. I'd say it's just not cricket, myself. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Dismiss it~~ From what I know about cricket, this list would be a monster. Blueboy 96 22:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep ... I thought it was just a partial list, not the full list. Blueboy 96 04:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. It is encyclopaedic. Chucking is not "a randomly selected law of the game"; it is much more that that; it is virtually a taboo. Being called for chucking has destroyed careers and generated animosity between nations. And the list won't be a monster - from what I can tell it is complete now. Hesperian 22:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Totally agree with Hesperian. I can't think of anymore to add to that list. Hammer1980·^talk 23:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, list seems to be mostly complete, and verification probably shouldn't be too hard -- given the amount of literature written on "throwing" (I count four books), I would say that it's definitely a notable taboo in the game. And believe me when I say that I know bupkis about cricket. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep only very few get called for chucking and people basically get run out of the game for doing it. Usually, the selectors will decline to select people who are called. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, this is a good idea for a list on a topic which is oh-so-notable. The inclusion criteria is well-defined, logical and arbitary (no unsourced gossip, it has to be ICC-based). Daniel 23:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This is a highly notable subject and who and who hasn't been called for throwing in a match is a matter of historical record. Anyone who thinks this a 'randomly selected' law of the game doesn't know much about the sport or its history. This nomination is a complete waste of time and the nomination of articles by someone who clearly doesn't know anything about the subject at hand, or indeed the BLP policy, isn't helping build the encyclopedia. Nick mallory (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with your first 2½ sentences, but I think you'll find Guy's understanding of BLP is above reproach, as is his general commitment to helping build the encyclopedia. We all make the occasional misjudgement, so let's not be too hard on him for this one. Hesperian 00:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not been my experience of his judgement but I'll take your word for it. Moondyne seems of the same mind as me though. Nick mallory (talk) 04:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not true Nick. My question is a good faith enquiry of an editor for whom I have great respect. You would do well to assume good faith from all parties, but I know from past exchanges we've had as well as a quick read of your current talk page that that is a struggle for you. —Moondyne 14:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as creator. Notable per all of above. I don't fully understand the rationales in the nomination: Not encyclopaedic:? a number of scientific articles have been written on the subject.(see references at end of article) Randomly selected? its part of the Laws of Cricket. Not in the spirit of BLP: WP is not censored. Its this last one (BLP) that the nominator raised I'd be interested in him explaining. —Moondyne 00:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep chucking my 2 cents in, chucking is a career altering event. As for BLP I can understand that the stigma of being labeled a chucker would need to supported by strong references.Gnan garra 04:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable inclussion criteria. Lugnuts (talk) 09:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable, encyclopaedic and comprehensive. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Throwing has been at the heart of some of the biggest controversies in the sport. Johnlp (talk) 13:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Aside from match-fixing and text messaging, throwing is probably one of the most like talked about things in the world of cricket. Twenty Years 14:20, 19 November 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, with no prejudice to a small referenced comment being added to Theodore Theodorsen article. Davewild (talk) 11:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Theodorsen Relativity Theory

Expired PROD. I have no expertise at all in this area, so I'm bringing it to AfD for consensus. From the PROD reasoning: "No evidence of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject'. There are no such references in the article and searching for "Theodore Theodorsen" relativity -wiki gets zero relevant ghits. Probable copyvio - large parts of the article appear to be copied from Theodorsen's published works and are presumably still copyright." GlassCobra 22:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The theory looks bonafide, as there is plenty of sources available to support it, outside of google. But the fact remains it looks like stream of consciousness copyvio. We need a mathematician/physicist to look to determine the validity of the article. If the article can be cleaned, copyvio and the suitable sources found, I say keep. scope_creep (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please realize that the sources given aside from Theodorsen's own work all predate his work. Thus, they lend nothing to the notability of the theory at hand. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is a book discussing his work. http://www.amazon.com/dp/0930403851

Comment. ~~According to this web site the subject areas covered by this book do not include relativity.~~ This web site says that that book includes a paper by Theodore Theodorsen called Relativity and classical physics, so he seems to have had something to say about the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ~~I think this is a hoax.~~ Theodore Theodorsen was an aerodynamicist. In his main WP article, there are external references to his published papers, and they are all aerodynamics. The only reference to relativity in his main article was added only on 27 September by anonymous IP 167.206.147.218. The only paper by him that this article cites is from 1977, when he was 80. I haven't time to read this article fully today, I'll look at it tomorrow. JohnCD (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I posted the original prod. From the sound of it he was a notable aerodynamicist but went seriously off piste over relativity. His only publication on the subject seems to have been in a fringe journal - in any case there are NO ghits for his work in this area and no relevant references in the article. Anyway the article seems to be a copyvio. andy (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a brief summary to Theodore Theodorsen and delete the rest. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A lack of google hits is not definitive, given the age of the material. However, theories in the area of Physics and Relativity have a long shelf life, even if proven wrong. The fact that no current or recent papers reference this work, even if only to refute it, is troubling. It's like there's a big, sucking hole in the universe where mention of this paper should be, and that hints at a possible exaggeration of the notability (or existance) of this topic. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 03:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable, although the article needs a major revamp and additional sources. — Aššur-bāni-apli (talk · contribs) 14:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - how on Earth can you say "Seems notable"? The article does not give a single valid independent reference - most of the references are just standard works on relativity. His only published work on the subject seems to be Relativity and classical physics and there is no evidence that anyone has ever cited it, which is the only true measure of scientific notability. It's indexed in a few minor publications - searching Google finds 10 hits for "Relativity and classical physics" theodorsen, most of them duplicates of entries in "Proceedings of the Theodorsen Colloquium" and a fringe, non-peer reviewed, journal called "Galilean Electrodynamics". And that's all.
Further comment re copyvio. The author (a Single Purpose Account) has uploaded lots of images of equations to the article. He's tagged them all with {{PD-self}}. So therefore they are either really his equations, not Theodorsen's (which makes the article a hoax) or they're in breach of copyright. andy (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine the pd-self tag refers to the image, not to the mathematical content of the image. But that's the wrong way to add mathematical equations to a Wikipedia article; he should be using <math> ... </math>. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that if it's not his maths then he can't give copyright permission for the images. And if it is his maths the article is a hoax. andy (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly non-notable fringe theory (or hoax). It's also more or less complete bullshit, if anyone cares. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per andy. This is a hoax. I was fooled by the equation images and not being familiar with the subject. So I've changed my vote. Creator of the article, Gaccolla (talk · contribs) should be given a warning for trolling. — Aššur-bāni-apli II (talk · contribs) 22:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and proposal No, it's not a hoax - thanks to Phil Bridger's note above it is clear that Theodorsen did write such a paper. But we don't know when or where it was published: the reference in the article is to a "Theodorsen Colloquium" of Det Kongelige Norske Videnskabers Selskab (The Royal Norwegian Society of Sciences and Letters) in June 1977 - probably to celebrate his 80th birthday that year; but it seems unlikely that that was first publication.

I have spent the afternoon in the local university library working my way along 12 shelf feet of their books, old and new, on relativity, without finding any trace of Theodorsen's theory. It seems not to have made the slightest impact. That being so, I can't think it notable, or that there is any point keeping it in all its mathematical glory. I propose that we insert a brief reference into Theodorsen's main article, (which I have boldly done here, for anyone to improve or revert) and then delete this article.

If anyone thinks it worth while, I would be prepared to contact DKNVS and ask them for details of the paper, so that we could insert a better reference to it. JohnCD (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I reverted your reference in the main article. It relies on the Relativity article which everyone seems to agree is very dodgy. We don't actually know anything about this paper other than its existence. Worth contacting the DKNVS and then inserting a reference into the main article. andy (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we do know about it, actually: we have it, or large extracts from it, here in front of us. I think it's most unlikely that Gaccolla has laboriously made all this up. All that we don't know is whether, when or where it was published. But I'll ask DKNVS if they can tell us that. JohnCD (talk) 10:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We know of three possible publications of the paper: in the DKNVS journal in 1977, in the book "A modern view and appreciation of the works of Theodore Theodorsen" in 1992, and in Galilean Electrodynamics Vol 6, no. 4, p. 63 in 1995. None of these, presumably, are the first publication. I will ask DKNVS if they know when that was. If that can be tracked down, I think TT's interest in relativity, (but not the detail of his theory), is worth a short paragraph in his main article, and possibly also a mention in Alternatives to general relativity. But the article under review here should go, anyway. JohnCD (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable to me. andy (talk) 23:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is definitely NOT a hoax, but possibly WP:OR. I vaguely recall reading this before.... Hmmm. Leaning to keeping it for at least a few days. 14:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC) signed Bearian'sBooties (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone is being very polite about this pathetic article. It's probably not a hoax but there's not a single word in it that can be relied on. And even if it were gospel truth it's based round one non-notable paper that was mentioned in passing in a small Norwegian conference and then republished in a fringe journal of Einstein-sceptics many years later. Theodorsen's "real" work is highly notable and frequently cited but this oddity of a paper (about which we have no reliable facts anyway) sank like a stone. andy (talk) 17:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as a minor comment into the main article, per Clarityfiend, and as done once by JohnCD, as soon as a suitable ref. to the article is found. Tim Ross·^talk 20:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE is acceptable by author. The man Theodore Theodorsen was a great man with countless insights into mathematics. Unless someone is willing to prove this man wrong than this article should stay as a benchmark of out diverse knowledge of relativity. Albeit alternative knowledge. This article was given to me to post "NO" copyright or publication rights exists. The present holder (owner) of this information has freely given this information to the public domain. The owner is the son of Theodore Theodorsen. Any dispute on this matter should be directed to him. @ [email protected]. Don't shoot the messenger. I just helped him post the information, I didn't make it up. This information was given to the public once before and that publication was "GALILEAN ELECTRODYNAMICS" Vol 6 no. 4 July/August 1995. The posted information was a reflection of that publications dissemination of the journals of Theodore Theodorsen. Theodore Theodorsen was a quiet man with little to do with the spotlight. His vision and teachings are to this day being used in mathematics. Again this information is for the world to have. I don't claim to be a math wizard, but I believe that there are many things that are left out of the public domain for wacky reasons. I am not a Wiki wizard and have a lot to learn. I do know one thing. If you delete this mans work you will end his contribution to the future thinkers of tomorrow.

GPA (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you'll read the comments above, you'll notice that while concerns of a hoax have abounded, the primary concern for which this article will be deleted is the apparent lack of notability of the theory. Not every theory originating from a notable person gets an article; only those theories that are verifiable by third-party reliable sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note re recent !votes - GPA is the article's creator Gaccolla; User:167.206.147.218 comes from NY as does Gaccolla, has an overlapping edit history on the article, and may be connected with Gaccolla. andy (talk) 23:00, 23

November 2007 (UTC)

My Vote

I just assumed my vote counted also. I was never hiding who I was to the discussion board. If you look at the edits you can see for yourself gaccolla is listed everywhere. I am sorry to all for the confusion if any existed. GPA (talk) 23:44, 23 November 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 --JForget 01:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pareils

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Blueboy 96 22:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — for the nominated reason. I had put the article up for proposed deletion previous to this nomination. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 22:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its a badly written, no sources or context, destined for wikidictionary perhaps ?? scope_creep (talk) 23:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 23:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. • Lawrence Cohen 06:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Karanacs (talk) 21:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 07:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close as delete, admin please? There's nothing to transwiki here, wiktionary is fine enough as it now, thank you--victor falk (talk) 00:28, 21 November 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 per CSD A7. GlassCobra 03:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rounders Poker

Nonnotable online poker game, no independent sources, reads like an ad. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ad. Hammer1980·^talk 23:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A7. shoy (^words _words) 23:48, 18 November 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, just another way of trying to list a nonnotable band, no sources but band's MySpace page. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chillstep

A "subgenre" of drum and bass created by the band Uberchile, whose article has twice been speedily deleted. The only source cited is this band's MySpace. Fails to meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability and neologisms. Delete. EALacey (talk) 21:48, 18 November 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. Reviewing the arguments by various parties the end result was a stalemate. If there are no objections, I may be WP:BOLD and merge this with another page, then disambiguate. RFerreira (talk) 02:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blockparty

Doesn't seem notable to me. JöиÁ †ĥăИ — Quality, not quantity. 21:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete No doubt the group exists and seems to be growing in popularity, but I can't see anything which defines it to be notable. scope_creep (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just added the point that Blockparty's unique position (paired with a non-demoscene event) makes it a vehicle for outreach and introduction, which isn't found (to my knowledge) anywhere else in the demoscene, past or present. Myself248 (talk) 18:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; it might end up notable someday, but it doesn't look like it's quite there yet. — Coren ^(talk) 04:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the unrelated Bloc Party. MLA (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, should redirect to block party. Chubbles (talk) 14:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is currently the largest demo party in North America and had presenters that are very notable in the demoscene. If this article deserves deletion, then you might as well delete every other party indicated on Wikipedia's List of demoparties, as some are and were far smaller and less "notable" than Blockparty. --Froggy (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems just as notable as any other demoparty, if not more -- firstly because it hasn't fizzled or flopped yet, secondly because it's in north america, which is something of an anomaly in the "scene". Perhaps the article could make a better case for notability, but deleting it before people have a chance to expand it would seem to throw the baby out with the bathwater. 68.43.149.99 (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete unnotable, unencyclopaedic topic. And yes, I will AfD the demo party other articles as well. — Aššur-bāni-apli (talk · contribs) 17:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, why don't you also add to the AfD pile the tens of thousands of articles on minor villages and cities that probably aren't "unencyclopaedic" as well? In fact, if this article isn't notable (which it is) you might as well delete three-fourths of Wikipedia's articles since they're likely not notable either. --Froggy (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Congratulations! You win the "First one to mention the 'might as well delete everything' pseudo-argument" prize! The "First one to cry 'Censorship!'" prize is still up for grabs, though. Any takers? — Coren ^(talk) 18:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is only a pseudo-argument because it seems that selective criteria is often used to determine notable and what is not on Wikipedia. Nice try at the personal attack, though, but it just wasn't funny. Also, it does not address or support the core assertion by the nominator that the subject at hand isn't notable. I am more interested in offering educational, interesting and accurate information on topics. You believe this article has no value. I believe that we should be constructive on the issue versus destructive. We will see how the vote turns out, I guess. --Froggy (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - In that case, why don't you also add to the AfD pile the tens of thousands of articles on minor villages and cities that probably aren't "unencyclopaedic" as well? — Well, they happen to be notable, I guess. Or it could also be that I don't care about such trivial topics enough so that I would waste my time with going through the AfD process of putting them up for deletion. In any case, I do not think this topic is interesting enough to be kept. Although I am usually an inclusionist, I can also vote for delete when it happens to be completely uninteresting stuff. — Aššur-bāni-apli II (talk · contribs) 21:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Strong Keep and expand. Since when does lack of "interest" in a subject determine the article's worth? Your total disinterest in the subject should not determine the status of this article. As you eloquently put it "I will AfD the demo party other articles as well". This essentially discredits your opinion in my book, as it obviously shows that you have no knowledge of the subject at hand. The demoscene is one of the most important computer subcultures in existence, and Blockparty is the only remaining demoparty in all of North America. (Temporarily out of retirement to rectify this injustice) 65.189.182.171 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary out of retirement Keep article is on the SOLE US Demoparty still in existance. Each of the speakers at it was notable on their own right, your saying their collaboration wasnt notable. By that logic lets delete the United Nations then, although each member is important, their group actions arent. Or lets delete the United States Senate, members are notable, oh right but their collaborative efforts arent. Nom your logic fails to make sense here, and your nom is a perfect example of WP:JNN. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 18:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mean except for the hundreds, if not thousands, of books, papers, articles and documentaries written about the UN or the Senate? Apples with apples, if you please. — Coren ^(talk) 18:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. // Gargaj (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see how it's not notable, it's one of the few demoparties in the United States and probably the biggest one. --Tobias Lind (talk) 12:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand per ALKIVAR et al. The only argument for the deletion of this article so far has been the 'I have not heard of it, so it cannot be notable' one. KovacsUr (talk) 12:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - does seem a good example of this genre of event, even though I admit it is only weakly notable. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 12:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No apparent notability or importance. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. (I took a little while, didn't I? :D) Jonathan — Quality, not quantity. 22:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Else just go and delete Game_Developers_Conference et al also. Strange opinion on worthy content some guys seem to have here. Lighten up. Jarscience (talk) 09:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. 90.204.88.35 (talk) 11:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - North American demoparties are significantly more rare than their European equivalents and as such this demoparty has - in my opinion - significant notability as well. Additionally, the article is well-written (though a bit short) enough to stay. -mrbartjens (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a demoscener I have never heard or seen anything from/about this so called demoparty stefan 4:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Here is the Pouet.net entry for Blockparty and its entries/demos, and here is the website and the collection of additional items released at the party. Here is the entry at demoparty.net. --72.93.254.193 (talk) 09:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - so all in all (including a disk mag that would have been released anyways, and an invite intro) you have 15 releases. Ever. What a notable demoparty! Adding a demoparty to an encyclopedia just because it's location would mean we could practically add any demoparty just because "hey! it's this and that's town only demoparty!". Release wise and scene wise your so called demoparty doesn't touch many demosceners and if it doesn't touch us. Who cares about? Notable my ass. stefan 12:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.210.226.228 (talk) [reply]
    - It sounds like you're hinting that the primary purpose of the article in question is self-promotion, which of course is against wikipedia rules. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Account only has this single edit. // Gargaj (talk) 21:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Trying to discrediting me for being a resting Wikipedian doesn't change the fact that I am a part of the demoscene community and generally know how the demoscene works and how we measure magnitude of a demoparty. Nobody remembers/cares about demoparties that doesn't have quality/quantity releases. You if anyone should know that, Gargaj. Blockparty has neither. Nor does it have any kind of "new" thinking that an encyclopedic topic needs to be notable if it's not well known. It's just a really small demoparty in USA. Can i add a Skogome demoparty to Wikipedia? -Afterall, if I would arrange a demoparty it would for sure be Skogome's only demoparty. stefan 22:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.210.226.228 (talk) [reply]
Delete The article does not establish notability. The wording of the article also smells of promotion rather then encyclopedic. Mikemill (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep please it is a important subject and erasing does not help our encyclopedia see also WP:IAR why deletion of this articles is wrong yuckfoo (talk) 01:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Alkivar. Seems notable enough and is presented in a coherent fashion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn as a club is. It's a big club, but that's the impression I get of it. Greswik (talk) 22:21, 23 November 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 --JForget 01:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lon Haber

This is a young actor with a few TV episode credits and other sundry work, virtually all edits have been by his PR. There are only around 200 unique google hits, and most of them look to be directory style and add-yourself type sites. I am concerned that this has been used by his PR as part of a campaign to boost the subject. Article is compromised by peacock terms, and the cited sources are not independent. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only seven Yahoo hits--and two of them are Wikipedia hits. Blueboy 96 22:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom--Doc^g 22:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in accordance with Guy's nomination. Bastique 22:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Possibly Speedy. Hammer1980·^talk 23:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not yet notable enough. • Lawrence Cohen 06:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. RMHED (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTE -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 07:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Guy's nomination and by request of Lon Haber. dukeanjou^g 8:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by User:Canadian Paul. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vunet

Requesting a salt of this article (I'm getting sick of speedying it). Keeps being recreated by the same author. It's pretty much nonsense, and now the author is just creating it to make some unknown point. A^RendedWinter 21:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, it was just deleted. Again... A salt would still be good though. A^RendedWinter 21:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I put a note about salting it on the talk page of the last person to delete it. Amaryllis25^{"Talk to me"} 21:46, 18 November 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, after largely discounting SPAs, arguments that it does have notability seem to be strongest . Davewild (talk) 11:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International University Vienna

There are few sources about this unaccredited school. The management would rather there were no article. I have no particular opinion on that, although it does look rather as if this article exists only to rub in the point that it's not accredited. However, if it can be substantiated, the claim of being the only school in Austria whose accreditation has been withdrawn, would be singular and may therefore count as evidence of notability. Guy (Help!) 21:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The German article's links to the Austrian parliament and accreditation council check out. I'd say it's short history certainly makes it notable in the annals of Austrian education. - --Paularblaster (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep even a unaccredited university like this one is notable, after all it is still open to students. RMHED (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An unaccredited university is not notable. What makes this school stand out?Metal Head (talk) 03:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a unique instance of loss of accreditation it is notable by notoriety. --Paularblaster (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The International University in Vienna is not an important "fact" in Austrian education.I would suggest to cancel this articleuser:Helm Gunter —Preceding comment was added at 16:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of the entry regarding International University Vienna is the best option. The institution is unimportant and largely unknown even in Vienna. Wikipedia should deal with more important issues to keep its high reputation. Besides, there are now two American-style institutions in Vienna no longer Austrian accredited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grundig6969 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article. I have known a number of unaccredited schools which have produced outstanding graduates in business, diplomacy, and other fields in both Europe and America. The fact does not relate to the quality of instruction. 1papadog —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1papadog (talk • contribs) 18:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Article says it has been accredited in the past as a private university. I cannot understand why we not should have an article about a university which has been accredited for a period of time. Greswik (talk) 22:28, 23 November 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 to Ran (film). As the merge has now made the character section unwieldy, it needs to be cleaned up some. Any volunteers? Tijuana Brass (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Characters in Ran

This article is just a repetition of the Character section of the incredible Japanese film by Kurasawa, and appears to assert no notability outside of the film. Thus, it is just duplication. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge them Delete as per nom. Take an additional useful info into main article, then delete. scope_creep (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge them Delete as per nom.Hammer1980·^talk 23:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete per nom. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:51, 26 November 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 --JForget 01:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs featured in car advertisements

Another one of these endless lists, this one also fails WP:V and WP:NOR Delete This is a Secret ^account 21:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 21:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not that the effort isn't appreciated, but advertising campaigns don't last very long, relatively speaking. A particular song may be associated with a vehicle for a while, but none are actually written for a commercial (except for "See the USA in your Chevrolet" of "Suddenly It's Gonna Dawn On You" maybe). Ten years from now, most people will not associate "Like A Rock" with a pickup truck. Mandsford (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment We write for current users too, not to hide the encyclopedia for 10 years. And if in 10 years they won;t remember, that sounds like an excellent reason why we should cover it now. DGG (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This is listcruft. The list could go to 22k songs, since they have been using that technique, almost since the start of advertising. scope_creep (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless list. Hammer1980·^talk 23:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even worthy to be a category. Kwsn (Ni!) 01:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another utterly pointless list. Hey, let's have "List of songs that have been played on AM radio in the state of Wisconsin"! Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm pretty sure this list was created previously and deleted. Certainly the one for List of songs featured in advertisements (or a title variation of) was deleted. Maybe someone should set up a site for this kind of thing? Lugnuts (talk) 09:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, wait, found it - old AFD - speedy delete. Lugnuts (talk) 09:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found this article a while ago and was looking for a reliable source to add a particular song. Couldn't find one. Therefore I think the article is unmaintainable. MorganaFiolett (talk) 09:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Listcruft...any list involving use of something in a commercial or a trailer is a strong delete. Doc Strange (talk) 16:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 07:01, 20 November 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 06:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs from films

