Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 November 8

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< November 7 November 9 >

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 speedy deleted --Stormie 05:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CMES

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

Page refers to a non-existent phenomenon. Google returns no hits for a search on the phrase mentioned as the definition of the acronym CMES ("Coffee Maker Explosion Syndrome"). Delete as hoax/fictional material Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 04:49, 8 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. Having considered the arguments put forward by the participants in this discussion, it is evident that rough consensus lies with the deletion of this article. Primarily, this is because of the absence of establishment of Verifiability over the definition of "Teen punk" itself - despite the provision of external links that claim to do this.

In addition, I concluded "Delete" due to the strong argument put forward by ThuranX (talk · contribs) - "...nothing of note to merge anywhere...". The article has failed to establish any Notability in addition to Verifiability. Anthøny 19:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teen punk

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

I couldn't find evidence in reliable sources that "teen punk" is the commonly used term for this type of music; the evidence I found indicated that Pop punk, on which we have a pretty darned good existing article, is the more appropriate term. Prod removed without comment or improvement by the creator FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well... no is the same because for me punk-pop is very similar to teen punk... but punk-pop have a influence of lyrics more of the punk-rock for example and are for all public, so teen punk are more poppy and only talk about things from adolescent people, and is very very commercial... so why remove this sub-genre? is different to punk-pop... Blink 182 and Green day for example are punk-pop but so different ... because Blink 182 have more influence of teen punk... and green day have more influence of punk rock music... but both are punk-pop...--Sabrina4226 23:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Keep: It took me less than a minute to find the term used:
Toddst1 23:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of those article actually talk about teen punk. They just use the term with no definition of the genre. One of them actually never mentions the term "Teen Punk" at all. Ridernyc 00:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response:The point was that the term is used in each of these article that I found in seconds. You were expecting a a dictionary reference? Which of these articles didn't you read carefully to find the term? Toddst1 03:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm expecting something that supports the claims of the article. One article mentions nothing about teen punk. One uses the term "teen punk anthem" meaning an anthem for teenage punks not a genre. The other mentions a band starting the teen punk scene in DC, but explains nothing further then that. Ridernyc 05:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my response to Delete in light of Sabrina's recent comments regarding possible breach of WP:NOR. Also may fit neologism criteria. Wisdom89 21:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another made up splitting hairs "sub-genre". 22:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridernyc (talk • contribs)
Wouldn't it make more sense then to merge a pseudogenre that overlaps with other well established genres into an article? Wisdom89 22:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
since this article fails the core polices there is nothing to merge. Ridernyc 23:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment so far the only mentions I can find on google simply refer to a teenager who is a punk, not a genre. Ridernyc 00:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okay... so if teen punk is the same with punk-pop... why don't appear Skye Sweetnam, Avril Lavigne, Kelly Osbourne in the topic of punk-pop? Because if that appears, other member of wikipedia go to delete that. And the music of that singers are a different style that is "teen punk".

You can see the difference of Green Day to Jonas Brothers? Green Day are a music punk-pop and a lot of punk rock influence, and Jonas Brother are punk-pop with very pop/pop-rock influence... and are very different So, For that i made this style of music... and are popular with don't has info. --Sabrina4226 20:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above arguments that term is possible neologism with little to no actual substance and nothing of note to merge anywhere. Further support RiderNYC's analysis of purportted sources. Finally, Sabrina admits to 'making this style of music', implying it's a WP:OR vio as well. ThuranX 17:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:COI and WP:OR taken out in a single blow by the above comment made by the non-registered user.--WaltCip 13:33, 12 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 16:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nikhil Chinappa

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

This is an unsourced biography that is badly written. I think it should be deleted as per WP:BLP. — Ksero (leave me a message, things I've done) 23:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete please. Beyond salvation. Eixo 09:38, 13 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 via a combination of WP:V and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Famous Ezhavas. No merging because it's all unsourced. Daniel 03:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ezhavas