One of these lists that can be endless, almost every film as songs in it, see WP:LC Delete This is a Secret ^account 20:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the intent was to make a list of songs that were specifically written for a film soundtrack, rather than a list of songs that have been in a film at some point. However, such a list would require more verification than this. Wikipedians seem to get nauseated by lists of this nature, so I'm not encouraging the author to source the article. I'm sure there will be a lot of people agreeing with your nomination. Mandsford (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This song list could run to 200k songs, easily. But it is useful and notable information. This Wikipedia at the moment, doesn't seem to have at the moment, a way to associate semantic or meta name tags to specific subjects or articles in a way which enables individual articles to be built up as a category or group of related articles. Does it? So what does it do in the meantime. scope_creep (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Categorify. There's no need for a list here. Kwsn (Ni!) 01:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Enough of these absurd lists. What's next -- a list of songs sung by French women under the age of 46? A list of paintings that contain the color blue? Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, this is beyond what lists are for. Mr.Z-man 01:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless the next list is List of songs that rhyme. Danny (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete list subject far too broad, impossible to manage. RMHED (talk) 16:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree, the topic is simply too broad. In theory every motion picture with a musical score could be listed here. 23skidoo (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a near endless and pointless list. RMHED (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! once is enough. RMHED (talk) 23:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A broad category, difficult to manage. Songs from movies may find a place in an article related to that movie, not here -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 07:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NO!!! There must be millions of songs out there that have at some point been used in at least one film, but none of the songs have anything in common with each other other than this one quirk of their usage. You might as well have a List of songs that have been played in my car and that wouldn't be notable either. So, as the article is, straight failure of WP:UNENC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A1octopus (talk • contribs) 19:40, 20 November 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 (closed by non-admin) per consensus and Smerdis of Tlön's rewrite and sourcing. RMHED (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aspidochelone

No references and nothing found to clarify description and establish notability. Everything on Google seems to be in Chinese(?) language. Hammer1980·^talk 20:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Stream of consciousness article, zero sources, unwikied. Wheres the sources. Can't find anything on the web. scope_creep (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have entirely rewritten the page, adding references. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Smerdis/Ihcoyc's rewrite makes it suitable for WP. Deor (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rewrite solves problem. If it was like this originally I would not have considered nominating. Hammer1980·^talk 00:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After Ihcoyc's rewrite, this is a well-sourced and informative article. EALacey (talk) 11:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks fine, now. Tim Ross (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment hmmm, funny that my google is set to search by default on English, Chinese and Japanese languages, and most of the results are English with a little Japanese pages(FF XI monster). I tried a specific Chinese laguage search, and the first result gave a description of it being a monster originated from Europe. Also, listing a new article AfD in just 3 days is hardly assuming good faith. List it as a stub next time and save others time, please.
Keep Given the status as of now, it seems to be pretty good start article. MythSearcher^talk 18:19, 20 November 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 The comments which do not call for deletion do not contain any compelling arguments for retention. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 14:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of valleys of the United States

Redundant to Category:Valleys of the United States Ezeu (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep There is nothing in WP policy and guidelines that says Lists are to be deleted because a similar category exists. It is also factually untrue that the list and category contain the same information ('redundant'): the list includes many red links for valleys for which there are not (yet) WP articles; the category by its nature can never contain the redlinked valley names. Hmains (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The problem is the lack of parameters. This article has had a number of starts and stops over the years. In June '06, someone added all of the Massachusetts locations that he was aware of, and that's the main reason that all of the redlinks are there. Not every valley is inherently notable. "Rattlesnake Gutter" may, technically, be in the same category as the "Missouri River Valley", but there is a great difference between the two. Mandsford (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since the category is divided by state, and the list provides no other information than the state, I don' see why we should have it. I usually support lists because of their possibilities for expansion and arrangement, but I dont see much here.DGG (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per both of the above. jj137 (Talk) 22:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There is some validity in an article like this, but it sets precedence if we keep it. I think it could be useful to have an article of this type has additional info, expanded out with maps, and locations, geograhical data. Where else would such an article be found, except in an specialist GIS/GS journal or website. If we keep it, we need it expanded, and additional linked articles for all other countries in the world. scope_creep (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there's going to be a precedent, this would be a terrible precedent. There needs to be some distinction between the valleys that are defined by major rivers and their larger tributaries, and those which happen to be fed by creeks. And there are lots and lots and lots of creeks, which feed branches, which feed rivers. The same way, little hollows are part of larger valleys. I have a feeling that the Massachusetts contributor may not have realized the difference. On the other hand, I think that Wikipedia could make a project of cataloging the world's rivers, based on nature's own organizational system, by noting where they come from and where they go. The rivers, of course, define the valleys. Mandsford (talk) 01:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consider for Keep. This article contains a lot of red links. Such lists are potentially useful for identifying missing articles. The question (which I am not qualified to answer is how many of the red link valleys are significant enough to warrant having an article. In England (where I am), there are articles on many rivers and apparatus to provide links to tributaries. Nevertheless, classification by main river would be preferable to this indiscriminate list. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:23, 19 November 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 - thanks for alerting me for the miss of closing it Shoy. --JForget 02:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mialoa

Possible WP:HOAX or walled garden, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drepandrikidae and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sczoloa. No hits on source which User:Polbot uses to create missing species articles [4]. shoy (^words _words) 20:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Child articles of this article:

Ancient Mialoa
Prehistoric Mialoa
Modern Mialoa

No G-hits for any outside wikipedia and mirrors.

Common names: [5] [6] [7]
Scientific names: [8], [9], [10]
Mialoa+bird on Google Books, Google Scholar, Google News.

For comparison, see Lesser Koa Finch, a similar extinct bird. "Rhodacanthis flaviceps" -wikipedia gets 148 GHits, and "Lesser Koa Finch" -wikipedia gets 186. I would say 0 Ghits for a supposed binomial name is a bit suspicious, to say the least. shoy (^words _words) 21:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 22:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep We could throwing away Wikipedia content here. I think we need to keep all these articles on Wikipedia, until we get a bird expert to examine the articles. The rarity of certain bird species means that only a handful of ornithologists may know about this species. We need to keep, until we get a definative answer. scope_creep (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Drive to extinction, sorry, delete the lot. Speedily if possible. Hoax, albeit a clever one. Even extremely unknown bird species generate a hit or fifty on google. Web of Science found nothing, and as a PhD student of Pacific birds it's afe to say that this is not something we want around. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I'm not a bird-guy, but rather an invertebrate zoologist. Nonetheless, this certainly is a super good hoax if it's a hoax. As already noted, there is a severe shortage of outside reference material related to Mialoa, which is strange. I did find several refs via Google, though, although the name seems also to be a Polish word so there are many non-meaningful ones as well. The beast really does seem to exist. Notably, the article's author has been doing perfectly respectable seeming bird article for a while. Tim Ross (talk) 13:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Care to share those sources with us? I certainly didn't find any, as you can see. shoy (^words _words) 13:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Sure. Here's what I ran across: World Atlas of Biodiversity: Earth's Living Resources in the 21st Century by Brian Groombridge, Martin Jenkins and The W2N.net Wikipedia: Hawaiian honeycreeper. These may not be too impressive, but they do show some recognition for the name. Note that I didn't actually search to see what they had to say. Tim Ross (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second one is a mirror of the Wikipedia page Hawaiian honeycreeper, a different subfamily (which incidentially gets 12000, indication that real birds do exist on Google)... Can you point out where in the first one the bird is mentioned? Thue | talk 18:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books says it shows up here, but all I see is a highlighted spot on a blank page. Anyone else care to confirm? shoy (^words _words) 19:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing does not exist. Search Hawaiian Honeycreepers by Douglas Pratt, the definitive treatment of the family. Doesn't generate a single hit. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Probable hoax. Doesn't show up on [11] Mdmkolbe (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Doesn't seem to be a bird that has ever existed, but if it has existed, it should be kept, however, merged into one article about Mialoa. If this is a hoax, it's probably a stupid hoax since I don't see what anyone could gain from creating an article like this. In any case, if it is a hoax, the creator of the article, Barati11 (talk · contribs) should be contacted and given a warning for creating fake articles on Wikipedia. — Aššur-bāni-apli (talk · contribs) 17:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I too looked at the on-line World Atlas of Biodiversity. Google Books has what seems to be another copy of the same book (same ISBN) here, and it doesn't contain "Mialoa". Also, the hit at the copy that does contain "Mialoa" shows it with a ` that doesn't make sense (‘Mialoa). I strongly suspect it's an OCR error for 'Akialoa. So I don't think we've got any valid hits at all, including in places where, as Sabine's Sunbird pointed out, we would expect it. It would be nice if someone could find a copy of that book, but I'm not in any doubt. —JerryFriedman (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, seems to be a pointless hoax. RMHED (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; obvious hoax and not a very good one, no doubts whatsoever.Maias (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would be delighted to change my recommended "Strong Keep" (above) to a "Delete" if someone who knows about birds will look at some of Barati11's many artiicles relating to Hawaiian ornithology to see if he has been perpetuating numerous hoaxes, or has just decided to behave very uncharacteristically in several recent instances. His record does not really look like that of a hoaxer, especially in what I must assume is his own field. Tim Ross (talk) 00:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is under discussion here. Shyamal (talk) 02:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thue has indef-blocked the article creator and his apparent sockpuppet, see here. shoy (^words _words) 13:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no info is better than untraceable info. Shyamal (talk) 02:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely no evidence that these species ever existed. Also check my comments on the claimed names here, as they clearly were made up by someone without knowledge of even the most basic rules involved in naming new taxa (such as species, and, in this case, even the subfamily!). Rabo3 (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - ditto to Maias, an obvious hoax and not a very good one. One clear give-away is the use of imperial units, not SI units; no scientist would use them in describing a genuine species - MPF (talk) 20:41, 20 November 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 06:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antti Öhrling

No sources for assertion of notability Arx Fortis (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom unless sources are forthcoming. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 23:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, a mention in the Blyk article may be warranted, but no article in itself. Greswik (talk) 22:31, 23 November 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. east.718 at 05:24, November 24, 2007

Amy Paffrath

Advert for non-notable actress. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 20:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local anchorwomen on DirecTV. Doesn't make her notable though. scope_creep (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per nom, in addition to being a journalist on DirecTV she mainly seems to have played in a 'film' with a budget of $35 000, doesn't really make it to an ancyclopedia yet. Article is made by SP-account. Greswik (talk) 22:38, 23 November 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. east.718 at 05:25, November 24, 2007

Whatzup Magazine

Title is misleading, article is actually about two competitions local to Fort Wayne, IN whaich are hosted by Whatzup Magazine. No indication that these event are notable outside Fort Wayne. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even if the article is re-written, I'm not sure that the magazine is notable. Rklawton (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Local community web site, providing magazine articles, but no notability whatsoever. scope_creep (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Poor article, not notable, and the atricle has no specific content except listing nominations. — Aššur-bāni-apli (talk · contribs) 14:44, 19 November 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 06:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unhindered

Article was proposed for deletion but had previously been proposed for deletion and then recreated so not eligable for prod. Reason for deletion was 'Article currently fails WP:MUSIC - no assertion of notability; has been tagged as such since July. Google brings up very little that's relevant.' Davewild (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No updating to establish notability, no weblinks other than Myspace and personal website. Maybe someone has a source to look up Contemporary Christian bands--google might not have all the info. Amaryllis25^{"Talk to me"} 22:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Completely fails to assert any kind of notability. scope_creep (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable band. RMHED (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable band. Greswik (talk) 22:40, 23 November 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. --JForget 01:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As-salihin

Article still reads like an advertisement. Hammer1980·^talk 19:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Should be speedied. scope_creep (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is clearly an advertisement. Tim Ross (talk) 13:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like an ad. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 07:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only trivial amounts of information anyway. •Malinaccier Public• ^T/C 17:46, 20 November 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 — Caknuck (talk) 08:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Artistic inquiry

I cannot find anything to suggest the subject is notable. Hammer1980·^talk 19:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. :-) Stwalkerster talk 22:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom.scope_creep (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of scholar hits (sorry DGG, thompson is down); all relatively old, but this doesn't seem like a made-up term. --- tqbf 21:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I, too, found lots of hits, but the vast majority merely involve this short phrase as it might occur in any casual conversation or writing, not some specific concept worthy of an article. Not much notability, if any. Tim Ross·^talk 17:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what seems to be a book on it, cited by at least one Springer-Verlag journal (there's a Journal of Dance Therapy?!). --- tqbf 18:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the theory behind my "keep" is that a standard less rigorous than WP:PROF could apply to a short, balanced article about a bona fide research area. Clearly if we were debating keeping an article about Lenore Hervey, this subject would fall far short of WP:N. --- tqbf 19:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not establish the notability requirement. Mikemill (talk) 15:41, 22 November 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 Close, wrong venue, page tagged for merging by nom. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edinburgh Masker

This the first time I've nominated a deletion, did I format this correctly? I started to edit this article, but then I merged it into the Anti-stuttering devices article. The Edinburgh Masker is one of about twenty anti-stuttering devices, it's better to have one article listing all twenty than to have twenty little articles.--TDKehoe (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't, but I'm fixing it. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See Help:Merging and moving pages for merger instructions. --Brewcrewer (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The curious device is no longer manufactured, but it does seem to have been prominent or notable when it was . I can't find any sources to identify notability. scope_creep (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to UtherSRG for formating this correctly, and thanks to Brewcrewer for pointing out that what I want to do is a merger, not a deletion. I'll remove the deletion tag and put in a merger tag.--TDKehoe (talk) 21:18, 18 November 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 — Caknuck (talk) 08:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Health Ranger

Notability, recreated after 2 speedy deletions. UtherSRG (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability supported by enough third-party sources. StrengthOfNations (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - well sourced, but no notability asserted. Rudget.talk 17:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete it seems like the article's main point is that it should survive an afd. --Brewcrewer (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It can't really be helped; if you don't include some assertion of notability, that in itself is reason to delete. StrengthOfNations (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article reads like a cry for help, but a search of sources, doesn't really find anything which asserts notability. scope_creep (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Rudget. jj137 (Talk) 22:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; there are sources, but they are either incidental or not independent. — Coren ^(talk) 00:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As the article notes, the lack of major media sources is due to systemic bias. Control Hazard (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Struck comment by indef blocked sockpuppet. — Coren ^(talk) 21:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - In 2007, a Wikipedia article was created about the Health Ranger, but as of November 19, it appeared destined for deletion due to scarcity of third-party non-blog published sources. Thus, having criticized the mainstream media on many occasions for its failure to adequately cover the benefits of alternative medicine and natural foods (due to its being financed largely by advertising by processed food manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies), the Health Ranger was now finding that same media blackout preventing him from being covered by secondary sources such as Wikipedia. The Health Ranger's disdain for mainstream media had been expressed in the past by comments such as, "How can you get an honest story when all the people writing the stories are, in effect, paid by the drug companies? You can't, and that's why most of the information out there is just hogwash. It's completely distorted; it's basically payola. You pay the right publisher enough money in advertising; you have influence over their content. That's why you can only get trusted content from sources that are truly independent."^[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stayman Apple (talk • contribs) 13:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - What sources, in this case, qualify as being "truly independent" given the intertwined influence of media conglomerates, big business, etc. in the mainstream, citable-by-Wikipedia media which contributes to the scarcity of coverage of alternative medicine, the Health Ranger, etc. Stayman Apple (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Given that the "evil mainstream media" is positively in love with that sort of pseudoscientific slop, and will cover with glee the numerous quacks and healers pushing their wares regardless of how dangerous they are— as long as they can make a sensationalist or "feel good" story out of it— your claims of media bias as an excuse for a lack of sources ring particularly hollow. — Coren ^(talk) 14:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        How do you account for the lack of sources then? Stayman Apple (talk) 14:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Have you considered that the "Health Ranger" might simply not be notable? — Coren ^(talk) 14:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        But his writings are so cogent and informative. I think he's underappreciated. Stayman Apple (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        What you think of his writings is not relevant. What is relevant is reliable sources that are verifiable. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It's relevant to me, though. And that's something you can never take away. Stayman Apple (talk) 15:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        By the way, the Health Ranger would say that it's actually the mainstream healthcare system (big pharma, etc.) who are the followers of pseudoscience pushing dangerous wares. They just happen to be the ones in power and able to influence what shows up in the media. See http://www.newstarget.com/021922.html I would challenge you to point out any claim of his that is suspect. Ending consumption of refined sugar and white flour and following his other advice will in fact reverse type 2 diabetes. Stayman Apple (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes. He could also say that the earth is hollow and filled with whipped cream. That's in no way relevant to this discussion. — Coren ^(talk) 17:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        If the allegedly pseudoscientific nature of his material and the question of whether he is a quack is not relevant to the discussion, then why did you describe it as such above? Stayman Apple (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        What Mike Adams may say about the media isn't relevant. — Coren ^(talk) 19:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And let me ask you all this: What makes the Health Ranger less notable than, say, the Angry Nintendo Nerd? Both are subjects pretty much lacking in published sources media; virtually all the google hits are to content created by the individual himself (e.g. videos of Angry Nintendo Nerd's review of Friday the 13th or the Health Ranger's articles on superfoods) or to blog references. So why keep one and not the other? There just happen to be more Wikipedians who are fans of the Angry Nintendo Nerd than the Health Ranger and deem him important, so the former gets kept. It's just a case of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Stayman Apple (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first off, Angry Nintendo Nerd doesn't have an article, but is simply a redirect to the article of a web site that is (at least marginally) sourced and which meets WP:WEB.
But if you like quoting from the WP space, you might want to read WP:WAX. The fact that other non-notable topics have articles is not a reason to keep this one— at best, it's a good reason to bring the others to AfD. — Coren ^(talk) 20:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Google gives 43,800 hits for the search combo ["Health Ranger" "Mike Adams"]. That's a large ammount of hits for something presumed of lacking notability. Yet I haven't searched in depth these hits and I don't know how many are prime quality sources, if any. I suspect the authors have done a poor research job. (Note: I have no serious opinion on this issue, just read about this AFD at the CSB WikiProject). --Sugaar (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete there's nothing there that' particularly great, source-wise, supporting the non-notability. delete the article, and salt it. IF a good article can be written, it can be sandbox'd, then the move request can be filed, with explanations. ThuranX (talk) 22:16, 20 November 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 --JForget 00:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin McLaughlin

Strong suspicion of a hoax.

Compare the Anthony Burns and the Kevin McLaughlin articles. The McLaughlin article is the Burns article with a few sentences removed and alll the names changed. Both Anthony Burns and Joshua Glover, listed as fugitive slaves with Wikipedia articles in Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 have extensive Google results -- searches for Kevin McLaughlin returns listing for a poet, a scientist, a couple of businessmen -- and no slaves, fugitive or otherwise. Of course, a Google search doesn't take the place of actual research, but it's telling that the Burns article is well referenced, and the McLaughlin article is unreferenced -- I strongly suspect that it is because, as a hoax, it can't be referenced. ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There does not seem to be any valid sources, although it is extremely difficult to prove otherwise. If sources surface, keep. scope_creep (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. Creator only created this article, which makes it more suspicious. --Brewcrewer (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per both of the above. jj137 (Talk) 22:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 07:05, 20 November 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 --JForget 01:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drepandrikidae

Hoax? No sources cited, and no google hits for Drepandrikidae. There do not seem to be google hits for the linked subspecies, such as Mialoa or Sczoloa, so they should be deleted too if this family article is deleted. Thue | talk 18:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Child articles:

Mialoa (AfD)
Sczoloa (AfD)

shoy (^words _words) 23:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. --Brewcrewer (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is weird, it looks like a walled garden, but the author has created other good articles. No hits for "Drepandrikidae" on the website the author usually cites [12]. shoy (^words _words) 20:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. If there's evidence or sources to support the existence of these species, I cannot find it. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 20:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others in this discussion :-) Stwalkerster talk 22:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above comments. RMHED (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is further worth noting that if these species really had existed, the majority had been named by people without knowledge of even the most basic rules involved in naming taxa (such as species). Notice the "interesting" endings to several of the scientific names (cf. ICZN, especially articles 11, 30, etc, or even the summary - available here)! Rabo3 (talk) 05:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 07:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete see also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds#AfD - author has been blocked. Shyamal (talk) 10:24, 20 November 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. RFerreira (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FreeRice

Nom - this website has been operating just over a month. It has only two reliable sources. And so far, it has donated ZERO rice to anyone. It's a spiffy idea that hasn't taken off, probably won't succeed, hasn't accomplished anything, and likely won't be remembered six months from now. If it is, then we should write an article. Rklawton (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 19:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wasn't this site a new kind of web site, Web 2.0 and socially conscious. Its very young, and its notability is only established through its works. I think instead of deleting now, and if it is notable in six months, we recreate, we should leave for now, and delete in six months, if its not become a cultural reference. scope_creep (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how notability works. Our standard is notability first and then an article. Rklawton (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aren't we not allowed to post about websites even? Where have you found out that it hasn't donated anything yet? You sound like you're making an accusation. Landhermie (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 45 Google News results, so far. --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 20:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources provided seem to establish (some) notability. My research pulls some of the same sources, so I know that they at least appear to be legitimate. Does the nom have sources that contradict the claims of the article? Even if the project is not successful, or is not yet successful, it has still received enough independent coverage to satisfy notability. If further research shows the subject to be WP:BOLLOCKS, then I'll happily advocate deletion. I don't see any evidence of that at this time, though. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 20:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - My nomination is based on the idea that this is a new website (less than two months old), it hasn't demonstrated that it can or will last, and that the website's flaws will likely cause it to fail. In short, we aren't a crystal ball, and we have no way of knowing if this project will succeed (or fail) in any notable form. Just because something can be reliably sourced, doesn't mean it's sufficiently notable for an article. Rklawton (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I'm not an expert on Notability rules, but a quick check shows that Google News has had articles rb cy for almost a month now. When does something switch from "Temporary" to "Long Term", or is it mostly subjective? Tergadare (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - it's subjective, and that's what this RfD will sort out. Rklawton (talk) 23:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - From following the ghits I would say it clearly meets both the general notability criteria in WP:N and one (the first one) of the alternative specific criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (web). Springnuts (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 48 entries on Google News, including several respectable news sources. I'd say it meets WP:N. Tergadare (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Once notable, always notable. Zagalejo^^^ 01:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it has donated ZERO rice to anyone. is a {{fact}}...probably won't succeed, hasn't accomplished anything, and likely won't be remembered six months from now are personal views... Even if it's a failure, it should be removed only after it loses it's notability...

Mugunth ^{(ping me!!!, contribs)} 12:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now and see how things progress. RMHED (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep FreeRice is helping save the world. This article helps spread the word. Keep it. --69.110.37.4 (talk) 00:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, as per referenced articles. The Raven (talk) 01:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - we cannot allow human aid to succeed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.91.95.138 (talk) 01:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snopes Snopes says it's legit.

Landhermie (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Everything as said per nom. It has not even donated any rice, and has not been in operation for barely a month. Rishiboy (talk) 02:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nice idea, fun website... I learned some new words, but it isn't notable enough to keep. :( Jmlk 1 7 06:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has been sponsored by some big corporations - doesn't that mean it's notable enough? Chinhnt2k3 —Preceding comment was added at 07:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per Wikipedia:Notability_(web), this article meets the first criterion regarding notability which is sufficient for it to be kept. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 07:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. It's clearly notable, but whether they actually donate any rice remains to be seen. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 22:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This is clearly notable. I saw a link on the bbc's news website a few days ago talking about it. Its new but I think its notable. They haven't donated any rice to anyone yet but they will eventually (or at least they plan on it). If they end up not donating rice then it should go into the article. --BenWhitey (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the website is definitely notable and has been mentioned in many news publications, which are found in the article's citations. –Dream out loud (talk) 07:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it's a great website. The whole idea of letting you expand your vocabulary while helping children in need is a great idea. Unfortunately the site (apparently) hasn't donated any rice yet, but I still think the article should stay. ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is an interesting website that, if this really works, may be an iconic milestone for charities work. I do not buy the reasoning for deleting if this website does not work or turn out not donating it, instead I think we MUST keep it if it turns out to be a scam. A permanant record on wikipedia as a scam is a big enough reg flag to avoid web users to fall into similar traps in future —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lok2 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep please it should not matter how new the website is what matters is that it is important for us to cover yuckfoo (talk) 01:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and close discussion it, as per above, and i think that there are enough sources to verify it as an article, plus the article is very rich in detail for a new site, its of good quality - Legolost (Not Signed in) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.55.146.252 (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above Mikeeilbache r 20:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- if the articles in the press are correct, and I must assume for the time being they are. Greswik (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of the coolest new sites on the web. Does Wikipedia really have a policy not to allow websites in its entries?? If so, it should be changed. An encyclopedia is about human knowledge, and notable projects increasingly come from web sites. I think a project like Wikipedia should cherish and support innovation and projects that should be part of everybody's knowledge. I think notable is not only defined by - "how old is the baby and who has written about it," but also - how valuable is the concept? Is this something people would benefit knowing about?