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

This was deleted, apparently, by accident, as the result of a flubbed attempt to move it (log). I've restored it, but it should have a full discussion. A simple redirect to Ezhava is a possibility. Chick Bowen 23:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've also merged in the history of List of notable Ezhavas, which was deleted as an expired WP:PROD (thus undeleted on request because of this challenge, as consistent with PROD policy). See logs. Chick Bowen 23:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And finally I have found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Famous Ezhavas, except that List of Famous Ezhavas has its own lengthy deleted history separate from the two above (admins see here). I'd like to keep this discussion going, however, just to have a final decision on all of this stuff. If it ends in delete, all of these titles should be protected against creation. If it ends in redirect, all redirects should be protected as well. Chick Bowen 00:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for restoring it. BTW, I am hard pressed to find a reason why this should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unni1 (talk • contribs)

Again why would a topic be deleted and locked up? If a particular article does not meet a standard, that is understandable. However does that mean the topic itself is to be deleted? Is vandalism alone a sufficient reason for deletion? If so, that would be rewarding vandals. Please do not delete this article. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unni1 (talk • contribs)


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

The result was keep. The article requires significant work. In particular, the secondary sources need incorporating and it needs the addition of real-world perspective. However, the consensus is clear and the issues are a matter for tagging and improvement not deletion. TerriersFan 01:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Azkaban

edit

The article is a lot of fan cruft and original research, and as such there really is no article here. It should be deleted and redirected to the Universe of Harry Potter for a complete discussion of the Harry Potter world. Judgesurreal777 23:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can show some links to some actual verifiable sources, I will gladly withdraw this nomination. Judgesurreal777 23:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here are links to several relevant books on Amazon: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Unfortunately, most of these types of books aren't available for full-preview on Google Books, though I found one that discusses it in the way we need, albeit briefly: [6] But do a non-fiction (to exclude the novels and their various incarnations) search for Harry Potter on Amazon; you get literally thousands of results! There are guides and essays and "Harry Potter and Philosophy" type books out there that cover every conceivable aspect of the series. And we're not talking about some unimportant detail mentioned in passing in one of the books, we're talking about Azkaban. As someone else mentioned, it appears in the title of one of the books, for cryin' out loud! The following don't offer much detailed information, but rather mention Azkaban in passing. The fact that these major media outlets (Washington Post, Forbes, USA Today) can mention Azkaban in passing and not bother to offer a detailed explanation of what it is they're referring to shows how notable Azkaban is. [7] [8] [9] [10] This article Is a bit better, in that it is more than a passing mention. Here "Azkaban" is used in the title of a piece from the Denver Post (yes, it's a blog, but it's not some random livejournal, it's a major newspaper). In closing, I'd like to echo the sentiments expressed by Arcayne in another discussion; first, this is exactly the type of thing that people come to Wikipedia for. They hear the word "Azkaban" somewhere, have no idea what it means, so they come here for answers (I know, I know). Also, if this article is deleted, it won't result in the removal of the material from Wikipedia. Rather, the information will creep into other articles because the place where such information should be has been deleted. It is much more convenient to have this article to point users to so that we don't have to go in-depth on a myriad of other pages explaining Azkaban. Let me reiterate that in its current state, the article isn't very good. But sources are out there and the article can be improved. faithless (speak) 09:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the term is in popular use, but that isn't the same as notability. If it is used in a lot of articles as a word, great, but that's enough for a dictionary entry; for its own encyclopedia page, we need interviews with Rowling as to how she created Azkaban, instances in the popular culture where it is used, such as when it was mentioned on the television show "The Office". A good article, and especially a featured article, requires many, or at least several very rich sources to use to discuss something like this, and the links you've provided, while good, don't exactly show there is a lot of information on Azkaban in them. It seems like Azkaban deserves a well written blurb in the Harry Potter universe article, not one of its very own. Thoughts?Judgesurreal777 06:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That it was kept before does not mean it should automatically be kept again. Remember consensus can (and does) change. [[Guest9999 00:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
Well, we've had this discussion many times. I think the rough consensus is that for topics with very very high notability like the Harry Potter series, significant characters/places like Hogwarts and Azkaban merit their own topics, while topics less significant to the story do not. — xDanielx T/C 02:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the discussion continues to come up because the article continues to undercut the assertion that there is notability. It needs some references that we can build the article with, and we haven't yet seen a convincing presentation of information to fill in this article. Judgesurreal777 04:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notable how - just because it is important to the series doesn't mean that it is notable by the standards set out by wikipedia policies and guidelines [[Guest9999 09:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
In fact, if these uses in culture were added to the article, it would help make the article more notable. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 00:07, 15 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 19:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Festival holes

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

Seems to be a non-notable game author and possibly a small group of others has created. Only has one Google hit- probably the author's. Sarrandúin [ Talk + Contribs ] 23:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article to help document a game that has become very popular at Big 10 tailgating events as well as Chicagoland backyard and picnic parties. It has become quite popular and has its own website currently. There is no financial incentive in my posting of this article but rather a way to educate other people who have asked me at recent tailgating events. I believe in time you will see significant activity on this page as well as on its search results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kluczenk (talk • contribs) 23:16, 8 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: the argument put out there was "is this notable" and hence "should this be in our encyclopedia", to which the consensus was "yes, it is" and "yes, it should". Daniel 03:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Places in Harry Potter

edit

The article is an in universe list of Harry Potter locations, bereft of any out of universe information, so its just a regurgitation of plot information from the Harry Potter books, and since we already have articles for those, this is just duplicative and should be deleted and redirected to Universe of Harry Potter, which can treat this same subject in a much more encyclopedic way. Judgesurreal777 23:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But neither of you address my contention, which is that there is insufficient notability. Do you think it does? And what would be the proof of that? Judgesurreal777 23:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In what way do you feel it is not notable, Judge? This is precisely the sort of article that people would want to find if they come across an unusual place name in the books (Lord knows I did). Individually, the entries probably aren't super-noteworthy. Could it use clean-up? Hell yeah. But as a collected grouping of places in the Harry Potter series, it is notable.
Comment - To think this is about hate is to completely miss the point; there are many very good Harry Potter articles, some of which are Featured and Good articles, and this article just sucks. And why does it suck? Because it has no out of universe information, like "how was the harry potter world developed?" "what were Rowlings inspirations?" That kind of information needs to be included, and if it cant, the article fails notability and doesn't deserve its own article. Besides, there is already a Harry Potter universe article, which is much better and covers the SAME STUFF, this article is totally unnecessary. Judgesurreal777 15:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Rebuttal - I rather agree that this needn't be (or is even an accurate description of) a fans vs. Everyone Else -type issue. Perhaps you could provide the link the 'Universe of Harry Potter' article, Judge; let us take a look and compare that article with this. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I put linked it in my comment above; as you will see, it is a broader topic, and will probably be able to intelligently discuss the Harry potter world Rowling created. The location list offers no such promise. Judgesurreal777 06:31, 10 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 19:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Active Major League Baseball players who have played entire career for only one team

edit

Trivial info, most of these players are soon going to be removed from this list (half of them are free agents) violates WP:NOT#INFO and WP:LC, prod removed, Delete This is a Secret account 23:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unmaintainable and as lacking encyclopedic significance. While "played entire career for only one team" is often mentioned as a trivia item about a player who makes the Hall of Fame or retires after a long career, most players who meet this criterion (and the "active" criterion) are prospects who get called up from AAA leagues in September for a bit of exposure to major-league pitching or batting. This topic (if limited to those over some threshold such as "at least 500 career at-bats or 20 career starts or 40 relief appearances" might be appropriate for an almanac of baseball, but not for an encyclopedia of baseball (players retire or get demoted all the time), let alone a general encyclopedia. Barno 00:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pointless article, no offense to whoever made it--Yankees10 00:56, 9 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 19:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Potions in Harry Potter

edit

The article is a list of potions from the Harry Potter series, and has no out of universe information, no information on how it was developed, and frankly no hope of getting those things. As such, it is just plot regurgitation, and should be deleted and redirected to Magic (Harry Potter). Judgesurreal777 22:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Let's see. "No out-of-universe information" - frankly, how much out-of universe information can an article about an aspect of a fictional world have? "No information on how it was developed" - obviously, from material in the books; each entry contains information on just about where and when it was used, and this is the source. On the other hand, I am not sure that Wikipedia neeeds a complete list of Harry Potter potions (we are not a Harry Potter encyclopedia), so no vote - but leaning towards keep as the argument for deletion seems to be invalid. - Mike Rosoft 23:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But if none of that information exists, how does it deserve its own article? Judgesurreal777 23:50, 8 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 to Autistic art. --Tikiwont 09:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autistic artist