With Freerice.com, the answer is a resounding yes. Only concern I have is that right now the fulfillment of the promise solely hangs on John Breen's promise, there is no check system in place. John Breen's project is not incorporated as a 501(c)3, but that shouldn't be held against him (yet) since this is a slightly evolved process. Let's watch it. Even if people "only" build their vocabulary and get the idea of sending help to those who need it, that is enough gain to leave it in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.66.227 (talk) 00:33, 24 November 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 06:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Frankenstein

A character in a television film that nobody watched. This article is largely plot summary and original research, and fails notability as there are no third party sources covering the character. The short section on what the actress thinks of the character can be merged with the main article. Brad (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Nom. scope_creep (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 19:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 22:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary to have an article on this particular character... but what's this about "a television film that nobody watched"?? I think you're about 4 million people out on that one... MorganaFiolett (talk) 09:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flippancy. My apologies. Brad (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete adjusted for the above comment: per Nom. Greswik (talk) 22:48, 23 November 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 06:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wide Bus

Article proposed for deletion but had previously been prodded and had tag removed so not eligable for prod. Reason was 'Unclear context, unreferenced, orphaned, unwikified, non-notable. Tagged thus since Feb without improvement' Davewild (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, all the reasons for the ProDs still apply. JohnCD (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep at least for the moment. The manuals for these cromenco machines are still lying about. It should be fairly easy to find the sources for the article and determine the validity of it. scope_creep

(talk) 19:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Had a look at the manuals, for processor to 2kZ mem board. Can't find an references this tech. Thing is, its probably valid, as it agrees to bus design for higher WR IO at the time. Pity. scope_creep (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 19:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. :-) Stwalkerster talk 22:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 22:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as in the prod - Unclear context, unreferenced, orphaned, unwikified, non-notable. Tagged thus since Feb without improvement. --Stormbay (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete only because it is not able to be verified right now yuckfoo (talk) 01:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete if there are not two secondary references available specifically regarding this technology, then it is not notable. References soley from manufacturers producing equipment using this technique would not meet independence requirements of WP:N.Ga rr ie 11:28, 23 November 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 --JForget 01:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sczoloa

Hoax? No google hits for Sczoloa. Thue | talk 18:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Child articles of this article:

Hawaiian Shoal Loa
Maui Nui Shoal Loa
O'ahu Shoal Loa (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O'ahu Shoal Loa)
Kauai Shoal Loa shoy (^words _words) 21:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No hits for Sczoloa, nor Drepandrikidae, nor the cited common names, on books, scholar, news, G, citeseer. --- tqbf 18:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I simply believe that information on this bird group is just hard to find thats all. I mean that if a bird population was very low you wouldnt see one and there wouldnt be alot of info, 120740a (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try, "not available at all". WP:VER. --- tqbf 19:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, see my comments at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Drepandrikidae: No results here. shoy (^words _words) 20:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. :-) Stwalkerster talk 22:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 22:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with child articles listed above, unless reliable references are added. With not even any search hits, that seems extremely important. — Northgrove 10:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no references, no way of verifying, probable hoax. RMHED (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 07:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete see also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds#AfD - author has been blocked. Shyamal (talk) 10:23, 20 November 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 --JForget 01:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O'ahu Shoal Loa

Hoax? No google hits for "O'ahu Shoal Loa". Thue | talk 18:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Sczola --- tqbf 18:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Linked to this is Hawaiian Shoal Loa, Maui Nui Shoal Loa scope_creep (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Can't find any sources on this, or other two articles. scope_creep (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 22:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. RMHED (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 09:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thue has indef-blocked the article creator and his apparent sockpuppet, see here. shoy (^words _words) 13:46, 20 November 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 05:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Woodard (politician)

Article was proposed for deletion but had previously been proposed for deletion and recreated so not eligable for prod. Reason for deletion was 'City councilmen fails WP:BIO' Davewild (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 18:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete given the absence of secondary sources for notability. --Dhartung | Talk 18:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too minor an official for inclusion. scope_creep (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 22:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete council officials are not notable. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Council officials are not inherently non-notable, they're just not inherently notable. Since this article doesn't include any secondary sources, I vote delete, with no prejudice against recreation of such sources can be found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarcasticidealist (talk • contribs) 10:06, 20 November 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. This list contains content that elevates it beyond a mere directory or a collection of external links and is written in an encyclopedic and academic tone (rather than as an advertisement of some sort). Care should be given to maintaining only appropriate links and notable content in the future; as it stands, this fits well into what is described at WP:LIST. Tijuana Brass (talk) 07:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Yellow Pages

Wikipedia is not a directory and this list is little more than a magnet for spam links. ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 18:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Its an interesting article, and its unlikely that their is another site on the web, on which information of this type would be brought together as its so disparate. However, Wikipedia IS not a directory. scope_creep (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, DMOZ has a collection: [13], and this site is pretty comprehensive. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'd also like to be the first to say "Wikipedia is not a directory of directories". While this list certainly is interesting, Yellow Pages is just a brand name and this article invites people to create "list of phone books" or some such. Brad (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep 'not a directory' argument can be used against every List in WP, but WP accepts Lists as part of its structure so this argument has no valid basis. This article contains historical information on the various Yellow Pages which the Web sites do not and which would not readily find in this WP 'encyclopedia plus' 'Yellow Pages' is not 'just a brand'; it is a generic term applying to all manner of commercial advertising books. Does the article need improvement? Of course. And a first tenet of WP is to work to improve articles that need help, not to wipe them out by the easy answer of deletion. Hmains (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fear you're confusing valid lists with a directory of external links. List of search engines is a very appropriate article, as it organizes a diverse set of articles into a useful ontology. List of Yellow Pages, however, is little more than a (somewhat annotated) directory of external links, which WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:NOT#DIR seem pretty clear on. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the links were not present, then I suppose the reason for deleting it would be it is not sourced or cited. What seems clear to me is that once an editor targets an article for deletion, then there will always be references to be found in WP policies or guidelines that can be cited as a rationale for such deletion. Improve, not delete. Hmains (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 22:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In reading over Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory, this looks to me to not apply. This would seem to be a valid list. Perhaps some commenters are confused since this is a list of telephone directories, rather than an actual telephone directory? - jc37 (talk) 07:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Yellow Pages might be confused for the brand name, but there is no reason why we can't have List of telephone directories. Think outside the box 15:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am just starting a business and I was looking for the easiest way to find a drop-shipper in another country. I have not had time to complete my research. I hope you will consider this when deleting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockerdog (talk • contribs) 18:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you created an account simply to express this view, and nothing else? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a useful and informative list. RMHED (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Interesting and useful list. CG (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To RMHED and CG - please see WP:INTERESTING and WP:USEFUL. Your keep reasons are not sufficient for inclusion in an encyclopedia. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia is not a directory, and the yellow pages are directories, but this is not the yellow pages verbatim. It's a list of yellow pages. It appears as though the nom may have confounded the issue. I would vote keep, but I haven't examined the list enough (nor would I care to) to form a better opinion. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not "confound the issue" - this page is mostly a directory of external links to sites that happen to be yellow page directories. This article is, as someone noted above, a directory of directories. While the latter noun doesn't matter, the former does. We don't need pages that are simply fodder for people to come and list a link to their local yellow page provider. (Other sites do that...)--ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant no offense. Just trying to leave a helpful comment, in case there was confusion (not just on your part). --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LIST:

2. Information: The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists. 3. Navigation: Lists can be used as a table of contents, or if the user is browsing without a specific research goal in mind, they would likely use the See also lists. If the user has a specific research goal in mind, and there is only one or two words that are used to describe the research topic, and they know exactly how to spell the word, they would probably use the search engine box. If the user has some general idea of what they are looking for but does not know the specific terminology, they would tend to use the lists of related topics (also called list of links to related articles).WP:LIST

Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:55, 26 November 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 05:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander von Zweigbergk Väggö

Fails to establish notability beyond being a boyfriend to a celebrity. — Northgrove 18:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Famous by association, no! Clearly a puff piece. scope_creep (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no independent notability that I can see. Sufficient to mention in Paris Hilton. --Dhartung | Talk 18:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 18:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 22:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.RMHED (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tim Ross·^talk 20:33, 23 November 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 — Caknuck (talk) 08:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arif Ali

Article does not establish notability. Hammer1980·^talk 18:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would have to agree. There is simply no sources I can discover which makes this article notable. scope_creep (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, likely a hoax. There's an Arif Ali who works for Agence France Presse, that's about it. The photo of the "special needs school" looks like a corporate training session or high school class, which makes me think this is a put-on. --Dhartung | Talk 18:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 22:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Arif Ali inspired me to help others even though age and race doesn't matter. I believe this should stay here to keep record of such a young ambitious dreamer. I and many others would agree with this. --Axzion]]( Talk) 15:50, 21 November 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. RFerreira (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Serena Hedges Bowen

Page has previously been deleted due to lack of notability. The text itselfappears to be have been copied and pasted from an unkown source, therefore copyright issues my be present. Maybe this should be a speedy. Hammer1980·^talk 17:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't seem to find any sources which make this lady notable. scope_creep (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to John W.E. Bowen, Sr., her husband. She did have an independent writing career but there isn't much to demonstrate its importance. The bio comes from a 1902 book, Twentieth-Century Negro Literature, published in 1902 (thus out of copyright), to which she contributed an essay (or was anthologized). That's not quite enough, IMO, even keeping in mind cautions about historical persons and Google. --Dhartung | Talk 18:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Notable, as "called to teach History and English Language in the Tuskegee Institute, Tuskegee, Ala" but a cut and paste using the present tense "... She is regarded as one of the foremost and best cultured women of her race. She reads Greek, Latin and German with facility, and is a superb housekeeper." is not really acceptable content. DGG (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- an anthologized writer who was notable enough to have a published biographical sketch and publications at a time when there was (even more) systematic bias against the contributions of black people and of women is notable enough for WP. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 03:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "She became Professor of Music in Clark University in 1895" can this be verified? I think the claim that she "is a superb housekeeper". ought to go. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A reliable source for her faculty position. Note that this is Clark Atlanta University, not the Clark University in Worcester MA. The article text appears to be from the introduction to this essay by her. It is out of copyright, so not a problem from the copyvio point of view, but I agree with DGG and Pete Hurd that we should rework it to make it more encyclopedic. According to this source, she is profiled in Notable Black American Women, vol. II, Gale, 1996, ed. Jessie Carney Smith. The fact that we have a reliable source calling her notable means, ipso facto, by our standards she is notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per David Eppstein, clearly. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep and rewrite as per above. --Crusio (talk) 08:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per comments above. Also, she's notable not just as an academic (a 19th century female academic is almost per se notable) but as a Temperance Movement activist. ... I've done some of the encyclopedic-tone rewrites (including "superb housekeeper" (!), present-to-past tense, appropriate cats, etc. --Lquilter (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per notability comments above. RMHED (talk) 16:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
further comment - Nominator says that this is a recreation of a previously deleted page. In some instances multiple recreation strongly suggests notability, as in, people keep coming to the encyclopedia and seeing that an article that should be here is not. That's not a helpful guideline in, say, popular culture areas where they are active fanbases who think everything associated with their fandom is notable, but if a historical personage who has been dead for a hundred years keeps floating to the top, that gives us a clue. Err, morbid floating reference unintended. --Lquilter (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Merge as above As the admin who deleted the original page (which certainly didn't assert notability and was an obvious copyvio) I'd agree this article has been improved enough to bring it into the margins of notability. ELIMINATORJR 23:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep please it can be rewriten but not ever should be speedy deleted yuckfoo (talk) 01:34, 23 November 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 and bold redirect to Dallas Cowboys#Season-by-season records, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas Cowboys seasons

This article is redundant and a copy of the table in the pre-existing article Dallas Cowboys#Season-by-season records. There is no need for duplicate information, especially which will require manual maintenance. Truthanado (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is NOT redundant only its incomplete. The goal of this page is the same as with the Chicago Bears seasons, New York Giants seasons, Cleveland Browns seasons, New England Patriots seasons...etc. The reason its still located on the main page is because this page was not able to be completed because within minutes of me making this article you set it up for deletion. --Happyman22 (talk) 22:48, 18 November 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. Davewild (talk) 11:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dawdle

Nom - speedied several times. Fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB. This new website simply isn't notable. However, its creator doesn't seem to "get it", so I thought an AfD might provide a more suitable forum for the discussion. Rklawton (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to claim notability, and the only references are brief press releases stating the company was launched. Jeodesic (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources are not reliable. They are either social networking website or non notable press releases which are just advertising about Dawdle (WP:WEB - Exceptions)----NAHID 18:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. I feel auctionbytes and prweb are fairly reliable, its not like i am posting digg as a source.

Keep. My only problem is that I browse though your articles and many are less notable than this. So i don't see why this can't fall in that catagory or higher. If you delete this i feel that wikipedia needs to go through all their articles becuase there notability is not high either too.Emargul (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)— Emargul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

also its a stub so stubs i don't feel go under the notability rules as much becuase more could be added.Emargul (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - please make a list of these articles as you find them. I will be happy to delete them as well. Rklawton (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Emargul is the creator of the Dawdle page, and has made almost no edits outside of it and this AfD. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

replyI have only been apart of wikipedia for 2 days, and i decided to join becuase i thought i have always wanted to be on wikipedia and this article could give me a chance to at least be seen. I have not had exact time to edit. But i already know what my next edit is. Cyclins the image is incorrect cyclin D is only in the G1 phase.

Delete per everything above. The author seems to think that "notability" is something that refers to the article rather than its subject. eaolson (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advert for non-notable website. Speedy would have been justified. Hammer1980·^talk 18:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Very young non notable auction website. Dawdle is an old scottish word, meaning to walk slowly, aimlessly, with no purpose. scope_creep (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. It may be young, but every website desearves a chance. Its a company that has become some part of our history, even a small amount and it could become a large part. People look up to you guys at wikipedia. And if you are biased against the small companies starting out than there is a large problem. Everyone had to start somewhere like you. In addition, wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, not a news stand, so what is going on in the news should not have an affect on the article. This article made its dent, it has sources to prove it is true. It could do something more. It desearves to be in this encyclopedia. Also what does the dictionary term have to do with it staying or not.Emargul (talk) 18:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sure, your website deserves a chance. When it succeeds, we will be happy to have an article on it. --Dhartung | Talk 18:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'd just like to gently point out to the author that Wikipedia isn't here to give your favorite website "a chance." We're here to identify and explain already-existing phenomena of significance. Just-started websites don't meet that criteria for significance. Wikipedia isn't a web directory like Yahoo or a search engine like Google. eaolson (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply. First of all its not my favorite website, second of all i am not apart of it, third of all i stumbled upon it, fourth of all it was launched, i don't understand your criteria, no where does it state started websites arn't notable, it did something notable, it is doing notable things. Finnally i made it a stub, so as it does more it can be added and what is needed to be added can be added. You website encourges me to make a stub so people can build on it, so i do it. Now build on it don't delete it.Emargul (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Every website deserves a chance to try to survive and thrive as a business. However, please understand that Wikipedia is not here to promote businesses or to "give them a chance." There are standards or notability for what can be included in Wikipedia. Without this, Wikipedia would, at best, be no more than a directory of every website in existence or, at worst, a meaningless collection of junk. --Crunch (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete and possibly salt as well, very much non notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of notability per WP:WEB. --Dhartung | Talk 18:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:WEB --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment, acording to rule 5 under notes dawdle is notable

Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the content or site notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.

This has been done on gamesharks, auctionbytes, gamenews, and prweb. All were independent, that makes this site notable. If you continue to say it isn't than you are breaking your own rules.Emargul (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also reliable sources. Rklawton (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply the sources are not unreliable, they are trustworthy, i understand they arn't some published paper. However, most stuff isn't actually published beyond that. Prweb is a online news company, as is auction bytes. So dawdle was notable enough to get on there, it should be for here.Emargul (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.PRWeb is simply a venue where people can submit their own press releases that they write themselves, which is what has been done here. AuctionByte is a trade journal for the online auction industry. The citation there is just an announcement of a new business. These do not meat the criteria for notability cited in WP:CORP. --Crunch (talk) 01:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonnotable 2-week-old website. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fine delete the thing, there isn't a way i can convince you so just delete it.

Delete - Although I did some research, I could not find any evidence of notability or history of this company. Of course, the company is less than a month old. What I did find were reliable sources that confirmed the existence of the company. That alone, does not guarantee an article's "keep-ability". I did update the article page with the references, but it's probably in vein, as I myself found content lacking in the life of this company. It's a shame, as the idea of a website escrow and purveyor is a solid business plan and it would have been interesting to see how Dawdle would attack such service intensive industry. The author should have waited until after the holiday season. -- Emana (talk) 09:45, 23 November 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, no assertion of notability, Wikipedia is not a resume host. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faruk A. Jessa

Does not seem to be notable, and appears to be more or less the same article that was twice speedily deleted as Faruk jessa and Faruk a. Jessa. Drmaik (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - per nom Hammer1980·^talk 18:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as Spam. Samuell (talk) 18:32, 18 November 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 - copy&paste of the beetle article. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rourou

Hoax? No google hits for "Rourou insect" Thue | talk 17:31, 18 November 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 with Applesoft BASIC. Note that you don't need to come to AfD to pursue a merge.--Kubigula (talk) 04:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Business BASIC

Merge with Applesoft BASIC article. Does not need own article. Hammer1980·^talk 17:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Merge per nom. scope_creep (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. :-) Stwalkerster talk 22:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge 20:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.205.99.122 (talk)
Merge is my choice. Tim Ross·^talk 16:51, 21 November 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. Davewild (talk) 12:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apache Knife Fighting

Lack of sources, longwinded prose without shedding much light on the subject. Hammer1980·^talk 17:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Again, there is notable sources available. But the article itself looks like stream of consciousness stuff. Lots of work needed, if viable sources can be detailed. scope_creep (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I agree with Scope. It's a topic for an article. This one needs some improvement. Mandsford (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article says, "The Apaches didn’t invent any system of Knife Fighting or Battle Tactics...". So there is no basis for this article. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a reason to delete? I'm pretty sure that the Apaches didn't invent the Apache helicopter either. Mandsford (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a reason to delete. Since Apache knife fighting is no more distinctive than the knife fighting of any other group, the subject will be adequately covered by knife fighting. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Del;ete as advertisement, though incompetent one for "Apache Knife Fighting & Battle Tactics,a collection of studies based on the verbal and recorded history of the Apaches." I think this refers to [14] which is based on a book "Apache Indian Knife Fighting & Battle Tactics" by "Snake Blocker" [15]. I think there might be an article on some aspect of this subject, but this is not it. DGG (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, ad. JJL (talk) 00:03, 20 November 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 --JForget 01:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Veracified

Unremarkable neologism. Google shows a grand total of three blogs using this word. A^RendedWinter 17:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NEO.--Blanchardb (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. –Henning Makholm 17:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Its a neo!. scope_creep (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although Veracifier should be a redirect to Talking Points Memo. --Dhartung | Talk 18:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete, The Laws say this: "The use of neologisms should be avoided in Wikipedia articles because they are not well understood, are not clearly definable, and will have different meanings to different people. Determining which meaning is the true meaning is not only impossible.." First of all, we have a website called Veracifier which was viewed by 1 million individuals on Tuesday. Veracifier as a term is not well understood. But, it deserves a place in wikipedia as the site receives lots of traffic and has viewers, subscribers, etc. Just because you have never heard of veracifier does not mean that one million other people haven't. It's been around for a while too. You're judging your deletion critera on Google? We have one million people who have seen this word, that's enough to be included on wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bengfisher (talk • contribs) 19:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Strong delete. Neologism with no independent sources. —C.Fred (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Veracifier receives between 500,000 and a 1 million hits a day, that satisfies notability guidelines for the word 'veracifier.' You can confirm this by going to our YouTube channel where it lists our views.

Furthermore, while notability is being considered, we were on the cover of AOL.com, which you can verify by going to the Veracifier.com page and looking at the blog entry for our feat by clicking on blogs at the top. This also bolsters our case for notability and for independent sources.

Furthemore, its listed on Fred Seibert, the ex vice chairman of MTV, wikipedia entry. That is our second independent source. Both AOL.com and Fred Seibert are big time independent soruces.

Veracifier as a word is legal. Veracified is Veracifier in the past tense. Why is the past tense problematic?

Comment: See WP:GHITS and WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE. shoy (^words _words) 20:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does not change the fact that the independent sources include AOL.com, talkingpointsmemo.com, the nytimes, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bengfisher (talk • contribs) 20:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is framed as an article on the term, not a website or anything else. Sources that discuss the Veracified website (as with the number of hits quoted above) don't support the article as is. If there are independent sources that discuss the term and its use, or confirm the term and its use, then that should be added to the article. If the subject were a notable youtube video, then views of that video (or similar videos at AOL) might have some relevance. In this context, they do not. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 21:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's ridiculous. Your telling me if I made a website that was called Veracified, then it would be ok, because it is a website?

If I make a website called Veracifier, like I did, and introduce a new term onto the web, then it is ok because the word points to a website. Similarly, veracified points to veracifier which points to a website. Veracified is just the action form of veracifier. Its the same concept turned into action.

No one is creating a new concept here, we're jsut trying to use the action form of our noun.

Fine I give in. Delete. Please delete it already. But we will be back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bengfisher (talk • contribs) 21:48 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If there's an article about a website, and there are sources that confirm that the site is notable in some way, then awesome - have at. This article appears to be an article about a word, and there is no evidence provided (despite multiple requests) that demonstrates that the word itself is in widespread use, or otherwise confirming that the word is notable in some fashion. If it is, then there are links somewhere that demonstrate this. All we ask is that information in the encyclopedia be verifiable. I add that this is not a Vote, and the number of yeas and nays will not determine whether the article is deleted. The quality of your arguments for keeping or deleting are all important - and, with all due respect, threatening to recreate the article at a later date isn't the best argument for keeping the current version. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 02:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete — Per above. — Aššur-bāni-apli (talk · contribs) 14:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- By which speedy criterion? –Henning Makholm 16:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per all delete votes. I also think it's a misnomer of veracity and verified, and since I'm keen on upholding, or at least trying to uphold proper English, I do not wish to encourage blatant abuse of the English language (or any other language) like "veracified". At best, if this word becomes notable (which it definitely is not at the moment), it should be in Wiktionary and not Wikipedia. — Aššur-bāni-apli (talk · contribs) 17:04, 19 November 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, no assertion of present notability; author (User:Madore99) has posted nothing but junk. If he finds sources confirming any of this, great, but I'll be surprised. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Madore

Delete as unverified. I can't find any references that confirm the assertions in this article. Google search for "Jesse Madore" shows 7 results. Even if the claims were true, they are crystal ballism since his career as a professional soccer player does not start until next year at the earliest. (Besides which, Canada has not sent a men's soccer team to the Olympics since 1984.) Author has contested prod.

Note that author has also created an article called Madoaism which has been deleted as a suspected hoax. ... discospinster _talk 17:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 17:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to me like a hoax article from start to finish nancy 17:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Less obviously a hoax than Madoaism (which claimed this person had founded a religion based on killing people with martial arts), but equally unverifiable. No references are cited, and there are no useful search results on Google or Google News; this indicates that someone of the name has played for a minor hockey team, but doesn't support any claim to notability. EALacey (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per above and Notability (athletes). NN. True theory (talk) 18:35, 18 November 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 (closed by non-admin) per consensus and WP:NOTE RMHED (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antoni Lesniowski

Lack of resources fail to establish notability. Hammer1980·^talk 17:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are sources for this scientist, who is linked to Crohn's disease. The article needs cleaned, wikied, sourced, the lot. scope_creep (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep appears to be historically significant. DGG (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. It only takes a few seconds to do a Google search which turns up reliable sources in the first few entries. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep is certainly notable. If you're too lazy to find sources, that doesn't mean you should AfD the article the first thing you do. — Aššur-bāni-apli (talk · contribs) 14:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Needs major work and referencing, if not a complete overhaul, But as the first person to describe Crohn's disease, Dr. Lesniowski is notable. Amaryllis25^{"Talk to me"} 14:45, 19 November 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. W.marsh 15:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rio Mall

Non-notable mall in New Jersey, fails WP:RS Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. scope_creep (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - I believe Dead malls are notable, due to their rareness. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, dead malls are not rare. There are three within an hour of me, and I live out in the boonies. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should make sure there is an Article about each of them. In this region Dead malls are rare, there are none within 5 hours of me, and you have to cross a border to get to the nearest. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did but they all failed WP:N so they got deleted. Dead malls may or may not be rare, but either way, they should be well sourced. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability exists. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Examples of other articles on dead malls (and how they've established notability) can be found at Category:Defunct shopping malls in the United States. Tijuana Brass (talk) 07:37, 26 November 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). —Qst 19:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anticato

Does not warrant its own artcile. No notability. Hammer1980·^talk 16:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Merge This is a well know pamphlet written by Caesar. The article detail should be folded into the parent article, and deleted. scope_creep (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep and merge" makes no sense. To what are you proposing it be merged? Please read WP:AFD to see typical choices. --Dhartung | Talk 18:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this was an important document in Roman politics, even though it is only known today in fragments. --Dhartung | Talk 18:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per keeps above. (Perhaps merge, if there is an appropriate target.) - jc37 (talk) 07:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. A Google search reveals many reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:17, 19 November 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 summarized content into Enemies in The Legend of Zelda series and delete the rest. These articles fail many of the criteria at WP:FICT, and Wikipedia is not a guide to all things Zelda (or any other game or fictional work). I've tried to incorporate a representative piece of each article into the more general Enemies one; editors who would like access to the deleted material for the purpose of doing a more extensive rewrite may contact me on my talk page. As a side note, the material seems to have been preserved at http://egamia.com/wiki/ . Tijuana Brass (talk) 07:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This applies to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Octorok, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moblin, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gohma, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lizalfos, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poe (The Legend of Zelda), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stalfos and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wizzrobe.

Octorok

The article is an in-universe regurgitation of the plot and character sections of several Legend of Zelda game articles and has no notability of its own. As such, it is pure duplication in an unencyclopedic way. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ Not a very helpful vote and I apologize for that, but I want to mention that the term "Octorok" is burned forever into my subconscious by that horrible rap music commercial they ran for Zelda in the '80s; unlike most in-universe Zelda content on WP, this one seems to be close to the core of the "plot". --- tqbf 18:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC) --- abstain --- i cannot trust that my subconscious hasn't been programmed to betray me on this, and as such I recuse myself. --- tqbf 21:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right on both counts; that commerical is burned into my memory, and the extent of this articles notability is its use in an obscure 80's rapping video game commercial. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwikied and Delete or Redirect moved to the Encyclopedia Gamia edit the article here --09:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cs california (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 12:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:FICT for fictional characters. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:32, 24 November 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. east.718 at 06:36, November 24, 2007

Clare Anstey

Only one proper source (excluding us) available on the internet (link). Seemingly non-notable subject, lack of references. —Qst 16:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Its a puff piece, no notability asserted. Should have been speedied. scope_creep (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Hammer1980·^talk 17:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but not speedy-eligible. Just another TV presenter. --Dhartung | Talk 18:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if you spell her name correctly (Claire), there are a lot more Google hits.--Michig (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the statement about being the next presenter of Big Brother is true, then that would probably be sufficient regarding notability.--Michig (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If, there are any reliable sources available to verify this fact. —Qst [[User 21:43, 18 November 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. No consensus to delete, but cleanup is needed.. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 09:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Races in The Legend of Zelda series

This article has no notability or referencing, and is just an in-universe redescription of the plot and characters sections from various Legend of Zelda video games. As such, it is pure duplication in an unencyclopedic way. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete or rewrite I see no reason to delete it. --businessman332211 (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But what about the points I have raised? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on that. I think that it can be rewritten. My "only" complaint when it comes to deleting articles, is I generally feel only they should be deleted as a last possible resort. You are right about certain facts (it's entirely in-universe), and it has no references. I am having a really hard time coming to terms with this "in-universe" perspective. I am trying to understand certain parts of that one policy (we recently spoke on your talk page about it). So, I am thinking of potential ways.--businessman332211 (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Rewrite - It certainly needs clean-up and referencing, but I think it is a useful article to help explain the various races and in turn, the characters of the series. I have made many suggestions to change it in accordance with the MOS which were rejected (ironically these suggestions have helped improve similar articles). Perhaps now they can be taken consideration. I feel that if it is rewritten it can become acceptable for Wikipedia. - .:Alex:. 17:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What suggestions were those, again?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 20:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this page shouldnt be deleted some people like looking at stuff like this and add stuff find out info on the races. without this page there would be no way for someone to compile facts on a race without searching tons of pages a.k.a wasting there time.

Now would be a great time to show that this article has any notability, such as how the races were developed and other such. From having helped save the Link article several times, and barely having enough development information for that article, this more obscure topic probably doesn't have a chance. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is the problem that the article IS not encyclopedic, or cannot be encyclopedic? If the former, please copy it to me userspace so I can transfer it to the wikia. If the latter, then anyone complaining about the article needs to work to fix it. I'm not very good at finding secondary sources, and even though in-universe sources would be acceptable, I really don't have the time to do deep text-searching and rewriting.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 02:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My vote is that it cannot be encyclopedic, since it has no references to establish notability. If it had such references, it would be notable, and most likely encyclopedic. You should probably transfer it to a fan wiki where it would be useful. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I feel that this article has gotten to a point where many of the additions are not notable. Perhaps if the article is rewritten to cover only the main races in the series it can be encyclopedic (Zora for example is a main race in the series and has quite a few references. The HoHo tribe on the other hand is barely notable and has no references)

If so great, but we need to establish a lot of referencing for this article if we are going to assert notability and keep it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The HoHo tribe now has a reference and is as important as the Tokay which does not any references and yet is still a race in the game LegendLiver (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

....information INSIDE an article does not need to be notable. Only relevant and verifiable. The topic itself needs to be notable, and even then, that is a guideline, not a rule - notability is suggested in that it virtually guarantees NPOV, V, and NOR. People are getting on this whole bint about notability, where they interpret it to be more demanding than it truly is.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 12:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Rewrite- It has the potential to be a useful and informative guide for this extraordinarily popular game- notability is established due to this immense popularity.LBEAR (talk) 01:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to tell you, but Notability isn't inherited. For example, if you found a cure to cancer, you would be very notable. But just because you are notable doesn't mean an article about your dog, your toenails, or your favorite ice cream would be. Just an FYI. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability, in and of itself, is not one of the criteria for deletion - it is a sign that there could possibly be a violation of the guidelines, but so long as the article is WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR, the article is acceptable. Notability is only a factor that often, but not always, supports those requirements. This article is supposed to be a conglomeration of the data from those character sections, yes, as well as using information the games and "Hyrulepedia" provide. Yes, there's probably a fair bit of OR (which can be easily cut out - we tried to get a cleanup started at one point, but not enough people at the time were available for working on the page). Yes, it could benefit from a "reception and criticism"-type section (though this, also, is not required). But overall, the page can be brought up to snuff easily.

Also, in regards to: "I hate to tell you, but Notability isn't inherited" - that is in reference to related subjects. This is a part of a subject that has been split off due to continuity and size concerns - ergo, as sub-article, which is valid according to the guidelines. It is an important part of the series that has little ability to be merged without extending the destination absurdly or violating undue weight and bias (i.e., by choosing which are "worth mentioning", and related conceits).Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 07:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep with potential but I admit that only the presence of the Zoras and the Gorons as major recurring races save it for me. I did a quick Google search, and there seems to be some merchandise for the races.[16] There is also an (official?) encyclopedia [17] that would help to source most things. Additionally, since races are all in all much more recurring in the Zelda games than individual characters, I'd kind of approach this article like I would usually approach List of characters - this is at least a weak keep, as I can see a pretty good potential after some rewriting. – sgeureka ^t•c 01:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does this article have any potential? All we've had is a rephrasing of Wikipedia verifiability criteria and original research, which the article is in violation of, and one "reference" from an in-universe encyclopedia and an instance of merchandise, which would help bolster the main series article or more probably the characters of article. A notable topic needs to have a lot of information available, and what has been established so far doesn't come close. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...how is it in violation of original research? If you see any specific points, please remove them, but reporting what the game shows does not count. As for the in-universe encyclopedia - yes, we'd be relying a lot on in-universe sources - however, this is acceptable for fiction, so long as we watch out for the possible dangers of using them - we don't accept character's words as incontrivertible, etc.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 02:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without actual out of universe referencing, the article cannot establish notability be verified, or prove that the points or views expressed are not OR. I love the games, but I cannot tell you whether the information contained in the article is factual or not, but if there is nothing to say about this subject except what you can figure out from playing the games, meaning no creator commentary, development history, early sketches, cultural impact/popularity, it would be inappropriate to allow it to have its own article due to a lack of encyclopedic content. Besides, its already mentioned in the plot and character sections of the zelda games. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

....none of those things, besides possibly cultural impact, are actually required. In-universe referencing is only cautioned against because 1) you can take a throwaway comment as "word of god" (which this article does not) and 2) you can assume that an appearance of something is how it always appears (which we have not). Yes, it could profit extremely well from all those sections, but they are not required.

And where is it mentioned in any plot or character section? The character sections usually avoid discussing the races for reasons of redundancy, and stick to named characters, not groups. To prove that it is not OR, we only need to add in more citations to in-game quotes, which we have been working on - however, few editors are still working on the page. I can tell you from experience, though, that almost everything there is based on a quote or example from the game - it would just take a while to source everything. Put up a note on the project page (since it seems that they don't even know an AfD is going on), ask for them to help fix the article. This subject does have value and can be salvaged.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 03:49, 26 November 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 with no prejudice against merging. east.718 at 12:10, November 24, 2007

List of fictional devices in Futurama

The article is just an in-universe list of fake technology taken from the various plot sections of episodes of the Television show Futurama. It has no notability of its own, and therefore no references or encyclopedic worth is forthcoming. Without that, it is just pure duplication. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If anything in there is notable outside the Futurama universe, it should be mentioned in an appropriate non-Futurama-related article. Fancruft. --Blanchardb (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as in-universe fancruft. No notability of its own. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have this difficulty often. Futurama is notable. Of course it needs an article. And to make this article great, some sub articles make sense. But notability does not flow down hill forever. These particular items have no notability of their own. WP:FICT is helpful here. But the best measure is do these items have multiple independent reliable sources? They do not.Obina (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A few other pages in Template:Futurama are similar.Obina (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete or Merge It is an interesting list, packed with facts, but its mostly listcruft/fancruft. The grist of the article should be put in the parent article as single line entries, not waste an entire page. scope_creep (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bad news, everyone! Delete. shoy (^words _words) 18:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment Interesting article, saving it to my computer, sorry to see that this one got nominated, but I agree that it isn't really encyclopedic. However, this information will continue to be preserved in various forms between now and 3007 Mandsford (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge The items vary in quality, but the fing-longer, for example, seems to make the grade. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is just one of three typical types of fictional subject lists: Characters, objects, and locations. There are many, many more examples of such lists around. I think that such lists can be informative, and are merely separate page lists per Wikipedia:Summary style. - jc37 (talk) 07:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as well-organized/well-presented list of notable aspect of cartoon, video game, etc. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin. An organized list isn't a justified keep reason, it leans towards "I like it" and nothing else. Anything can be organized, that doesn't make it automatically suitable for Wikipedia. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Good organization is not itself enough to justify a list, but it is certainly one of the factors. (Correspondingly, people rightly say lack of organization is a factor in favor of deletion). And I think most admins know enough to use their own judgment about what is the policy-based consensus without hints specifically addressed in their direction.DGG (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fancruft, non-notable, no secondary sources cited (or probably even available). •97198 talk 09:31, 21 November 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 summarized content into Enemies in The Legend of Zelda series and delete the rest. These articles fail many of the criteria at WP:FICT, and Wikipedia is not a guide to all things Zelda (or any other game or fictional work). I've tried to incorporate a representative piece of each article into the more general Enemies one; editors who would like access to the deleted material for the purpose of doing a more extensive rewrite may contact me on my talk page. As a side note, the material seems to have been preserved at http://egamia.com/wiki/ . Tijuana Brass (talk) 07:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This applies to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Octorok, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moblin, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gohma, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lizalfos, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poe (The Legend of Zelda), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stalfos and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wizzrobe.

Moblin

The Moblin is a recurring enemy from the Legend of Zelda series, and is already mentioned in the article on enemies from the Zelda series. The Moblin character, however, does not have enough notability and therefore sourcing, to warrant a whole article dedicated to it. As of now, it's just an in-universe repetition of the character and gameplay sections of various Zelda articles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It is a large well written article, but for a possibly minor character in the series. Is it a case we have one page for each character. This set a precedence, as some games in the future may have 20k or 200k major and minor characters. Do we have a page for each one. I don't think so. scope_creep (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. It is a bit of fancruft, but the charecter is a moderately notable charecter in the Zelda series. Also, i agree with the above that there should just be a page for enemies in the Zelda series instead of one for each and every one of them. Doc Strange (talk) 16:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; full of OR, speculation; only one notable source. There are probably a few bits that can be merged into Enemies in The Legend of Zelda series, but it's mostly tat. Haipa Doragon (talk) 18:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; it's not a character except for those mentioned at the top (and even then, GM is the only meaningful char, and is already covered on the Oracle characters page). Everything else is gameguide/OR, or irrelevancies (like Zola>Zora). This information badly needs to be trimmed (probably to about a paragraph or two), and set on either the races or enemies page (probably races, since they do show sentience and society).Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 19:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence has been provided that it is notable beyond its own universe. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 19:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I think this would be acceptable if it was trimmed down a paragraph and merged into the enemies section. In fact I feel this should be done to all entire articles devoted to a single enemy for this series. - .:Alex:. 20:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not worth a merge. Fails notability for fiction. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwikied and Delete or Redirect moved to the Encyclopedia Gamia edit the article here --09:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cs california (talk • contribs)

Thankyou, it's always good when folks' work can be saved for another site.Someone another (talk) 14:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 13:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trim-merge-redirect to Enemies in The Legend of Zelda series. RMHED (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Merge - As much as I like fighting Moblins, I think they need to be Merged into the enemies page. The info here is valuable though, so I think deleting it entirely would be a mistake. Also, I just wanted to state that this article talks about Bokoblins, Miniblins, and other common enemies, so it's not just about one enemy but a few others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.190.217.50 (talk) 06:41, 26 November 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 — Caknuck (talk) 08:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Moroni

Non-notable, short lived fictional character. Hammer1980·^talk 16:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Having a single page for this pure waste, and is clearly causing climate change. scope_creep (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 (talk) 21:04, 18 November 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. Tijuana Brass (talk) 08:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anemostat

Nothing to establish it needs an article of its own. No other wiki articles link here so not really even a disambig page. Hammer1980·^talk 16:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per no reliable sourcing that can back up and claims and the fact that it says "..anemostat is registered trademark" shows it isn't NPOV. Rudget.talk 16:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I see what you are saying Hammer1980, but the device appears in a large number of heating, room air conditioning, compressor and other such commercial catalogues. Its seems to be well established term. The article itself is dire. I think it has some merit and notability, but it if it is kept, it is unlikely that this article will ever be updated to Wikipedia standards. I think, put a stub in, if not amended in say 2-3 months, to a sufficient standard, the Delete. scope_creep (talk) 16:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Rudget :-) Stwalkerster talk 17:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm confused; this term occurs repeatedly in scholar searches. Nom seems to say it's an orphan... and? --- tqbf 18:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I was just trying to keep an open mind in case it was being used as a dismabig page in an article. Hammer1980·^talk 20:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable given the large number of hits in google books and google scholar. If the name is a trademark, perhaps it can be named to something more generic. I don't know what the appropriate name is, but I'm guessing something like "airflow regulator"? --Itub (talk) 11:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment trademarks can be genericized via common usage, ie. Aspirin, Kleenex, Band-Aid, Q-tip, FireWire, Ski-Doo, Jeep. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is genericized and could grow much bigger. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:49, 20 November 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 --JForget 01:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Okocha

Disputed PROD. Non-notable unpublished author. There is a suggestion that he won an award for a poem but there are zero ghits for "michael okocha" + "soldiers future" [18] nancy 15:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fair amount of crystal balling, some aspects of self promotion re won poetry price, which doesn't make you notable. No delete. scope_creep (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:BIO. violet/riga (t) 20:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; what little assertion of notability there may be is completely unsourced, anyway. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 06:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom., nothing there measures up to notability. Tim Ross·^talk 22:41, 20 November 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 The statement that "we should keep all schools" does not accord with wiki policy, and the article makes no attempt to assert notability. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 14:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrée English School

No notability established. Hammer1980·^talk 15:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Its a really scrappy article, but I think we should keep all schools. If we keep, the article needs updated, rewritten and probably wikied. scope_creep (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability. --DAJF (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Chris (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris 18:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It is a really scrappy article. BUT This school is in the TOP TWELVE SCHOOLS in Chile on the English Wikipedia. I know there are only eleven but there will never be 13 if we keep deleting the attempts of the first 12, Keep Victuallers (talk) 22:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as empty. There is simply nothing in the article. WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason to keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteI don't just understand the assertions of the "Strong Keeps" here in terms of the notability guidelines established. I see no assertion whatsoever of nobility other than its existence as a school in Chile.Epthorn (talk) 11:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep this please if it is in top ten or twelve schools then that is a good sign of it being importance yuckfoo (talk) 01:35, 23 November 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 (closed by non-admin) subject is obviously notable. RMHED (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Glyn

Not notable. Hammer1980·^talk 15:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete He a well established economist, but is he notable, I don't know, I don't think so. scope_creep (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Respectfully, can I ask that you do an "all dates" G-news search before you AfD a professor at Oxford? I caught bylines in the Guardian and NYTimes w/i 10 seconds of searching, and then gave up, because this guy is clearly notable. --- tqbf 18:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Glyn has been a notable author for decades. Poorly-researched nom. --Dhartung | Talk 18:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His book Capitalism Unleashed appears to have been reviewed in The Guardian, New Internationalist, International Review of Applied Economics, World Economics, and De Economist. Socialist Review published an interview with him about the book, the first sentence of which is "Andrew Glyn has been a prominent left wing economist for more than 35 years." His name appears in the title of "A Virtuous Global Circle: A Response to Andrew Glyn’s Egalitarianism in a Global Economy", G. Garrett, Boston Review, 1998. By all appearances a leading figure in his subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per David Eppstein & Dhartung. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep why don;t people who write academic bios at least look at the CV to get the right job title and WorldCat to get all of the books? Why dont people who nominate the resulting inadequate articles for deletion check these things themselves? He's not "employed" at Oxford, he's University Lecturer in Economics, and he's written over half a dozen major books, some translated into several languages. I added all this to the article. DGG (talk) 21:24, 18 November 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 --JForget 01:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Wheeler

Subject does not appear to be notable based on WP:Notability. Lack of notable external references. Tone of article reads like professional provided biography rather than a neutral encyclopedia article, providing a load of unsourced and irrelevant information. I came about the page following an obvious vanity link whereby someone had added a quote attributed to this person when the quote was obviously non-notable. Article itself is a stub and there is no obvious group of editors to discuss improvement with. Stump (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable comic, writes for Onion, etc. Sufficiently notable. JJL (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, POV and lack of references can be fixed. Seems to be sufficiently notable -- writes an evidently notable comic, writes for the Onion, per User:JJL. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - definitely notable. jj137 (Talk) 21:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and I suspect WP:COMICS is the group you are looking for. Publisher and creator of a widely known comic strip and character, published a magazine and has been interviewed by The Comics Journal in issue 204. This article may not be the finished article, but then there is as yet no deadline for it to be so. For other reliable sources see google.[19]Hiding Talk 11:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. —Hiding Talk 11:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep and fix. Needs some refs, which shouldn't be too hard to find. Artw (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep and fix. I wanted information on Shannon Wheeler and his comics, and this was the first place I looked. It's a useful article even as is. 208.42.95.155 (talk) 17:00, 20 November 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. east.718 at 12:13, November 24, 2007

Crotch-duster

Subject fails WP:BAND - no tours, less than two albums on an independent label, no charting hits, no notable members, not even a live performance. PROD was removed without discussion. jonny-mt^(t)_(c)Tell me what you think! 06:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding here their album that I found as speedy candidate --Tikiwont 12:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC):[reply]

Nomination corrected (originally read "less than one album", now reads "less than two albums"). Apologies for the typo and the lag in correcting it. --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)Tell me what you think! 16:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one album, never played live, now split up... not notable. JohnCD 16:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. No hits. No assertion of notability. Decoratrix 16:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, move to Crotchduster I've heard of this band many times, and also have their album. A Google search for Crotchduster gives back 113,000 hits. GlassCobra 16:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Can you provide some reliable sources for verification? I did a Google search as well but couldn't find anything of note (hence the nom), but I had never heard of the band until now. I figured that as a fan you might have a better idea of where to start looking than I would. --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)Tell me what you think! 16:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (without much feeling). Meh. I'm a bit waffly on this one. I've done some searching and added a very little. (I did not add this interview, which could contribute some information to the article if it is kept.) It doesn't really meet WP:MUSIC, but it does have some slim notability in contributions from an individual who is otherwise notable. Sort of. I'm inclined to suggest merging it to Jason Suecof, whose joke project it was and who participated under the nom de guerre "Fornicus "Fuckmouth" McFlappy". WP:MUSIC suggests as much with "it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects". Given that the whole article could be easily boiled down to a choice paragraph, that might be the best fate for it...but it's worth noting that Jason Suecof may not be swimming in notability yet himself. :) (Oh, and p.s., it needs to be moved to Crotchduster first if it is merged.)--Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kubigula (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - both per nom. Rudget.talk 16:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 21:14, 18 November 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. Changes made since the AfD was listed help fill this out some; if editors feel that the article is still questionable, send it back here after a month or two. Tijuana Brass (talk) 08:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Marr

This man is a political advisor who apparently never ran for office on his own. Speedy was declined due to some notability, but that notability is based on an event that occurred earlier this week and may well be short-lived. I am taking this to AfD at the admin's suggestion.

Delete. Blanchardb (talk) 14:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These events occur few and far between, in the public eye anyway. I think it is s fairly unusual cultural event, specific to the Scottish political landscape. I think that makes it notable. scope_creep (talk) 15:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The mere fact an event is unusual does not by itself make it notable. Furthermore, we are not here discussing the notability of the event, but that of one of its actors. The man could very well be regarded as a rising star within his party, and, if he runs for office five years from now and Wikipedia has a largely untouched article about him that mentions only this unfortunate event, it could do undue harm to his career. So, before an article is written about this man, one should wait for him to have a more lasting claim to notability. --Blanchardb (talk) 01:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A nine days' wonder, if that. JohnCD (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge With Wendy windbags article. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 18:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 21:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with either the Wendy Alexander article or the one on Alex Salmond. Not notable enough for its own article, but the event may be worthy of recording. Tim Ross·^talk 22:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unremarkable person whose fifteen minutes of fame have long since passed. WWGB (talk) 09:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Marr is a well known figure within the Scottish PLP (Parliamentary Labour Party). In regards to the post of Parliamentary Advisor not being notable enough, I need only point to other high profile spin doctors who have made a name for themselves in politics. In addition Marr has a reputation as head of the student union. Boatcolour (talk) 23:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject clearly passes WP:BIO, now that I have added another piece of substantial coverage, and I am just about to add this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:27, 25 November 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 05:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aertherials

Only 3 links on google, to message boards. Fails to establish notability. Hammer1980·^talk 14:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its a romantic idea, and but it completely fails to assert notability. scope_creep (talk) 15:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 21:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally non-notable movement. GlassCobra 01:32, 19 November 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 05:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam McCloud

Failed to establish notability Hammer1980·^talk 14:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to assert notability. scope_creep (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 21:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Might have been a speedy. Tim Ross·^talk 20:30, 23 November 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 (closed by non-admin) as per consensus. RMHED (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

José W. F. Valle

There is an insufficient amount of independent reliable source material for this topic. The topic does not meet notability. The original poster would not object to the article being deleted.[20] Also see WP:COIN. -- Jreferee t/c 14:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This scientist has been awarded the The Humboldt Prize, which is a prize of the same calibre as the Nobel Prize. The article needed to be expanded and updated with sources, wikified, and re-written in places. scope_creep (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely not the Humboldt Prize. It (the Humboldt-Mutis Research Award) seems to be an award specifically given to celebrate cooperation between Germany and Spain in research. --Dhartung | Talk 19:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Extremely impressive citation record. It's not clear to me that the Humboldt award he received is the same as the Humboldt Prize that scope_creep speaks of, but regardless the article documents with appropriate reliable sources the recognition his peers have given him. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears to satisfy WP:PROFTEST. --Dhartung | Talk 19:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most cited paper has over 400 citations. Ten papers with more than 200 citations each, according to Web of Science. If one didn't have access, Google Scholar would have shown the same. Notability way beyond the average physicist. Distinguished but apparently over-modest subject. like many scientists. DGG (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per David Eppstein & DGG. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Crusio (talk) 08:34, 19 November 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 as failing WP:WEB, specifically that it does not assert, show, or cite how a web site is notable (other than its traffic, which merely means that it is in the news). Bearian (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slide (website)

Article sited ranking numbers, so that's a claim of notability, I guess. But the criteria at WP:WEB have nothing to do with rankings. Also, totally unreferenced, so there's no backing even for the rankings stated. Giving this a chance at AFD instead of Speedy, in case I'm missing something. TexasAndroid 14:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. unless reliable sources indicating notability appear. JohnCD 17:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - major playor in the "widget" market [21]. Artw 23:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just noticed that the competitor referenced in the NY Times article, RockYou, does not have its article. Does it matter in this discussion? --Kushal^t 14:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, though I'd guess it would be an oportunity for a new article since it has a similar level of notability. IIRC It's actually the more popular source of widgets on myspace and the like. Artw 17:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 14:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even by their own statistical reckoning, their notability is in doubt. No notability asserted. scope_creep (talk) 15:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and create articles on applications of similar or higher notability. --Kushal^t 02:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:kushalhada and User:multipleidentitynumberthree are hereby prohibited from voting in this discussion. Additional votes may result in banning of User:Kushal_one --Kushal^t 02:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete SesameRoad (talk) 15:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the cryptic comments and "banning"? Artw (talk) 03:35, 21 November 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, no consensus to delete. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 10:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Diana: The Evidence

There is an insufficient amount of independent reliable source material for this topic. The topic is not notable. Also see WP:COIN. -- Jreferee t/c 14:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's always hard to determine if sources are reliable when a conspiracy theory is concerned, but the nomination doesn't say anything about the writers. If they are indeed investigative journalists of note, the book deserves a mention too. Can you expand on the authors? - Mgm|^(talk) 14:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep These books sell like hotcakes, which in itself, may be notable, but the journalists themselves are not in the mainstream media, and are virtually unknown. If the article is kept, it needs additional sources and work, otherwise delete. scope_creep (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Death of Diana, Princess of Wales #Conspiracy theories and Operation Paget. I imagine a conspiracy theory page will eventually be spun off. If there were an individual article about every JFK conspiracy book that had been written in the past 45 years, we'd be at 2,100,000 by now. Mandsford (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Guys, the article is about the book, not the actual theory. On top of that, it's relatively well sourced for a stub. GlassCobra 01:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - per Scope creep and GlassCobra. - jc37 (talk) 07:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep unfortunately this type of book does seem to sell, mind you there are a whole raft of these Diana conspiracy books. Maybe they could be lumped together in a list. RMHED (talk) 22:09, 24 November 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. Mango juice^talk 18:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Takayuki Yanase

Is this person really notable enough to be on Wikipedia? Chris DHDR 14:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —DAJF (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If he was the principle or sole artist on even one of the games listed he'd certainly be notable, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to determine if that is the case. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think he is worth the mention. One thing is he got to design a figure for Konami's Busou Shinki series, not as big as Hajime Katoki but its a start. He is kind of getting known right now having landed big jobs like designing the lead Gundams of Gundam 00 and lead mechas of the newer Super Robot Wars titles which is a well-known game series in Japan. Previously the designers who designed the lead mechas are famous designers like Hajime Katoki and Kunio Okawara. - Iron2000 (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not seeing much notability here. jj137 (Talk) 21:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - But needs references to indicate role/importance of person in production of titles listed. --DAJF (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 13:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The current English article is just a straight translation of the Japanese Wiki article, which is fine in and of itself. However, Google searching in both English and Japanese fails to yield any reliable sources that would indicate notability (although he is listed on IMDB). Furthermore, the claims raised in the article do not satisfy the criteria of WP:BIO, as he is only a minor contributor to the shows he's worked on. --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)Tell me what you think! 06:22, 24 November 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. east.718 at 06:27, November 24, 2007

Kiamo Te Aroha

Contested prod by tag removal, but no explanation given. WP is not a collection of indiscriminate information, including song lyrics per WP:NOT#LYRICS The lyrics are also likely copyrighted, but their copyright status and verifiability are difficult to establish since as far as I can tell they are not available on the web. Slp1 (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if the song is a traditional one as stated, I'm not surprised not to see it on the web. In that case, however, the lyrics might not be copyrighted. We clearly need input from New Zealanders with access to relevant books. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I have left a message on the NZ noticeboard. --Slp1 (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia:Verifiability: "If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic.” dissolve ^talk 19:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regardless of content (and I as a New Zealander don't recognise this song as anything significant), as noted it fails the WP:NOT#LYRICS test: "the article may not consist solely of the lyrics, but has to primarily contain information about authorship, date of publication, social impact, etc." kabl00ey (talk) 10:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. —gadfium 20:40, 18 November 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. Mango juice^talk 18:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth DePoy, Ph.D.

Does not appear to meet the notabilty guidelines for an academic. Google news turns up 11 articles with the name, only three of which are actually her, and even those are a single article copied on three different sites. Appears to have a lack of multiple reliable sources necessary for a biographical article. MorrisRob (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not all scientific journals make their content available freely so Google can search it, so Googling isn't an entirely useful strategy. Did you try to search by article title or even try finding the mentioned books to see if they were with major publishers, that would also make her notable, and you seem to have only investigated articles. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fairly widespread and published scientist and author. Clearly asserts notability. scope_creep (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easy keep, lots of scholar.google.com hits. --- tqbf 18:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete though a full professor at the University of Maine, a research university, most of the publications appear to be only very elementary textbooks, none of them by major academic publishers or university presses. According to Web of science, which is much more reliable than Google Scholar, she has published 33 journal articles, but the most cited ones have been cited only 12, 10, and 7 times, respectively. That's a very low figure. It doesnt include her books, but google scholar shows that her general methods textbooks have been cited often, but nothing else cited very much. I suspect that this is probably part of a walled garden around "Explanatory Legitimacy Theory." DGG (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, particularly for the Web of Science tip. Helpful! --- tqbf 20:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks like large fish in very small pond. Part of the test of notability is, anyway, the existence of reliable published material about the subject, not merely by them. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, that's what a cite is. My analysis is, "strong maybe" on 3 of the 6 WP:PROF tests. --- tqbf 22:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I noticed. There's quite a bit of reference to her papers and such, but very little on her. I thought I might source some of her personal details, but I haven't had much luck finding those sources. Hence the AFD. MorrisRob (talk) 01:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal details add color to an academic biography, but the basis of notability and the proper focus of this sort of article should be academic achievements. So lack of personal details is a poor reason for deletion, in my opinion. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per DGG. --Crusio (talk) 08:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Hang on" --- I am taking in the feedback and looking to satisfy some of the issue presented here. I do think Prof. DePoy meets the standards. I believe that once I can find the appropriate linkable citations the questions will be cleared up. It also seems that I might provide some more interesting background. I am a PhD student and I have studied under Dr. DePoy. Having seen her in action and being familiar with her publications, presentations, numerous academic awards, and esteem in the international community of disability scholars I think it will be possible to depict this more precisely and credibly. I am a new contributor to WP and am learning the ropes. I hope to be an ongoing contributor. User talk:Bjkitchin User:Bjkitchin —Preceding comment was added at 17:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - publication of textbooks and full professor at a reasearch university, per WP:PROF. Delete the doctorate at the end, because it's not standard format. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 14:48, 20 November 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 05:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Braddock Dunn & McDonald

Reads like an advertisement. Hammer1980·^talk 13:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear and simple. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like an ad, sources are useless, little corroborating facts. scope_creep (talk) 15:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ditto. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 01:22, 19 November 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. east.718 at 06:32, November 24, 2007

List of nu metal musicians

The list has no references, it's listcruft which serves no purpose. Also, its content already exists in Category:Nu metal musical groups and Category:Nu metal singers. Funeral 13:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Ja, per nom. Cat's serve better than lists. Scarian ^Talk 14:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The list isn't doing anything that can't be done with cats, but please oh please oh please, don't ever use the term listcruft. Any -cruft term is by definition a goo of all sorts of reasons ranging from IDONTLIKEIT to something else and it can be and often is seen as derogatory. Be specific and avoid this useless word. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - people tend to use whatever word to articulate what they wish to express. There's nothing wrong in using it as long as it gets the point across :-) Scarian ^Talk 15:12, 18 November 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 per CSD A1. GlassCobra 01:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bound for Freedom

Cannot find anything on google, no interwiki links, little information. Cannot establish notability. Hammer1980·^talk 13:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article doesn't mention the filmmakers involved nor does it mention any awards or reviews that could help track down more information. (It might be worth tracking the contributor's other creations to see if there is a link). - Mgm|^(talk) 15:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any sourcing articles which connects to this. No context, no sources. scope_creep (talk) 16:53, 18 November 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. Mango juice^talk 18:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claridge Hi-Tec/Goncz Pistol

Raised at WP:AN/I. Doesn't appear notable. Likely advertising. AliceJMarkham (talk) 12:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems to be speedied. scope_creep (talk) 12:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. No such luck. Article name contains a / so I had to fix the nom manually. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 13:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Used in Total Recall, now fetching a high price due to their cult status. Asserts notability, Yes, of course. scope_creep (talk) 13:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the article says it's used in Total Recall, but is there any independent evidence of that? The grainy screencap in the article is far from conclusive. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. We'd need an independent source (i.e. indepndent of Concz, who seems to be of a less than stellar reputation for honesty) otherwise it's orignal research. Guy (Help!) 17:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No refs, either. Jeffpw (talk) 13:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No refs, no evidence of notability, and it reads like advertising copy, not an encyclopedic article. Rdfox 76 (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even if this weapon wasn't used in a film, I see no reason not to be comprehensive in our coverage on fire arms. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of reliable independent sources, likely advertising. Goncz's website doesn't even mention it, it just sells flashlights. Guy (Help!) 17:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's listed in an editor's note: here. - jc37 (talk) 07:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources, an advertisement, and possible criminal activity that wikipedia shouldn't be made a part of. ThuranX (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Criminal activity? What am I missing? - jc37 (talk) 07:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (though with a much needed rename - pick one name or the other, and make the other a redirect). The "article" needs cleanup, but that shouldn't be a reason to delete. I am also not thrilled with the obvious lie on the talk page. The rant is rather obviously not from Goncz. ("fluent in 6 languages" for one thing...) - jc37 (talk) 07:59, 19 November 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. Mango juice^talk 19:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarence ballroom

No real indication of notability. The article doesn't even really discuss the ballroom. It has been filled with irrelevant text, and is really a pedestal for WP:SPAM promoting the Marquis Community Association. Also, this article does not contain a single WP:RS. Delete. Evb-wiki (talk) 12:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Merge The reason I think it is notable, is the connection to royalty. Should be in the South Wigston article though. Both articles need major work. scope_creep (talk) 12:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, no notability at all (connection to royalty only that it was, like a zillion other public houses, named after one, nothing more) nancy 14:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article would need a complete rewrite to be kept, as well as needing sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent notability, no sources, Being named after royalty does not make something notable. DGG (talk) 11:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If, and only if, the article can be properly sourced I will reconsider. But at this point the author has not accepted my offer of help to clean the article and bring it into line. One or two sentences in the South Wigston article ought be sufficient but that doesn't require a merge. JodyB_talk 12:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refactored to move article's author's comments from the top of the page. JodyB_talk 00:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Marquisofqueensbury (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Ive been working on a project for 10 months and uncovered quite a lot of information about this landmark building, ive used this service on and off for quite some time and it would be nice to put something back. still learning how to use wikipedia its a major landmark buiding within the area of south wigston. ive got all the sourceing just never editied pages b4[reply]

1896 Leicestershire and Rutland Directory C.N. Wright.{source}

South wigston formerly an outlying hamlet, and containing only a few houses west of the railway, has during the last twelve years, developed into a considerable suburb, containing upwards of 700 houses with a population of upwards of 2500, including a large timber yard and building works three boot and shoe factories, elastic web works, biscuit manufactory, an iron foundry and some good retail shops, there are church to which a vicar has been appointed, and mission rooms for dissenting bodies. A board school has been erected at a cost of upwards of £4000. There are two large hotels, also a coffee house, a fine building standing on the Blaby Road, with concert hall, bagatelle room, and skittle alley attached.

The Archive Photograph Series. Wigston Magna & South. {source}The Duke Of Clarence Hotel. c. 1903 Situated on blaby road, this was very much the centre of south wigston’s social life for the first 50 years of the new township, Also accommodating the Clarence Assembly Rooms, most major civic functions were held here as were dances and film shows. In a later guise as the Gaiety one of the rooms was named after Girtie Gitana, a famous singer of the early yeary of the century. She married Don Ross of Wigston and retained links with the town until her death in 1957. Her grave is in Wigston cemetery.

Historic Buildings are a precious and finite asset, and powerful reminders to us of the work and way of life of earlier generations. The richness of this country’s architectural heritage plays an influential part in our sense of national and regional identity. Your favourite views of England – street, village, town or city....

Redevelopment of the Clarence Assembly Rooms improvements on the building need to be made to ensure the future and the wellbeing of the people that live in the local community, it is in a conservation area, an area of regeneration and it should be at the forefront of any regeneration plans within the area, as well as outline villages.

The Clarence ballroom has a great history of boxing and kick boxing also amateur dramatics which have not been in the premises for a number of years, Likewise Music performances, tony cristie, the kinks, aker Bilk, The dallas boys, shawaddywaddy. The corvettes with Johnny Daran, the nomads, lorraine gray and chaperones, the drumbeats, Manfred mann, the mystics, jimmy nicol aka the beatles, bern elliot & the Klan, the autocrats, the kirkby’s, the clansmen, king size taylor with the griff parry five, neil landon and the Burnettes, Brian Bass and the brewers, cadillac and the playboys, the johnnie taylor star combo to name but a few from the sixties.

History of people that have fought and trained in the sport of boxing see below: Andy Eagon eleven fights, one loss. Neil Simpson forty fights, lost twelve. British title won, commonwealth title won, IBO world title lost. Scott Landsdown twenty fights, five lost, midlands title won, inter continental title won. Jason Squires thirteen fights, eleven wins and one draw and one loss. Paul Squires four fights and four wins. Carlton Williams twentyeight fights, nineteen wins, nine losses, grand masters champion. Warren Slaney, nine fights, eight wins, one loss. Mark Pain, nineteen fights, four losses, British title won. Gareth Pain, twenty two fights, lost four, masters title won, midlands title won. Dean Pithey, twenty seven fights, three losses, British title lost, common wealth title won.--Marquisofqueensbury (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article as written is nonsense, so delete and start from scratch. Sorry, but as written it will take too much work for even me. Bearian (talk) 18:02, 26 November 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 05:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of glamour models

It doesn't meet any of the common standards.I give it a speedy but I thought best to hear what others think. --Hiltonhampton (talk) 12:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge Surely this can't be deemed a notable article.--Hiltonhampton (talk) 12:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be deemed an article at all, because it is a list and not an article. Those are two entirely different things. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete No context, no sources, OR. scope_creep (talk) 12:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge Why not? -- Taku (talk) 13:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is it? Delete and merge lead to two totally different outcomes and the two can't be combined. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Categorize any models that aren't in a category already. Not only is this list improperly alphabetized on first, rather than last name, it also doesn't add anything that cannot be covered by a category and it doesn't specify when someone is considered a glamor model instead of a regular one. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too subjective to be a list. RMHED (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subjective and unreferenced. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:10, 20 November 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 (closed by non-admin), strong views on all sides, but clearly no consensus to delete/keep or merge. A very messy AfD. RMHED (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

300-page iPhone bill

Delete I thought we are building an encyclopedia here. And this topic is clearly not encyclopedic. Since it is not encyclopedic, it is irrelevant how well the article is written, how referenced, how popular, etc. Taku (talk) 10:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC) To elaborate on why this is not encyclopedic, the problem of this kind of the article is that people wouldn't be talking about this in just a couple of years. An encyclopedia, such as this one, is not a place for topics that are only news-worthy. -- Taku (talk) 10:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a link to the deletion review, so editors can see the case for overturning the previous deletion. Geometry guy 20:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That makes more sense. -- Taku (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I say that because the offending article, was international news, was on all news media channels on the web and tv, across the western world. That makes it notable as a cultural event. The article needs cleaned, sourced,....scope_creep (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability isn't established for my money. In a couple of years no-one will care about this, bringing WP:RECENT into the equation. Docta247 (talk) 12:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For reasons cited by Docta247 and nominator. this shameful article has been on my radar for a while. --Fredrick day (talk) 13:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - so let me get this straight. A few people didn't read what they were signing up for properly and as a result got detailed bills rather than consolidated ones. Sorry I can see of no reason why this should be encyclopaedic. Ben W Bell talk 13:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOT#NEWS not a repository for stale water-cooler stories., or for billing disputes. A celebrity wanna-be, Justine Ezarik, requested detailed bills, made thousands of text messages, and got a suitable long bill printout. Then she created a video showing how long the bill was and got a week's worth of news coverage. Wikipedia is not a "news of the week" or "cool water cooler story" or "YouTube Review" site. Per WP:NOT#NEWS, "News reports. Wikipedia properly considers the long-term historical notability of persons and events, keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article." This incident has not shown any significant long-term encyclopedic nature. Edison (talk) 14:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have quote mined that policy section to support your position, while ignoring this: "Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article. News outlets are reliable secondary sources when they practice competent journalistic reporting, however, and topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial." Also this part, while not applicable to this article explains what WP:NOT#NEWS is really about: "Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right. While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news.[5]" This section was recently added to the policy by Jimbo Wales in this diff to address a BLP issue. It was not intended to be used in the way you have.Dhaluza (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge reduced version to iPhone. It's clearly not something suitable for its own article, but the press attention it received and the effect (if any) it had on billing is totally suitable in the iPhone article, assuming it can be included briefly in a one or two paragraph note. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge agree with above's suggestion.

Merging has been suggested before. The logical merge target is AT&T mobility not iPhone because the bill was generated by AT&T not Apple. But it would be completely out of context there as well. Dhaluza (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NOT encyclopedic whatsoever.IslaamMaged126 (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with iPhone. Tiddly-Tom 17:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well sourced. May not be encyclopedic, but sure is notable. Rudget.talk 17:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't consider it encyclopedic then what does it matter that it is well sourced? --Fredrick day (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. —Dhaluza (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletions. —Dhaluza (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and Docta247. A glich in AT&T's system, even if it got some publicity for a week or so, is not notable enough. -Yamanbaiia (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the nomination is based on a WP:ATA#CRYSTAL ball vision of future notability cloaked as a novel interpretation of encyclopedic suitability. WP:N only considers objective evidence of notability and properly dismisses editors' personal opinions. This article is way over the top in terms of evidence of Notability per that guideline. But some people just don't get it, and attack this article, without clearing the threshold of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. Dhaluza (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is necessary that every article in wikipedia is about a notable topic, and we all agree. But are you saying that every notable topic is a candidate for an article here? Are you really? Since what topic is considered encyclopedic is based on editors' personal opinions, the opinions are ones that count here not the notability. Hence, this AfD, since the interpretation of the inclusion guidelines is not in question. -- Taku (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you suggesting that we should delete articles if enough editors don't like it enough to gang up on it at AfD based only on their personal opinions, and without regard to wider consensus in the form of policies and guidelines? Are you really? Don't content creators have a right to demand that the community uphold it's written standards for inclusion, without allowing mob-rule. Dhaluza (talk) 01:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mgm. Cheers, JöиÁ †ĥăИ — Quality, not quantity. 18:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its crystal balling deciding today, what people reading Wikipedia in the future will be interested in. Its notable and verifiable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject received coverage from multiple national and international news sources, and resulted in AT&T and Apple changing their policies. Additionally, arguing that something may not be notable in the future is not a reasonable argument for deletion - this is a crystal-ball AfD, which, as Dhaluza says, is not equivalent to encyclopaedicity. No-one these days talks about Zoe Karbonopsina; does that mean she doesn't deserve an article? Laïka 18:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability should indeed be based on objective evidence not subjective judgements. The admin who closed the AfD as "delete" initially objected to the DRV, but eventually concluded that the article should be merged or kept. The keep recommendation reads (in part):

Keep, only if Justine Ezarik is merged and redirected to this article, because as the nominator of the DRV rightly points out, Ezarik is not notable outside this event per WP:BLP1E.

I believe this is the essential point: Justine Ezarik is the article which should really be under AfD scrutiny. She is essentially only notable for her role in this story. The story is clearly notable, but is it encyclopedic? Well, Wikipedia is not paper and so things can change, but at the moment I do not see a case for deleting this article. It seems to me that those who have looked into this story in detail, including the main author and the closing admins of both the AfD and the DRV, have concluded that it is both notable and encyclopedic. I find their consensus compelling. Geometry guy 23:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion that Justine Ezarik is not notable apart from this event did not attract consensus at that AfD or the DRV. Justine Ezarik has ample notability per WP:N separate and apart from this event. In fact, it only gets a brief mention in her bio, which has much more material on her lifecasting activities. Dhaluza (talk) 01:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That does depend upon what you mean by brief. The bio is pretty short, and the discussion of the i-phone bill is the most meaty paragraph in terms of content and citations to reliable sources. The article does try quite hard to be more about her lifecasting than her video, but the sources don't really support such a slant. For one thing, almost all of them postdate the i-phone bill story. If you took the i-phone bill and associated publicity out, the case for notability would be rather weak.

Possibly it would be a good idea to have an AfD discussing both articles simultaneously: that might generate a solution which would be stable for a while. Geometry guy 20:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are two full-length bio features in mainstream international newspapers cited at Justine Ezarik that were published before the iPhone bill video, so she met the requirements of WP:BIO then, and your assertion is demonstrably false. Furthermore, there are additional bio features since, including the NYT and WSJ no less, that deal primarily with her lifecasting. So that article is also over-the-top in terms of objective notability. Multiple RS have decided to do bio features on her over a period of time, all unrelated to this video, so your suggestion to have another combined AfD is pointless. Dhaluza (talk) 03:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for Laïka. The article stands well on its own and I see no way the article could be merged without losing context. Graham87 00:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a news story with nothing about it happening in the past three months - that is, it's a glorified news article. Merge, if possible, into iPhone Will ^(talk) 00:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'll be honest, I hate the fact that something like this is notable. When I first saw that it was deleted, I danced. When it was restored, I cried (just a bit). When it was nominated for Good Article status, I did the first review. Rather than take that as a chance to extract "revenge" on something I hated, however, I reviewed WP:N and decided that it was, indeed, notable. The best thing that could be done, then, was to take advantage of a user who was willing to do what it took to make this article "good" and, well, make the article "good," which I think they did a fantastic job of. I don't need to point out that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, as it's been done numerous times already, but I do point out that it currently meets all the criteria for notability. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," which, like or not (personally I fall into the "not" category), is met with this article. I rue the day that this topic would be found in, say, a regular encyclopedia, but this not a regular encyclopedia. It is a modern construct designed to adapt to a modern world and its rapid changes. Love it or hate it, these "pop culture" banalities are what people find newsworthy and notable these days. You say that it is irrelevant how well the article the article is referenced, but I wholly disagree. The number and, far more importantly, quality of the references is a large part of what determines whether this is notable or not. We may not like the system, we may hate the fact that the system allows for this, but we have objective standards for inclusion for a reason. If it fails the criteria in a year, then it does, and I have no qualms about it disappearing, but I see no reason to delete a well-sourced, well-written article that has a very strong, although perhaps not foolproof, claim to notability. Cheers, CP 05:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - whew @ the reference list. If someone is concerned that this is a flash in the pan, then let's wait and find out. It can always be nominated at a later date. In the meantime, this would appear to be rather informative on its topic. - jc37 (talk) 08:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Whether or not an article is "encyclopedic" is in general a subjective judgement. I do not see anything to disqualify this article based on WP:NOT, and the article is definitely notable, based on the number of quality references. Whether or not the article would be in a paper encyclopedia is irrelevant, because if that was a deciding factor, likely a large majority of Wikipedia articles would have to be deleted. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 14:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ding! That was the sound of her 15 minutes of fame being up. Delete. --Calton | Talk 15:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Slippery slope. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:38, 20 November 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 05:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Champatpadri Records

It is claimed that this is a major record label but gives no references to back up that assertion and Google shows no hits whatsoever. Dougie WII (talk) 12:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to establish notability. Lugnuts (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For lack of context, but keep if it can be expanded based on my comment below. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment has anyone tried to do a search in a native language. Those are sufficiently different as to not catch the hits when you search in English.

Delete for lack of evidence of notability. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete suspected hoax, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hussain Ali Nasser, Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as part of a walled garden of hoaxes surrounding the above-linked article, which has been snowball deleted. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:50, 22 November 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. Hut 8.5 10:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joker in the pack

If I can't get it at Amazon, then it's probably non-notable. Either way, I couldn't verify this article in light of the 30 unique ghits. (By the way, joker in the pack is a common idiom and makes verification especially hard.) MER-C 11:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I can't find anything which says its notable. scope_creep (talk) 12:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact you can't get it in Amazon, doesn't assert any notability watsoever. Since Amazon by definition, is a western bookseller, and only sells a small percentage of the books published in the world, in an one particular year. I think it is less than 20%, is the figure I understand. Also taking into the fact that this is the English version of Wikipedia, has no bearing either. Taking into account USA and UK English speaking populations, account for less than 10% of English speakers world wide, means that there bunch of folk worldwide, publishing books in English, perhaps as secondary, or in some cases primary editions, which never make it to western publishing houses. We really need to get away from this western centric view we have if Wikipedia is to be a success. scope_creep (talk) 12:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either ways, the book is actually available on Amazon (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Joker-Pack-Irreverent-View-Life/dp/8122204570/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195390279&sr=8-1)

Keep. The Management Compass ref in the article, plus this one from the 30 ghits would seem to satisfy WP:V and WP:RS Phil Bridger (talk) 14:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Phil Bridger. The book is covered by at least two reliable sources and despite what the nominator said, it is available on Amazon. Together with scope_creep's comment, that is enough to not pursue deletion. -Mgm|^(talk) 15:23, 18 November 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. W.marsh 20:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Low Priced Asian Edition

The fact that some publishing houses sell books at a discount in some Asian countries doesn't seem to meet any minimum guideline for its own encyclopedia entry. I don't think anyone would type this into a search box and linking to it from other articles would have little or no use or value. Dougie WII (talk) 11:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you like to delete a page which explains something that isn't covered anywhere else at Wikipedia? I am sure there is more to it than what I have written. There are legal issues that need to be covered here. Companies sell software at a reduced price in these countries as well. Jaywalker (talk) 12:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is valid information, and should be in Wikipedia. The phenomenon is well know. The article needs work, wikification, links, ... scope_creep (talk) 12:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Various companies in virtually all industries sell products at different price levels in different countries. This is certainly not unique to the book publishing industry. -- Dougie WII (talk) 12:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's true but you would be amazed at the price difference, if you go through some book prices. It's usually less than one-tenth! I was inspired to begin with this article after reading an article on a news site which told that students in the US are buying textbooks from these Indian companies for such a reduced price.Jaywalker (talk) 12:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- They were peanuts compared to UK prices. I was working in sofware house in Scotland, and we were working on a project with India contractors. All the books we used came from India, at the 10th of the price in old blighty. scope_creep (talk) 13:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well why not just merge this info into the main Textbook article? -- Dougie WII (talk) 13:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Low priced editions exist. But is the topic notable? We need non trivial reliable sources. Trivial in this case means someone mentioning that a book is less expensive in Asia. Non trivial is an article about the topic. Without other articles, this is almost WP:OR. Could be merged into a general article about cheaper goods in Asia.Obina (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep This is a notable publishing practice, but we do need some sources. DGG (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment May I gently suggest that we avoid the WP:IKNOWIT arguments? I know Asia has low priced books. And low priced Asian pink hairbands. (Sorry I know I am risking WP:BEANS, but I'm thinking the example helps). Anyway, the notability of a topic is established by multiple independent reliable sources. If a full article on Asia goods really does not exist, perhaps an article on the economics of low prices goods could be sourced and we can redirect this to that. Because we really can't seem to find any sources for a specific article on low priced editions.Obina (talk) 19:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how about including software in the article. Please visit this BBC page and ZDNet article to see what I mean. Jaywalker (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Obina; contra DGG et al. Bearian (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Until I see some sources about "low priced asian editions," I don't think this is an article, more like a book-buying tip. WP:NOT a how-to. Delete per WP:NOT and WP:OR. Mango juice^talk 19:05, 26 November 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 to Kas the Bloody-Handed, which itself may not be notable, but that is not determined by this debate. Simply put, a lot of people here are saying this is notable without addressing the Wikipedia norms for notability, in this case WP:N and WP:FICT. Mango juice^talk 19:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sword of Kas

Non-notable fictional object with too few substantial third-party references to support a Wikipedia article. Listing at AfD after a contested {{prod}}. Mikeblas (talk) 11:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nom. Originating article is already fairly large and a merge is not suitable for a minor item in the book series. scope_creep (talk) 11:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect into Vecna - notable artifact in Vecna's history, in fact there is already a section about the item on Vecna's page. BOZ (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge into Kas the Bloody-Handed. Subject does have 3rd-party reference & is notable enough to have appeared outside the game.--Robbstrd (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't even a stub. It's definitely a short paragraph belonging in someone elses' article. Like Vecna, or Kas himself. Howa0082 (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Very Weak Merge into Kas the Bloody-Handed (almost opposing). - Here's the difficulty as I see it. The sword of Kas would appear to be more well-known than the character Kas. It was included as a magical sword in the first edition AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide (and even as far back as Eldritch Wizardry), with a little information about Vecna and Kas (and the sword itself). Personally, I think that the information at "Kas" should be reverse merged to the sword's article. (Though better would be to merge both - and then redirect - to Vecna, expanding the fictional history a bit, and clarifying the importance of the artifact, since neither seems important without reference to Vecna.) But those other articles aren't currently under discussion, hence my initial comments. - jc37 (talk) 08:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We're trying to solve a problem here. Suggesting solutions that don't deal with a lack of secondary sources isn't helpful. Vecna doesn't have secondary sources either. Jay32183 (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're mistaken--please review the reference sections on both articles--the source by Iron Hammer Graphics is independent of TSR/WotC.--Robbstrd (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not independent of Sword of Kas. Jay32183 (talk) 05:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Duh. Of course it isn't independent of the subject--how else can a subject be sourced without mentioning its name? However, the source it is independent of the IP holder, which makes it a legitimate source.--Robbstrd (talk) 20:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Mentioning the name isn't what makes it dependent on the subject. Read WP:N, "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the topic". That's how we decide what does or doesn't get articles. Jay32183 (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Note that the work in question doesn't even have the name of the sword in its title, nor is the work "about" the subject--that qualifies as independent.--Robbstrd (talk) 01:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        When dealing with fictional things, the sources are only independent if they contain detail other than plot. When dealing with things from games, the sources are only independent if they contain information beyond gameplay. I see no content of that type in the article so either that sources does not contain that information, or that isn't actually a source for this article. Jay32183 (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article seems to have a lot of references but needs specific sourcing of the claims. A merge may well be appropriate given the size of the Kas the Bloody Handed article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 08:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Secondary sources are required for stand alone articles. Jay32183 (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable within the litature of xD&D. It is sourced. Support a merge with Kas as per jc37. Web Warlock (talk) 12:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fictional concepts need to be notable in the real world, WP:FICT. Wikipedia is not a collection of plot summaries. Jay32183 (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note: It is notable because it was one of the first of a half of dozen or so "Magical Artifacts" introduced to the the D&D game through the original D&D supplement Eldritch Wizardry. This concept lead to the expansion of artifacts in the 1st Ed. AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide, gave us the Mayfair RoleAid's books "Fantastic Treasures" and to the modern day with 3.5 Edition D&D books. Web Warlock (talk) 01:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's not what notability means, read WP:N. Jay32183 (talk) 05:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this fictional sword is a little more than a prop for the stock character, "Kas the Bloody-Handed". Compared with Hrunting or Excalibur on which the idea of a sword that empowers or distinguishes its wielder is based, it has no reliable secondary sources as evidence of notability outside of the Greyhawk canon. There is no myth surrounding this prop, and therefore no reason to keep. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "A stock character is a one that relies heavily on cultural types or stereotypes for their personality, manner of speech, and other characteristics." On what do you base your opinion that "Kas the Bloody-Handed" is a stock character? Edward321 (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, there are TONS of vampire warlords serving lich-gods who use their special swords to cut off their masters' hands which then become powerful artifacts of their own - I mean, they're in damn near every story. BOZ (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The role in the plot isn't actually relevant, WP:PLOT. There needs to be sources for real world context. Jay32183 (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - more information added to article entry to establish notability. More will be added later. Web Warlock (talk) 03:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per efforts to improve article that contains references and concerns an aspect of a notable game series. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Le Grand Roi, others. Edward321 (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons stated above. You deletionists ought to take up a more useful hobby. Iquander (talk) 06:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be more useful to make arguments based on policy and guideline rather than labeling people as deletionists or inclusionists. Having interest in a particular subject is not a reason to keep an article. No evidence that a topic has suitable sourcing to develop a proper encyclopedia article is a reason to delete an article. Jay32183 (talk) 08:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just a suggestion, but you may perhaps want to actually read those pages that you're brandishing about. You may find the whole of WP:AADD an interesting read (or perhaps not, depending on your actual intent). - jc37 08:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Kas the Bloody-Handed; better yet, merge both into Vecna, which is long, notable, and has the needed references. Freederick (talk) 14:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into either the Kas or Vecna article. The content is notable, but the article itself is too short to, in my opinion, remain on its own outside of those potential parent articles.Shemeska (talk) 18:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gavin says it best: it's a prop. --Jack Merridew 08:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - going through a stack of old White Dwarf and The Dungeoneer magazines now. Web Warlock (talk) 20:03, 25 November 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 Not notable , as consensus indicates, umless elected. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 15:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William J. McCamley

He may be a notable politician in his district, but this article is clearly a blatant political advertisement. Unless someone familiar with this person comes in soon and rewrites this from a neutral point of view, I think this article should be deleted. Dougie WII (talk) 11:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What in this article is advertising? This article is presenting facts on a Congressional Candidate to give voters in this district additional information on a candidate. Nothing state in the article is untrue and I have added external links and references that show that. I am hopeful that by me starting this article, others familiar with this gentleman will come forward and to continue to add to it. This article is far from "blatant political advertisement" otherwise I would have just put in big bold letters all over the page "ELECT MR X FOR CONGRESS, DONATE HIM SOME MONEY, HE PROMISES RAINBOWS AND SUNSHINE!!" Chadbon (talk) 11:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's all "Accomplishments" and "Praise" etc., where are the failures and criticism? I'm sure he's had some during his political life. -- Dougie WII (talk) 11:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My friend, I'm using the Google here. When I find this information, it will be added. Again, I am hoping by starting this entry it will bring other people that are familiar with the candidate to edit and add to the entry. Isn't that what this is all about? Chadbon (talk) 11:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep What about the On April 4, 2007, Bill McCamley announced he would challenge Republican Rep . It is blatant advertising, although the article may have some merit, if the politician is important enough for an article. I any sense, the article needs rewritten to remove the puff, and present an more balanced article. scope_creep (talk) 11:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please follow the wikipedia rules when making comments. scope_creep (talk) 11:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep He is an elected official in a smaller metropolitan area, BUT this piece, as written, is little more than a campaign flyer. WP shouldn't be a mirror site for every Congressional campaign, let MySpace and Facebook do that. Jacksinterweb (talk) 13:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely Weak Keep - The page, as it stands, is a blatant advertisement. I only keep because the article writer states the intent to add criticism.--WaltCip (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete A county commissioner? Not a statewide officeholder, no national exposure, unbalanced article, no news coverage. Per WP:CRYSTAL, add the page when the candidate becomes noteworthy, not as a way to try to make the candidate noteworthy. --- tqbf 18:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, below WP:BIO standards, and essentially spam. --Dhartung | Talk 19:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I've removed the redundant Background section and the POV Accomplishments section. GlassCobra 23:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If he gets elected, then he qualifies for an article, not before. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A county commissioner can be notable if he or she has done notable things. There really doesn't appear to be anything of the sort in the article. A campaign for Congress could add notability, but this person has not qualified for a ballot or won a party primary. Lots of people declare themselves to be candidates who drop out before a party endorsement has even taken place. Montco (talk) 03:50, 20 November 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). —Qst 19:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crackle

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Only cites a press release Hu12 (talk) 09:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Any business venture by a notable company like Sony is notable by association. It is not a new venture either, because it used to be called Grouper which already existed for a while. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:WEB, major site owned by major company. Websearch shows plently of independent coverage ([22], [23], etc). Citations could certainly be improved but the site appears to be notable. shoeofdeath (talk) 08:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:NOTINHERITED Notability of a parent entity does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities--Hu12 (talk) 08:27, 20 November 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 05:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oneworld.net

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY Hu12 (talk) 09:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please specify as to how it fails WP:N. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its a prominent website, going for over 10 years, and is well know human rights website. scope_creep (talk) 11:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per scope_creep. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems reasonably sourced and complies with notability criteria. Rudget.talk 17:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: well-known website. There are sources, notability criteria is fine. Maksdo (talk) 17:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one of the sources is independent of the subject, which seems to violate the preference of WP:N for multiple sources. At a minimum, the article needs to be improved. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep this also please the website is very well known and meets the criterias we have for them yuckfoo (talk) 01:36, 23 November 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 05:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gigacasting

Neologism, not widely used. Taking out the spamdexing, there are 26 unique ghits. MER-C 08:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A more heavily filtered search suggests that the only usage of the term is by a single blog created recently to promote the term. The filtered hits aren't even related - gigacasting.com is a German skiing site. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Its a neo by the look of it. scope_creep (talk) 12:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To me, it seems like it's written almost like a promotion for the person who coined it, in a bid for it to catch on... It's a neologism, a non-notable one with no reliable sources. Seraphim ^Whipp 13:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 02:19, 23 November 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 --JForget 01:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flowmics

Hoax, 2 ghits. MER-C 08:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Can't find anything in x-org. Could be a hoax, but certainly not prominent. scope_creep (talk) 12:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, very unlikely there are any references out there. Could be a hoax. Hut 8.5 12:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Actually, 3ghits, 2 of which are Wikipedia. :-) Stwalkerster talk 19:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete No usable refs, no notability. Tim Ross·^talk 17:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete either hoax or non-notable. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless several more reliable references can be found. The reference given is pay-for; there is no mention of flowmics in the title or abstract. Cosmo0 (talk) 21:45, 22 November 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. This is a Secret ^account 23:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl C. Anderson Middle Learning Center

Non notable middle school, no assertion of notability. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Some schools are in, some are out. What the point of that. Keep them all. scope_creep (talk) 12:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris 12:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on disregard all proposals in this "batch". I typed in the name of "Quintanilla Middle School" (a school proposed by this nominator) into Google. Not a lot of hits and this one is included. Obviosly a unique experiment with own web page etc. Surely the page could have been found by this nominator. If we have time to delete them then we need to check their notability. Victuallers (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable school with only boilerplate information. Wikipedia is not a directory. Note that the above comment does not even refer to this school. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article doesn't mention anything particularly noteworthy about the school, no news articles related to the school and notable alumni. Nothing to cover WP:BEEFSTEW or the Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools guidelines, old or new. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:38, 18 November 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. Mango juice^talk 19:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert T. Hill Middle School

Non notable middle school, no assertion of notability. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Some schools are in, some are out. What the point of that. Keep them all. scope_creep (talk) 12:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I like it is not a strong reason to keep. Yes, some schools are kept and others not. If they are notable, they are kept. If not they are deleted. The only exception is the very rough consensus that high schools are likely to be considered notable and as long as the article has substance it is likely to be kept. All other schools need to clearly assert notability. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris 12:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on disregard all proposals in this "batch". I typed in the name of "Quintanilla Middle School" (a school proposed by this nominator) into Google. Not a lot of hits and this one is included. Obviosly a unique experiment with own web page etc. Surely the page could have been found by this nominator. If we have time to delete them then we need to check their notability. Victuallers (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominations are based on the content of the article. It is that simple. If the article does not assert notability, then it meets the criteria for deletion. What exists on Google is not in anyway, shape or form, what is in the article. I guess by your logic we could make every article notable by linking to Google instead of writing our own. The articles were and still are not notable. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete content-free article. Since this batch of schools has essentially no information in each article, a single article for the district might be appropriate, with a list of feeder patterns. Of course I don't think that's the case -- I don't see how feeder patters are encyclopedic in the first place. Removing that and the boilerplate, there's just nothing left. Why are we keeping an essentially empty article for a non-notable school? CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into school district. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge or Delete into district. Arguments for 'keep' fail to provide an argument that pertains to this particular article or an established consensus. No notability. Epthorn (talk) 11:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this has enough hits and is notable to the area but merge is a good idea too yuckfoo (talk) 01:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of sources from which the article can be expanded here and the school was embroiled in a notable sex scandal here. TerriersFan (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have now added the necessary sources to meet WP:N and am adding more as we speak ... TerriersFan (talk) 19:10, 26 November 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. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of notability has ben requested. None of the contributors has produced any at AFD, instead we have non-policy based arguments such as "some in some out keep all" (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST and deleteion process refer; we judge this AFD by this article, not by reference to others... a web hit proposal that produced no evidence of specific notability related to this school being notable (amongst other schools)... and a post referencing an inactive talk page and that merging is inappropriate, again with no actual evidence of notability provided.

Articles need to meet Wikipedia's inclusion critieria: What Wikipedia is not and Notability, and no evidence is presented on this AFD of either of these. The school district article might work, but merging is itself a minority view (and the school can be added at will there - any editor can ask for a copy of the text to provide content for inclusion in that page). Against this, the majority of policy related responses concur with the nominator that the school is non-notable and the article should be deleted.

John B. Hood Middle School

Non notable middle school, no assertion of notability Vegaswikian (talk) 08:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Some schools are in, some are out. Whats the point of that. Keep them all. scope_creep (talk) 12:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you give a valid reason for keeping This is a Secret ^account 23:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris 12:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on disregard all proposals in this "batch". I typed in the name of "Quintanilla Middle School" (a school proposed by this nominator) into Google. Not a lot of hits and this one is included. Obviosly a unique experiment with own web page etc. Surely the page could have been found by this nominator. If we have time to delete them then we need to check their notability. Victuallers (talk) 14:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost every school in the U.S has it's own webpage, that doesn't claim notabilty This is a Secret ^account 21:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable school. This is A7-able, as it asserts no notability. Nothing in the article distinguishes this school from any other Texas middle school -- the activities are standard and most assuredly not notable, with hundreds of thousands of US middle schools having similar activities. (Of course even if there were notable activities we would need a secondary, not primary, source asserting that the activities are notable -- but this article isn't nearly far enough along to think about that kind of fine-grained problem.) Note that the above two 'votes' for keep are boilerplate comments; I imagine neither even read the article. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into school district. Nothing to warrant a separate entry but we do have a district article that can cover the lot of them. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom This is a Secret ^account 21:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep verifiable and NPOV schools. User:JodyB has stated in closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shapleigh Memorial School that merging to district articles is inappropriate. Thus, this nice start should thus be kept for proper incremental expansion. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He redirected the article This is a Secret ^account 23:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable and unremarkable. henrik•talk 23:17, 24 November 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. W.marsh 20:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quintanilla Middle School

Non notable middle school. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Some schools are in, some are out. Whats the point of that. Keep them all. scope_creep (talk) 12:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris 12:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and disregard all proposals in this batch. I typed in the name of "Quintanilla Middle School" into Google. Not a lot of hits and this one is included. Obviosly a unique experiment with own web page etc. Surely the page could have been found by this nominator. Victuallers (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not a single notable point about this school, not even a weak attempt like quasi-notable alumni or statewide teaching awards. Also, all sources are from the school itself, which raises WP:V issues. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep since they pioneered a project which may or may not be notable depending on how many schools adopted it and how much news coverage it had. Article can also be merged into school district. Nothing much to warrant a separate entry but we do have a district article that can cover the lot of them. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - undertaken a notable experiment that could have broader application. TerriersFan (talk) 01:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How does that experiment make the school notable? Are they the first or only school to do this? Vegaswikian (talk) 03:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only point about this school points toward possible future notability. At present, it is another non notable school. --Stormbay (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. First school to develop this project. Bearian (talk) 19:41, 26 November 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 Deleted per WP:NOT. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WCAU local programs

Violation of WP:NOT, under which television station schedules are not allowed. Rollosmokes (talk) 06:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indeed, Wikipedia is not a directory. The WCAU article already links to the station's website, where a listing of programs and times can be found. Ariel♥Gold 07:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and Ariel♥Gold. JohnCD (talk) 10:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. -- Mikeblas (talk) 11:43, 18 November 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 listed as copyvios. W.marsh 20:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WPVI-TV anchors

This page contains tons of copyright violations -- a large majority of the text was pulled straight from the WPVI website. The information is not notable enough to merit a stand-alone article, and should be partially merged into the station's main entry.

I am also nominating the following related pages for similar reasons:

Rollosmokes (talk) 06:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you need AFD. Wikipedia:Copyright problems can tend to the copyright violations and you can do the merge (or request the merge) yourself through Wikipedia:Requested mergers. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all While the WPVI-TV article is protected, copying of blocks of text from a station's website is either a copyvio or, more likely, corporate self-promotion. Frankly, even the residents of Philadelphia don't really want to know THAT much about the personalities on their ABC affilliate. Mandsford (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant and non-copyright-violating information into WPVI-TV, KYW-TV, WCAU and WTXF-TV, and redirect, and for any of the people listed who are notable, give them their own pages and link to them from the main station page. DHowell (talk) 03:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm taking the advice of MacGyverMagic and will go the WP:COPYVIO route. Rollosmokes (talk) 08:32, 25 November 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 Deleted per WP:NFT, lack of verifiability and CSD G4. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mucho chacho

Non-notable drinking game. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. JavaTenor (talk) 07:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This game has been played since 2001. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muchochacho (talk • contribs) 07:07, November 18, 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Doesn't seem to have been noted in any reliable sources. Also per above. Singu larity 07:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A game being played for years, doesn't necessarily mean it is appropriate for an encyclopedia, or that it qualifies for notability per Wikipedia guidelines. The only Google result for the term (not related to Spanish language) is Wikipedia, and there are zero news results. Ariel♥Gold 07:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obscure, non-notable and unencyclopedic. WWGB (talk) 08:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete no assertion of notability -- and consider salting if recreated again (speedied twice and recreated three times). -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 08:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 12:12, 18 November 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 --JForget 01:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Callers of WFAN

This article appears to be a case of listcruft, stringing together a list of non-notable callers to various radio shows. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the stand-alone article. The information was split from the main WFAN article, and has since been replaced there. The information, however, is very notable as several WFAN callers have become as popular as the station's hosts (and one former caller became a host hiimself). Perhaps the list can be pared down, but its inclusion is very important to the article as a whole. Rollosmokes (talk) 07:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Should be a Speedy. scope_creep (talk) 12:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pair it down if you want, but this should remain in the main article. Not all of those callers are notable in the way Rollosmokes describes. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with apologies to John from Sandy Hook, et al. While the WFAN article can include whatever its editors want, we don't need articles about callers to any radio program. It reminds me of the front page story in The Onion about the Ohio forklift operator who was going to deliver a nationwide address on the Rush Limbaugh show. Mandsford (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a person who calls into a local radio show is not evidence of notability, especially since we don't even have full names for these people. Very poorly referenced and even without full names provided, claims about the behavior of certain callers, such as one labelled as intoxicated, cause concern for me under WP:BLP. 23skidoo (talk) 19:40, 19 November 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 Non-admin closure: Article was speedily deleted by Canadian Paul as WP:CSD#G8 - talk page whose article does not exist. Ariel♥Gold 07:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Valerie Lafata

❤☺❤Hugs And More Warm Hugs to the HEART! ❤☺❤ (talk) 06:30, 18 November 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 speedily deleted - as either a hoax or a libel (or both). Doc^g 15:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Vidaurre

Suspected WP:HOAX. I suspect fails WP:BIO. I declined a speedy deletion on this, as hoaxes aren't generally speediable. Brought here to get a broader consensus. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 06:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, speedily if possible. The subject reportedly works for a television station called WCNR-TV in Philadelphia, which, as far as I can tell, does not exist. That's fortunate, because if he really were a television news anchor, the article would contain some WP:BLP violations. In fact, it still might, depending on who the subject really is. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Looks like a hoax. scope_creep (talk) 12:34, 18 November 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. W.marsh 20:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Futurama animals

AfDs for this article:

Listcruft/fancruft with no real world notability - the notability of Futurama does not account for every aspect of the show. There are no secondary - or even primary, in this case - sources. None of the reasons to keep the list presented in the previous AfD established any notability of the topic; the only reasons were that the "animals" were better here than on their own individual pages or in the main article. •97198 talk 05:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, has encyclopedian content...--❤☺❤Hugs And More Warm Hugs to the HEART! ❤☺❤ (talk) 06:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context for "Animals in Futurama", therefore an list of animals in Futurama violates WP:LIST. Jay32183 (talk) 06:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Hypnotoad to List of recurring alien characters from Futurama, Delete (or redirect, whatever is needed for GDFL on Hypnooad) the remainder. I cleaned up the article for the last AFD but Hypnotoad is the only notable item covered here that isn't covered elsewhere. Star dust 8212 06:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is a sourced, well-organized, and well-presented article that passed another discussion earlier this year concerning animals that appear on a notable TV show, in video games, etc. and satisfies WP:LIST accordingly. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So that's where the name of User:All Glory to Hypnotoad comes from. Mandsford (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like List of Futurama products before it, the subject of made-up animals from this specific show has very little notability and only one of the subjects in it (Hypnotoad in this case) has a small bit of notability. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Stardust Will ^(talk) 00:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the single episode animals to their relevant episode (such as the list of Vergon 6 Animals). Only the hypnotoad, Nibbler, and Seymour seem to be more than single episode creatures. Nibbler has his own article. Seymour could easily be merged to Philip J. Fry (where a section already exists). And the hypnotoad would seem at home at List of recurring alien characters from Futurama, per Stardust, above. - jc37 (talk) 08:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per jc37 and others. - Superlex (talk) 03:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Super-ultra-mega strong keep with a cherry on top-71.203.147.175 (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You basing that on anything in particular? Jay32183 (talk) 02:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Stardust. Most of these are vague, incidental appearances in one episode and really cannot be seen as notable. The two exceptions are Nibbler (who has his own article already) and Hypnotoad (for which I agree with Stardust in terms of merging to List of recurring alien characters from Futurama). ~ Mazca (talk) 16:57, 26 November 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 per overwhelming consensus. Rudget.talk 17:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WRNY (AM)

Non-notable radio station. Sources provided only prove existence, the rest of the article fails WP:V. Mr.Z-man 05:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The station has a license, the station is notable. If this station article is deleted, it opens a "can of worms" for ever station article, including the big ones. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per above. Licensed radio station. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, per above -- if you get rid of this, then you must get rid of ALL radio and TV articles. Wikipedia should cover all stations, not just the big or popular stations. -- azumanga (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rjd0060. Maxa megalon 2000 06:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - It's an FCC-licensed radio station. - Dravecky (talk) 07:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The station has a license, the station is notable. Hammer1980·^talk 12:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Its a valid article. scope_creep (talk) 12:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Licensed radio stations are inherently notable. --Rtphokie (talk) 13:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whoo a licensed radio station that doesn't make it inherently notable that just proves that the FCC said they can broadcast. Other than the FCC part this article doesn't pass WP:V at all. No sources saying how it is notable at all. Just another run of the mill radio station. Whispe ring 13:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep (edit conflict) - As above, the stations has a licence with the FCC and therefore is notable. This nomination, should it succeeded, would have significant implications for all radio and television articles, either large or small on Wikipedia. I could imagine the BBC World Service, Voice of America or WRN could be nominated for deletion if this passes (no joke). --tgheretford (talk) 13:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Size or popularity is not a useful measurement to use when determining the notability of a radio station. Makes perfect sense to me to be comprehensive and cover all licensed stations. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I may be wrong, but aren't all FCC licenced stations inherently notable per consensus? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There is no reason to remove it. It's also notable. --businessman332211 (talk) 17:20, 18 November 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. Per overwhelming consensus. Rudget.talk 17:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WRRC (FM)

Non-notable college radio station. Sources provided only prove existence, the rest of the article fails WP:V. Mr.Z-man 05:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The station has a license, the station is notable. If this station article is deleted, it opens a "can of worms" for ever station article, including the big ones. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per above. Licensed radio station. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, per above -- if you get rid of this, then you must get rid of ALL radio and TV articles. Wikipedia should cover all stations, not just the big or popular stations. -- azumanga (talk) 06:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rjd0060. Maxa megalon 2000 06:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - It's an FCC-licensed radio station. - Dravecky (talk) 07:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rationale expressed above. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid factual knowledge. scope_creep (talk) 12:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Licensed radio stations are inherently notable. --Rtphokie (talk) 13:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whoo a licensed radio station that doesn't make it inherently notable that just proves that the FCC said they can broadcast. Other than the FCC part this article doesn't pass WP:V at all. No sources saying how it is notable at all. Just another run of the mill radio station. Whispe ring 13:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - As above, the stations has a licence with the FCC and therefore is notable. This nomination, should it succeeded, would have significant implications for all radio and television articles, either large or small on Wikipedia. I could imagine the BBC World Service, Voice of America or WRN could be nominated for deletion if this passes (no joke). --tgheretford (talk) 13:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The station has a licence, therefore is notable. Hammer1980·^talk 15:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per my comment on the WRNY (AM) AFD. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I may be wrong, but aren't all FCC licenced stations inherently notable? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:25, 18 November 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 --JForget 01:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revolver Music

Org. that fails to establish notability Lugnuts 18:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:52, 13 November 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 05:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non notable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Neither WP:N nor WP:MUSIC have notability guidelines for labels (which is kind of a shame), but WP:MUSIC does state as a notability guideline for artists: "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." In the list of artists on the label I see quite a few notable artists: The Stone Roses, UK Subs, Jane's Addiction, etc. I think this is sufficient to establish the label as an important label, and thus a notable label. It absolutely does have to be cleaned-up though. Torc2 (talk) 09:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems non-notable to me -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please expand on your reasoning. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It is clearly notable, having signed some of the biggest indie bands in the UK in the late 80's and 90's. scope_creep (talk) 12:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. They have distribution and they have signed notable bands. That makes the label clearly notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commment most of the Google searches for "Revolver Music" + "Paul Birch" or "Revolver Music" + "Stone Roses" come back to WP (or mirrors). The only vaguley reliable hit was this page [24] that states RM was formed in 1985, not 1979 as claimed by the current article. Lugnuts (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no reason to delete it. It's also notable. --businessman332211 (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Revolver -> Silvertone is-to Stone Roses :: Sub Pop -> Geffen is-to Nirvana. Needs cleanup, not delete. --- tqbf 19:02, 18 November 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 05:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relentless Records (Quebec record label)

Org. that fails to establish notability Lugnuts 18:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is asserted, but unsourced. I get 101,000 ghits ([[25]]), which sounds impressive until you realize that only the first 6 or so are undeniably related to the Quebec-base label. --Blanchardb 19:45, 12 November 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 05:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability aside, this reads like an ad. If notability was established through secondary sources, I'd vote to clean up. Torc2 (talk) 09:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had a look and their is a few Relentless Records, dotted across the globe. Can't find any mention of this one, in Discogs, which is fairly comprehensive, so no major acts released, so fails to assert Nom. scope_creep (talk) 12:47, 18 November 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. east.718 at 06:11, November 24, 2007

Radical Records

Org. fails to establish notability Lugnuts 18:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:53, 13 November 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 05:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not convinced it fails Notability, but for sure the article reads like an ad. Torc2 (talk) 09:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn and it does read like an advertisement -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It does read like an add, but could have been a well know underground indie label. Can it be re-written with more sources. scope_creep (talk) 12:45, 18 November 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. east.718 at 06:02, November 24, 2007

Millennium Martial Arts Academy

Questionably notable organisation, unsourced, half the article is about the the teachers personal history. Was an out & out advert, before clean-up. Nate1481(^t/_c) 14:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 14:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete seems slightly notable if their influence is 1. sufficiently broad, and 2. verifiable. If sufficient secondary sources were added, I would change to keep. Bradford44 21:04, 13 November 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 05:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability. Just a martial arts club that appears to have a forward thinking philosophy. MLA (talk) 13:07, 19 November 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 --JForget 01:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of plants in Primeval

DELETE. This page was split for no reason, this page was created without descusion, it also goes against the president set on other sciance fiction pages where the monsters and other life forms are mixed up, ironicaly the same presedent the creator insists on emposing elsewhere. Their are also to few under this catagory to warrent anything other than a sub section on the creature page. Nubula 14:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a beef with the creator. If you are against splitting, just merge it back. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete unencyclopedic. No reliable secondary sources have as their topic "plants in Primeval". This list is therefore about a non-notable topic. The article should be deleted on the grounds that it fails WP:N (and WP:V via failure to meet WP:RS). Pete.Hurd 20:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need secondary sources. A list like this is merely created to safe space in whatever article it was split from. Primary sources would be fine too, but there aren't any. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:08, 18 November 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 05:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are four entries on the page, surely there were more plants in the show. And Gymnosperm is not a plant it is a diverse group of plants (the non flowering vascular plants) including the Conifers which is listed as one of the four plants, this list is not informative, at most the main article requires a wikilink to appropriate pages. Firelement85 (talk) 09:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless the characters name the plants, which I don't rememher, doing so to create the list would be original research. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:08, 18 November 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. Tikiwont (talk) 11:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of locations in Primeval

DELETE. This page was split for no reason. This page was created and removed before I add and nothing has been changes since then. Their is no reason why these worlds should not be descussed in the universe section other than an attempt to distort the facts by certain users and it down plays the importance of the fictional universe by stating that these are just locations. Nubula 14:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete I don't see how this is encyclopedic. What reliable secondary sources have as their topic "locations in Primeval"? This list looks like pure cruftery with no encyclopedic coverage, there is no synthesis of the items to form a whole which is greater than the sum of the individual elements. Pete.Hurd 20:40, 12 November 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 05:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This material might be better covered in its individual episodes, but the references section clearly include reliable sources, at least in part. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context for "Locations in Primeval", therefore a list is not justified. Jay32183 (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Jay32183. RMHED (talk) 22:21, 24 November 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. east.718 at 05:58, November 24, 2007

Cold Blood Canyon

Non-notable minor independent horror movie. Plot synopsis is taken directly from the production company's site[26]. Description of the director is promotional in nature (and also found word-for-word in Rapid Eye Movement (film)). Could not find any reviews online; all mentions are either press releases or database listings. Rottentomatoes does not have it. It's not clear whether it was ever commercially released. Additionally, the article creator is Cinemapress (talk · contribs), and there is a promotional blurb masquerading as a review (but reprinting the same synopsis verbatim yet again) for the movie on the cinemapress.biz website (quote from the front page: "Publicity and Promotions Let us tell the world about your project. Contact CinemaPress.biz"), so there is probably a major conflict of interest. — Gwalla | Talk 05:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JohnCD (talk) 10:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to the nominator's comments. The film is listed on IMDB, but probably submitted by the creators. It links to 'external' review, only linked on the films website, complete with copyright logo to the company. Clearly promotional. Though, I have to admit, it's not that bad for a small indie film, assuming the trailer is anything to go by. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:20, 18 November 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. east.718 at 06:20, November 24, 2007

Storycaching

Web neologism. 46 ghits. MER-C 11:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and as unsourced, possibly original research. Bearian 01:20, 13 November 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 05:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see anything wrong with this page. I tried "story catching" (with a space) and I got more hits. New York Dreams (talk)
Weak delete This seems to be a rather thinly veiled advertisement for http://storycaching.com/, which is linked in the article, but a non-existent webpage. The article is mainly about how this website will work. Perhaps an attempt at advanced publicity? Does not seem to be the same thing as "story catching" [27] or "story caching", [28] so I doubt a typo/spelling error here. The Google results for it [29] and Google News results [30] indicate that this is a non-notable entity as of now. The only results are either forums where someone with the name "Storycaching" posted, or the website's URL. Ariel♥Gold 08:05, 18 November 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 05:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conan Fryer

Little to no notability outside of one award (Food and Drink Product awards). Few sources found for this person through the customary means. He did invent crustless bread though... AfD'ing to see if anyone else can find anything out or put this article to rest. spryde | talk 13:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And... the creator of the article appears to be the subject himself. Not a plus or a minus but a consideration. spryde | talk 13:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources available to expand the article beyond one sentence. Epbr123 15:12, 12 November 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 05:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, WP:AUTO. JohnCD (talk) 11:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. RMHED (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 02:17, 23 November 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 05:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph van Strebb

Excluding Wikipedia and mirrors, no Google hits for the author or his book. If he was really published by Pan McMillan, there'd be at least an Amazon link. Hoax?. Richfife 12:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No matches on the Pan Macmillan site: [31]. - Richfife 12:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources found. Epbr123 15:07, 12 November 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 05:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find no mention of this book title anywhere, except for on Wikipedia. [32], [33] and [34]. No Barnes and Noble listing, no Amazon listing, no link to a publisher with the title. Hoax? Hopeful thinking? Ariel♥Gold 08:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To my disapppointment, I also didn't find a listing in a search engine for out-of-print books. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete this one please since it might be a hoax or looks like a hoax to me yuckfoo (talk) 01:40, 23 November 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 WP:NOT#GUIDE and WP:NOT#DIR --JForget 01:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Restaurants and Hotels in Zamboanga City

Only a list of restos and hotels. No other substantial content included and a mere violation to WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#GUIDE. If possible, transfer to WikiTravel. An entry about Zamboanga City already exist there. --βritand&βeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 06:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. Do we want this cruft for every city in the world? Decoratrix 16:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can we just transfer this to Wikitravel? --βritand&βeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply No, due to incompatible licensing. Wikipedia uses the GFDL, Wikitravel uses a Creative Commons license. —Kurykh 05:28, 18 November 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 05:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. and Decoratrix. JohnCD (talk) 11:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. RMHED (talk) 17:13, 19 November 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 05:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hero Complex

Complete and utter original research. Its been unsourced forever and reads basically like a personal essay on the subject. Crossmr 05:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced orig. essay. NawlinWiki 13:57, 12 November 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 05:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect While "Hero complex" is a term used often, in reference to anything from a comic hero, to movie stars, to politicians and doctors, this article is simply rife with original research and statements that could really not be verified via reliable sources. Perhaps any salvageable, verifiable information could be merged into Hero, and the page could be redirected. Ariel♥Gold 08:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR, as is obvious from comments on its talk page. No prejudice for recreation of a non-OR article/stub. - jc37 (talk) 08:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. —Hiding Talk 11:09, 20 November 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. W.marsh 20:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hyoscine-pentothal

The article is about a ~~fake~~ fictional truth serum on the Television show 24. It has no notability, no references, and is a brief compilation of facts from the various seasons and episodes from which it is used, and is entirely duplicative with those descriptions. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable, however if people feel it is important to the show, merge with the shows article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is useful to correct any wrong ideas about real pentothal and hyoscine that the viewing public may get from seeing the television show 24. I have put incoming disambig hatlinks in pages Pentothal and Hyoscine. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even it is useful, it also needs to be notable, and have things like creator commentary and fan reaction and things like that. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 24 (TV series) Will ^(talk) 00:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two points for Keep:
"a fake truth serum": In the fictional world of the 24 story it is real and is (all too) effective. In the real world it is a "fictional truth serum", and Wikipedia has many entries for fictional drugs: see Category:Fictional drugs.

"is entirely duplicative": in the episode descriptions the information about hyoscine-pentothal is scattered mixed with much other matter and would have to be ferreted for; it is not collected together. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:43, 19 November 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. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 10:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ellen guest stars

Seems like this could easily be covered by a prose section of Ellen (TV series) and lacks the notability to be a separate stubby list Collectonian (talk) 04:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom reason. No need for a separate article, and if it is important to the show, merge to Ellen (TV series). - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pen nom. Hammer1980·^talk 15:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the main article. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ellen (TV series). GlassCobra 23:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per nom; NN. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:00, 26 November 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, with 24 (season 2). Anthøny 17:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second Wave

This article is nothing but the plot section of Season 2 of 24. It has no notability outside of that season, has no references, and is just duplication in an in-universe way of the plot section. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the nom reason. It isn't notable outside the show, therefore should probably be merged into the shows article. Besides that, it is completely unsourced. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect with 24 (season 2). - Mgm|^(talk) 16:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, easily. At a glance the useful content from this article doesn't appear to already be in 24 (season 2) Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 15:10, 26 November 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. The arguments for deletion, primarily notability concerns, are far greater than that presented by those !voting "Keep". Anthøny 17:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, Mary and Joe Cocker (Damages episode)

Lacks notability; already adequately covered by List of Damages episodes Collectonian (talk) 03:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non notable episode. If the music is really that important, merge into List of Damages episodes, but the episode itself is already mentioned there. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There isn't anything to merge. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the article was expanded, talking about the plot etc. it would not have to be deleted. HarrisonB - Conributions 06:50, 23 November 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. The key arguments lie in favour of deletion. Whilst the reasoning presented by Harrison, for "Keep", has been considered, unfortunately notability concerns take priority over. Anthøny 17:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot (Damages)

Lacks notability and no real-world sources; already covered enough by List of Damages episodes Collectonian (talk) 03:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non notable episode. If the music is really that important, merge into List of Damages episodes, but the episode itself is already mentioned there. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There isn't anything to merge. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the article was expanded, talking about the plot etc. it would not have to be deleted. HarrisonB - Conributions 06:50, 23 November 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. east.718 at 05:44, November 24, 2007

Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers episodes (Season 3)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers episodes (Season 3)

One more, same reason as seasons 1 & 2 lists, already well covered by List of Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers episodes AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the nom reason. It is a duplicate of information already listed at List of Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers episodes. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 22:41, 18 November 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. east.718 at 05:47, November 24, 2007

Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers episodes (Season 2)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers episodes (Season 2)

Already adequately covered by List of Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers episodes, no need for a separate article that basically lists the same information AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: After merging the important information into List of Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers episodes (if any that isn't there already). - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 22:41, 18 November 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. W.marsh 15:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers episodes (Season 1)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers episodes (Season 1)

Already adquately covered by List of Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers episodes (no merge needed as all info appears to already be in the main list except maybe the writer name) AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: After merging the important information into List of Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers episodes (if any that isn't there already). - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about Merging them into one comprehensive episode list page? --New York Dreams (talk)
Look like they're merged, indeed. Just make sure all the information matches before you delete them. New York Dreams (talk)
Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 22:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: These pages were modeled after the List of Grey's Anatomy episodes and Grey's Anatomy episodes (Season 1) pages, so this was done with some precedent, to make it possible to easily create in-depth discussion of episodes that don't have to go in the table format of the main episode page. For episodes with more than 50 words of discussion, this is exactly what has happened. (See 'To The Rescue', as an example.) I suggest looking at those articles; if one concludes that 'at some point, episode pages would make sense', then I suggest keeping these articles, because they'll simply have to be re-made later anyway. Skybunny (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If an individual episode is notable enough to warrant a lengthy discussion that has real-world verifiable information, then such an episode would qualify to have its own stand alone article. To The Rescue's article is just a lengthy plot summary, which could probably be cut down a bit. There is no 50 word limit on a plot summary in an episode list. At best, a Season page would be needed for a show with an extensive length (i.e. the Simpsons, which has over 400 episodes), and even then I would argue that the season pages should pretty much just be season focused versions of the List of Episode pages. Either way it is neither necessary nor desirable for every single show to have both a List of Episodes and individual Season pages that just repeats what is on the List of Episode pages. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:08, 19 November 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 05:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Rookie CTU

This appears to be a hoax, something made up by someone pretending its a part of 24, and thus it has no notability, no references, and doesn't need its own article on Wikipedia. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ~~You Tube videos apparently made by the article's creator User:JackBauer1005. Appears to have hoaxed IMDb as well. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)~~ Now that I've looked a bit further, it may be an official 24 promotion (at least a lot of people seem to think so), but I couldn't find any real confirmation and there doesn't seem to be any real solid notice taken. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: ~~I trust the above comments that it is a hoax. Even if it isn't,~~ There are no sources, and doesn't not appear to be notable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete surely nn. JJL (talk) 04:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Hammer1980·^talk 15:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it is official 24 material. See 24 wikia) I'm not sure whether it is suitable for inclusion here, so I'll abstain from voting, but it's certainly not a hoax. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is listed already in the 24 media list, so it is mentioned somewhere, rest assured. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, and not notable. jj137 (Talk) 22:42, 18 November 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). —Qst 19:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Big Brother (UK) shows

Unnecessary secondary list; at best if all are real, merge into Big Brother (UK) with the rest of the spin-off list. Collectonian (talk) 03:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: The missing information into Big Brother (UK), and delete the article. Per the nom, it is not necessary to have a separate article for this. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This was created because the main article was so long with it there. I don't believe AFD is here to propose merges. ^anemone|_projectors 14:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AFD is not the place to propose mergers. Please go to Wikipedia:Proposed mergers instead. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think the user is purposing a merge. Reading the nomination comment, it appears that the user is proposing deletion, however the user notes that there is a slight possibility that it could be merged, hence the words "at best if...". - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You would be correct. I was proposing deletion, as I couldn't tell for sure which, if any, were real shows (and not just special episodes), and main article already has a list of the related shows, so not sure what, if any, needs merging. Collectonian (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have nothing more to add In23065 (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per all of the above. jj137 (Talk) 22:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a good reference to the various different products of this franchise. I suggest renaming it to remove the word "list" which is a magnet for AFD nomination. 23skidoo (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't stand the show but it is notable, and all of the contents of this article are notable, and merging all of this into the main article would make that page far too long. A1octopus (talk) 17:56, 20 November 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/redirect. I am not sure how to best merge this information, so I will just redirect for now. W.marsh 15:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Angel writers

Lacks notability; no need to have in separate article and isn't even referred to by the main article (orphaned). Should go either in the info box or noted in the episode lists. Collectonian (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 03:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No need for a separate article. If somebody would like to, merge the list into Angel (TV series), but if not, I won't lose any sleep. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Angel (TV series)#Writing. •97198 talk 05:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Redl@nds597198. Not suitable for separate list, but clearly useful in the main article. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:55, 18 November 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. Due to low participation, you can appeal this on my talk page if you object to the deletion. W.marsh 15:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cybo studios

Not self-nominated, finishing an incomplete nomination by Siddhartha Gautama. The diff in which this was added to the log reads: "Common sense tells me that a company with just 25 employees can not be noticable. So I referered external links. But those are from own site, blogspot, bulletin boards etc. Hence according to WP:CORP, referred for deletion discussion." Mithent 16:21, 12 November 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 03:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORP. RMHED (talk) 17:29, 19 November 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 05:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peahat

The article is a in-universe compilations of the appearances of a minor enemy from the Legend of Zelda game series. It is just a lot of plot summary, has not notability or references, and is entirely duplicative. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 03:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the nom. This is already covered. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as unsourced — likely Original research is present too. VivioFa teFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 13:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is deleted some of the other minor enemy articles may need examining too. VivioFa teFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 13:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't we just merge all minor enemies in a list of minor characters as is common in articles on fictional characters. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because even a "Minor Characters" article wouldn't be notable, since they are minor, and how do you decide which character is minor and which isn't? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Haipa Doragon (talk) 20:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikied and Delete or Redirect moved to the Encyclopedia Gamia edit the article here --09:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cs california (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 13:21, 22 November 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 --JForget 02:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. states which do not border another country or an oceanic body

Contested prod. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This appears to be a fairly arbitrary list of U.S. states. There are also zero incoming links. Powers ^T 03:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 03:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --- tqbf 04:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Indiscriminate collection of information. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 06:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nomnomnom. Torc2 (talk) 09:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Doc Strange (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as per nom. scope_creep (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No way out of Kansas I'm hoping that User:Toussaint will look toward creating other georgraphically-related articles, but this topic about landlocked states wouldn't even be a good category on $20,000 Pyramid. As with a list of the sixteen states that begin with "M" or "N", it's not much more than an answer to a trivia question Mandsford (talk) 19:10, 18 November 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 05:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current characters of The Young and the Restless

Already sufficiently covered by List of The Young and the Restless characters and/or List of The Young and the Restless cast members AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 03:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the nom. Completely a character plot. Unnecessary; any importance of these characters should be (...probably already is) mentioned in one of the other articles for the show. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete list is superfluous. RMHED (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree already covered by List of The Young and the Restless characters. CelticGreen (talk) 22:02, 19 November 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. east.718 at 12:15, November 24, 2007

Operation Nightfall

The article is an in-universe regurgitation of the plot of Season 2 of the television show 24, and has notability outside of it. It is entirely duplicative of plot description from the articles describing Season 2's plot, and is for that reason entirely unneeded. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the nom reason. It isn't notable outside the show, therefore should probably be merged into the shows article. Besides that, it is compeltely unsourced. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Not only does it make a good search query, it also has information the main series 2 article could use. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 22:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 24 (TV series). GlassCobra 23:25, 18 November 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). —Qst 19:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of Rome (TV series)

Lacks notability, excessive and seems unnecessary. This single two season show has more articles than shows spanning 7-8 seasons! This should be covered, at best, in the individual episode articles or the main article. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 03:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep You can't compare shows by number of seasons. "Heat Vision And Jack" didn't even have one! It's a very notable show; it was a flagship HBO dramatic series. A lot of (weird, OCD) effort went into this page, and it seems valuable. --- tqbf 04:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's encyclopedic to compare the timelines of a notable series and actual history; this is just a specific way to do so. JJL (talk) 04:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Not that the tremendous amount of work this article was to create is a reason to keep it, but given it is a general overview of the complete series, I think it's worth keeping. Per the above 2 comments. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JJL - the length a show runs is a petty argument. As tqbf noted, it was a flagship show - not just HBO but also BBC and RAI. The article shows two parallel timelines in a very good visual way. A friend of mine actually pointed me to this, knowing that I saw the original run but he just discovered it on NetFlix - not the only one I am sure. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 15:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Comparing the show to actual history is a subject that deserves coverage, but I think it could do with a renaming to indicate this is the case. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:00, 18 November 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. east.718 at 05:41, November 24, 2007

Character appearances in Rome

Lacks notability, excessive list that is easily covered by mentioning appearances in the character articles. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Not much notability. jj137 (Talk) 02:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Would be ridiculous even on the main page for the series. --- tqbf 04:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete much too detailed. JJL (talk) 04:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a directory. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough for inclusion. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 15:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This has nothing to do with notability. It just seems to be based on original research and it is little trouble to cover the information in the character or episode articles. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough. Rudget.talk 17:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per my overview of jc37's comments. It could be useful when referring to the programme. Rudget.talk 19:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think that since the series is more than somewhat based on history, I can rather see the use of such a table as a reference tool. And I don't see how this is any different than listing what characters appeared in an edipode. This just brings the information together in a useful table. (ease of use, navigation aid...) And in reading most comments above, I'd like to point to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Just not notable : ) - jc37 (talk) 08:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. RMHED (talk) 17:21, 19 November 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. John254 15:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Range voting

Non-notable voting system not actually used by any jurisdictions; supported primarily by the Center for Range Voting, made up of three rather prolific writers who have not been able to get their system adopted by the public and are using Wikipedia to promote it. StrengthOfNations (talk) 02:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 02:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree its unused for political elections, but its a valid method of voting, used as ratings for olympic judges and numerous competitions - no more or less valuable than Borda voting which also has a theorical following. I'm not judging the article content which may need work. Tom Ruen (talk) 03:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep May not get many news hits, but has some heat in SCHOLAR.GOOGLE.COM; researchers who work on voting seem to find it notable. --- tqbf 04:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable, but those third party sources need to be in the article, as right now the only references are from the rangevoting.org site (except for one of them). - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Voting methods are not only used for political elections. Range Voting has long been in actual use in many places, under various names, as mentioned in the article. '"Average Ratings" voting' returned over 10 million Google hits. "Cardinal Ratings", the older name for the method in election methods and decision theory circles, returns 2200 hits (many actually have to do with voting methods!). For a news source, see [35]. The Range voting article gives two examples of web usage of cardinal ratings: Internet Movie Database and Kuro5hin; I've certainly seen others. There is a U.S. patent that refers to cardinal ratings.[36]. "Range voting" returns 22,400 hits. Among them, an internet usage of Range Voting in a political poll[37], FairVote, which devotes a fair amount of space to debunking this method;[38][39] we wonder why they would bother if it was not notable, plus FairVote hosts a newspaper article that describes Range Voting;[40] it might be of interest that Representative John Kefalas later went ahead and set up a Voters Choice Task Force and both Rob Richie of FairVote and Warren Smith of the Center for Range Voting have given presentations in person to it.[41] And here is the killer reference, it pretty much seals the matter: Collective Decisions and Voting: The Potential for Public Choice, Nicolaus Tideman[42] devotes two pages specifically to Range Voting. Now, I might ask why a newly registered user is proposing AfD for a long-standing article, behavior that I have seen before. But I won't. Definitely, the Range voting article needs work, it is poorly sourced, mostly from the Center for Range Voting, an advocacy organization, probably for the same reason that the IRV article was largely sourced from FairVote, and the same reason that newspapers rely on press releases: it's easy. And unsatisfactory. But notability is not a problem for Range Voting. --Abd (talk) 05:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep I think the fact that it ranks best in terms of bayesian regret is notability enough. Mostly academic and not used in any political elections, sure, but notable in relation to decision theory.maxsch (talk) 06:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided If kept it should only be with major re-editing. Because it has such a tiny cadre of people interested in it (mainly promoters), it appears to have been written and edited almost exclusively by its promoters. Even the supposed criticisms are straw men, rather than the actual criticisms, apparently inserted to provde the illusion of neutrality. Perhaps tha article should simply be tagged as potentially POV and incomplete rather than deleted. Tbouricius (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article should be tagged, there is no doubt about that, and it has been done. The claim of only a "tiny cadre of people," however, if true, would make it non-notable. It's not true, which can be easily seen if this editor would do a little searching or even just look at the citations above.... I'm not aware of any active proposals to use full Range voting in public elections at this time; Range Voting advocates, like others, are advocating, for the near term, Approval voting, as it is the simplest Range method, with essentially no implementation cost. --Abd (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator erronously assumed that voting systems need to be used in elections to be notable. The Olympic connection alone is enough to establish it is in fact used and noteworthy. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tqbf. I don't see the lack of deployment as a problem, if there is sufficient academic interest. And I see no evidence that the article here was intended primarily as a promotional platform, especially as one of the people who has written on this system (Ron Rivest) is a Turing award winner with no need to resort to Wikipedia to get his ideas out. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:52, 19 November 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/redirect. W.marsh 15:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Castle Anthrax

The article is just a regurgitation of the plot of Monty Python and the Holy Grail, and has no notability outside of that, and wont be anything other than an in universe stub. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 02:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Into Monty Python and the Holy Grail, per the nomination reason. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Into Doune Castle for maximum out-of-universe coverage.--Nydas^(Talk) 10:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Monty Python and the Holy Grail. GlassCobra 23:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 (talk) 22:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 05:11, 24 November 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 speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G11 by Ioeth (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. --Agüeybaná (talk) 02:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alatoria

Unreferenced spam about a non-notable online game. I say delete. Agüeybaná (talk) 02:48, 18 November 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. east.718 at 05:36, November 24, 2007

The Simpsons Executive Producers

Just seems to be an indiscriminate list with no reason as to why being the executive producer is notable. There is a list of writers because there have been more than 100 of them, there is a list of directors because there are more than 30 of them, but in this case, there have only been a handful of EPs, so there's really not a lot of stuff that could be sourced for it's own page and the list that is located at The Simpsons is more than enough. It doesn't help that it contains tonnes of OR and no sources at all. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This info can just be moved to the main Simpsons article. jj137 (Talk) 02:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is moved to the main Simpsons article, which is called a merge, the article history needs to be retained, so the article could not be deleted, that would violate the GFDL. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I, personally, think the directors and writers lists should be deleted too, or just merged into the main show article. Anyhow, these guys aren't really notable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Directors and writers are responsible for creating the stories and bringing them to the screen. Without them the voice actors have no work. Exactly how are they not notable? - Mgm|^(talk) 17:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Without them, there would be other producers. They are not notable, meaning "Sam Simon", "Jeff Martin", "Al Jean" amongst the others, are not notable, however the "Executive Producer" of the Simpsons, probably is. The names should just be included in the main article, but this extra list, is unnecessary. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (quite selectively) into The Simpsons#Executive producers. •97198 talk 09:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's too long for a merge. Because these are the producers of perhaps the most successful cartoon series of all time, the information is relevant as the people who produced the show may be part of the reason for its success. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no sources whatsoever. Everything with sources is already included in the main article. This is just unsourced, OR, POVish fluff. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's hardly too long to merge. Just pick out the few that actually are worth mentioning, and stick 'em in. •97198 talk 06:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing of any real importance in this article isn't already included in the main one, so there isn't anything of importance to merge. Gran² 19:00, 21 November 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 04:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Greek organizations at Morgan State University

List of organizations is limited to one university. Also there are some copyviolation concerns. If people are interested in Greek organizations at a particular campuses, they should contact the individual universities or national offices. Miranda 02:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 02:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't think this is really notable to the school. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mostly for notability concerns. —Scouter Sig 06:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As mentioned above - notability concerns -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:14, 18 November 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 04:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

602PC Suite

Delete Non-notable software. Advert. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not appear to be notable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 02:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. :-) Stwalkerster talk 17:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advert for sure. Mikemill (talk) 19:10, 22 November 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 04:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Syndicate Of London

Another day, another non-notable "hacker" page; this time for a UK hacker group that I'm sure is notable if you spend all day on the right IRC channels, but not, apparently, if you write for any publication with distributor and a full-time editor: summing up: NN, no reliable sources found, written like an advert. --- tqbf 01:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not appear to be notable with no sources present in the article, and I cannot find any via Google News search. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Rjd. jj137 (Talk) 02:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Non-notable, no sources. GlassCobra 23:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above comments. RMHED (talk) 17:16, 19 November 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 assertion of notability. Bencherlite ^Talk 22:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smith's Restaurant

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Smith's Restaurant

The subject, a local restaurant, fails to meet Wikipedia's Notability guidlines. It, therefore, is not sutable for an encyclopedia. NatureBoyMD (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: 1): It is an advertisement. 2): There is no assertion of notability. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 02:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All restaurants are local at some level, nothing wrong with that. It being an advert is a problem, though. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete absolutely no assertion of notability. RMHED (talk) 17:18, 19 November 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 SkierRMH (talk) 05:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moblog

Neologism. Failed prod. Toddst1 (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep being a neologismn isn't on it's own a reason for deletion, and if it;s good enough for the BBC[43] it's good enough for me. Artw (talk) 01:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I don't like neologisms but apparently this one is out there and pretty well known. BBC is just one source, but it appears to be notable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Rjd. jj137 (Talk) 02:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Common sense keep. An avalanche of references in the news. --- tqbf 04:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly well known and not just something made up in school one day. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone else it seems. :-) Stwalkerster talk 21:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Keep it There are an abundance of Mobile companies starting 'Moblogging' services. It's a very relevant term now and in the future as it will be an emerging market to watch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.228.221.132 (talk) 23:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, distasteful neologism it may be, but it also seems here to stay. Tim Ross·^talk 19:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep this one is common sense to have with us yuckfoo (talk) 01:40, 23 November 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 --JForget 01:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unoko

Article is likely a hoax, but my Naruto knowledge isn't too keen. VivioFa teFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 00:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't know if it is a hoax or not, but I do know it isn't notable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:HOAX. jj137 (Talk) 02:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does actually exist, although the name is incorrect. Per above however, not notable per WP:FICT. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:FICT -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is clearly talking about a monster-of-the-week type of character, which isn't notable in any way. And just to show how unimportant the character is, this article describes a different character more then the topic character. --Farix (Talk) 13:33, 18 November 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 due to improvements to the article during AFD. Davewild (talk) 11:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology

Article is an original synthesis of ideas, which is clearly forbidden by WP:OR and WP:SYN. Quoting the OR policy: Interpretations and syntheses must be attributed to reliable sources that make these interpretations and syntheses. Skopp 00:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: For now. References have been added to support the statements listed, so I don't see the OR. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I've been convinced, per the below comments. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per WP:HEY. Good work DGG. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Overall concept of the article is OR and WP:SYN. Trying to tie together these diseases is OR. The entire thesis of the article is OR because there is no reference for it. Author is making a point, not reporting a point made by others. Skopp 01:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems to me an entirely irrelevant article. Virtually every disease known to man had an unknown etiology before some period in its history, which readers can find out about in each disease's own article. For the handful of Wikipedia articles on diseases of unknown cause, we have Category:Ailments of unknown etiology. Readers can also find lists of inflammatory diseases in inflammation. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article rewrite displays this topic to be independently notable and verifiable. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Someguy1221. (he pretty much covered everything.) jj137 (Talk) 02:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks to me like a pretty straight-forward case of WP:SYN. Article author is collecting primary sources together to present a novel synthesis. The result does not appear to be an encyclopedic documentation of a topic with "extensive coverage" by reliable, secondary, sources as required by WP:N. If secondary sources existed, they would be review articles covering all the material covered in this article. If this article were to summarize a number of review articles from the medical journals, then I'd be satisfied, but that's not what's happening here. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, essay. JJL (talk) 04:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article creates a generalisation that doesn't exist. Most diseases mentioned are reasonably well understood, even if their etiologic agent is not known, and the author mixes autoimmune and infectious conditions, as well as suggesting diseases that feature inflammation are therefore "inflammatory diseases". WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH concerns as described. JFW | T@lk 06:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I agree there is a strong risk (indeed currently so) that this article breaches Original Research for the collation of different disease (not that any one disorder does not have plenty of references that could be cited), I would point out that the article is currently "Under construction" and already has had another admin (User:DGG) comment on problems and initial workup tasks required - see User talk:Reasonablelogicalman#Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology.
- As such, I’d be inclined to allow a little more leeway before AfD, and Skopp's (Skoppensboer (talk · contribs)) belittling of admin action/observation[44] is sailing close to the wind given the previous uncivil[45] edit warring against Reasonablelogicalman (talk · contribs) over whether there is a possible unrecognised infectious cause to chronic prostatitis.
- I agree though that WP:NOR risk and the topic might have been better worked up as a user subpage with some input from other editors to address the OR issues (too late now).
- Whilst a start has been made at citing references, many more are needed for the historical descriptions of each of the various diseases listed. Also if there is a citation which can be given to an article or textbook that considers inflammatory reponses to infections, then the charge of OR for the inclusion selection process for the various diseases would be (partly) addressed.
- Whilst I dislike intensely articles that collate unrelated disorders, there is no doubt that a large number of concurrently problematic disorders (MS, CFS, some cancers (cervical and possibly some of haematological cancers), inflammatory arthropathies, and dare I suggest chronic prostatitis) have had notable suggestions of having underlying infectious triggers. Of course whilst some initial research suggestions later confirmed and widely accepted, for many more acceptance has not been the case and WP:NPOV needs ensure such disproved/non-accepted suggestions not given WP:UNDUE weight.
- A description giving a historical outline of such notable claims does not seem unreasonable - the current (very brief) infection article addresses the direct effects of infections but not adverse effects of immune responses. Whether such coverage should be placed under infection or perhaps a better titled article (e.g. Inflammatory response to infections - but better phrased than my poor attempt) I'm unsure. However at very least "Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology" seems the wrong title for what is mostly an infections-as-putative-causes-of-inflammatory-disorders discussion. David Ruben ^Talk 05:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to persuade the author to at least divide the article: between one of diseases of presently unknown causation, and those that have been solved long ago, he has not done so. I cannot see any harm in deleting the article and starting over on a more rational plan.
I also remain unclear despite several questions about why there is a concentration upon inflammatory diseases, a very broad and inhomogeneous class--not all of which are infective.
However, I do not see the rush to delete the article, especially in view of the conflict between its author and the nom. over an article elsewhere. I have not been as involved with trying to straighten out the problems there as David R, but I concur in general with what he says above. DGG (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment the author does seem to be constructively working on it. I would continue to strongly advise division of the article. DGG (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

request more time I am requesting more time to work on the article. I have added much more content and have focused on adding more references that are from review articles in the medical literature. I have also rewritten the concept. Each day I add at least a little bit to the article. Thank for all the constructive input. ReasonableLogicalMan(Talk 19:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as modified. As the author is apparently reluctant to make the necessary drastic revisions in his article, I have boldly removed the long introduction explaining with over-long quotes why the subject is important, and also eliminated the section on diseases which have presently known etiologies. Such a summary section might well a separate article with an appropriate title, but I leave the author to do it. But he has by now added what seem to be adequate sources to verify the current status of each of the diseases mentioned, though one or two of the present ones seem to be individual case studies--they still need to be presented as proper references, not just links to PubMed. DGG (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as modified I think DGG has done a good job in modifying the article, and it is now both useful and more-or-less in compliance with OR. Tim Ross·^talk 19:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with further modifications. The author asked my feedback. I was shocked to find a request for deletion. Clearly, it is misplaced here. Where are the calls to delete the 2007 Peruvian meteorite event article? This list is useful; please do not delete. I do, however, believe that the article should be simplified into a simple list of diseases. I notice that a List of syndromes and diseases with unknown etiologies already exist. The author may chose to cross-link both lists or merge his list with the latter. I left a comment to that effect in the article talk page. Emmanuelm (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. The article is sourced and informative.Biophys (talk) 04:33, 23 November 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.

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}}.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pigman☿ 00:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pierce Bush

Delete Not independently notable per WP:BIO and WP:NN Strothra (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. His opinions have became mildly notable, only because of his name. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every relative of a U.S. president does not become inherently notable. Writing a letter to a newspaper falls amazingly short of satisfying WP:N. Appearing on the Today show does not in itself satisfy WP:N. Edison (talk) 02:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 02:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Independent and reliable sources have found this person and his opinions to be notable. 86.137.6.133 (talk) 07:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)— 86.137.6.133 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: The above comment was added by an anonymous account with 2 edits in total. Interesting how a "new user" comes to Wikipedia and goes straight to the AfD page. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is Colonel Warden per [46]. --Strothra (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure is! - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Various members of the Bush family have articles. This one in particular has many other pages linking to it.Alina123 (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)— Alina123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please note that the fact that related stuff exists is not a valid criterion for inclusion. --Strothra (talk) 20:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NEWS. NN member of the outgoing dynasty. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I came to his page because I saw him in the new issue of Rolling Stone magazine today. I think that speaks for itself in terms of notability. 67.9.149.252 (talk) 22:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)— 67.9.149.252 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Today Show, Larry King Live (thence CNN.com [47]), Rolling Stone, Wonkette (notable blog, [48])...what more do people want for WP:N? Here's someone a person might need to look up in an encyclopedia. JJL (talk) 22:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOT#NEWS, specifically: "Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right. While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news.[5] Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article." --Strothra (talk) 23:38, 24 November 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 WP:SNOW delete—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Ring Theory at Temple University

This is more of the same non-notable content W.GUGLINSKI (talk · contribs) has posted at Quantum Ring Theory (AFD), "Zitterbewegung and Cold Fusion" (AFD), and Don Borghi's experiment (AFD) to promote his own theories. Additionally, the sole (possibly) notable content of this article is the section on a "rival" book, which certainly lends nothing to the notability of the subject at hand. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CONFLICT OF INTERESTS between Wiki users. Alberon started the discussion proposing the deletion of the article by alleging that it has conflict of interests. So I proved to him that the article is neutral, and there is not conflict of interests. Now someguy claims that the article is non-notable.

Someguy, I understand that the rivality between Quo Vadis QM and QRT is not of your interest, because you are not a physicist. Therefore it is not of your interest if such a rivality comes to the knowledge of people really interested in Physics, or not. It is irrelevant to you.
However such rivality can be of the interest of people that worry on the questions concerning Physics. Why do you think do you have the right to supress their right in getting knowledge on the rivality between the two books ?
The book QRT is quoted in the journal Frontier Perspectives, published by the Temple University, which just promoted the publication of the book Quo Vadis QM. So, the editor Nancy Kolenda of that journal considered important to publish in the journal a review on a rival book.
Do you think that the editor Nancy Kolenda does not know what she is doing ? W.GUGLINSKI (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This one too. SPA creator only trying to promote these few things. It is not notable yet, as of today. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...only trying to promote these few things ?????????????????

I suspect you are a physicist trying to avoid these few things to fall in the knowledge of people W.GUGLINSKI (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is no cabal. Please assume good faith. shoy (^words _words) 03:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I realize I may be stepping into a bit of a hornet's nest here, but here goes: Given that the article on Quantum Ring Theory has already been deleted, an article which compares it to another book (as near as I can tell - the article is kind of incoherent) is not appropriate at this time. Zetawoof_(ζ) 02:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This theory must be suppressed. --Philosophus ^T 02:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More seriously (see WP:HUMOR), this isn't notable and isn't verifiable per WP:V, WP:RS, and the AS criteria of WP:ARB/PS. --Philosophus ^T 02:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 02:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this isn't even an article. Hopefully the user involved here ceases using Wikipedia as a promotional vehicle voluntarily before more drastic measures are needed. shoy (^words _words) 03:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. User warned for article creations and referred to WP:ANI. Michaelbusch (talk) 04:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 07:00, 18 November 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 Health Ranger exposes health deceptions while promoting honest health solutions, Mike Adams, Sept. 30, 2005.

[1] the Health Ranger exposes health deceptions while promoting honest health solutions, Mike Adams, Sept. 30, 2005.