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

Autistic artist is redundant to the article, autistic art. It is an uncited essay, with little content that can't be or isn't included at autistic art, and which provides little more than advert weblinks to artists, several of whom don't appear notable. The notable artists can be added to autistic art, and this article should be deleted. To quote editor Jfdwolff, "If 'autistic art' is definitely a recognised type of art, are all autistic people who practice art automatically 'autistic artists' or practicioners of 'autistic art'?" We don't need articles on autistic musicians, autistic scientistists, autistic footballing, etc., when we already have List of people on the autistic spectrum. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 8 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. Hut 8.5 07:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turfball

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

Contested PROD. Only displays the rules of the game, with nothing about where it is played, how many people know this game, etc. Not notable. Delete. Blanchardb 22:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Most encyclopedia articles do not end with the words "HAVE FUN!"

In this case, the idea is that you can hit any object back and forth, with a point to the other side if you fail to hit it back. Everybody's doin' it. Mandsford 01:30, 9 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 09:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evoke (Art Group)

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

Group with no claims of notability. Corvus cornix 22:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it's prett well known in the community with many ties with the deviantART community. It's been around for quite a few years --Wilfio 00:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide reliable sources for that fact. Corvus cornix 00:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sources have been added to the article. More are on the way.--RevenantPrime 18:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Evoke is quite a phenomenon in the cultural identity of DeviantART. As such, most of the information about the group falls under the category of Self Publishable Sources. The trend in online graphics and design these days is one which is not widely written about in literary circles, yet this does not mean it should go unnoticed. Here are some links showing the popularity/public knowledge of the group among the people of DeviantART and other sites:
http://news.deviantart.com/article/31946/
Evoke frequently gets awards from the DeviantART community for outstanding work, ie:
http://lost-exile.deviantart.com/art/Castle-Of-Fables-68717808
"Daily Deviations" are a rare award on DeviantART, yet Evoke is known for garnering multiple ones with each exhibition.
A simple google search for "EvokeOne" will yield thousands of DA member pages and journals, showing its established nature.
Evoke is a large phenomenon at PhireBrush, an online graphics magazine: http://daily.phirebrush.com/index.php?tag=evokeone
Evoke's members have garnered numerous awards. This article is in a preliminary stage at the moment and so not all have been listed. One artist has had her work published (work for Evoke) in the Expose series by Ballistic Press.
The fact here is this - digital art has almost no attention on wikipedia, despite being a large and growing cultural phenomenon. The only brief mentions of it are concerning DeviantART and a very very dated article on Digital Art in general. Modern day artwork does not fall into either of those categories. And so, we have to rely on Self Publishable Sources for writing about the new digital cultural phenomenon. It is not something that is going to "go away" because there are no books written about it. --RevenantPrime 7:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC-5)
I think it is important to keep this article based on the large lack of information on the subject. Perhaps the members of Evoke could write a larger article about the new digital art scene at large, and mention Evoke in the process? Or perhaps just by expanding the article (which is just a stub at the moment) it could have enough backing to stand as something people should know about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RevenantPrime (talk • contribs) 01:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there "published information" about a site such as DeviantART? So far as I know, there are no books about it. So we resort to Self Publishable Materials, which are allowed for use given the fact that:

Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as: 

   * it is relevant to their notability;
   * it is not contentious;
   * it is not unduly self-serving;
   * it does not involve claims about third parties;
   * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
None of the sources for Evoke that are being used violate ANY of these terms of use for SELF PUBLISHABLE SOURCES. We will revise the article to fit the standards of a quality encyclopedia article (it is rudimentary right now - we cannot write a whole article in one day) but it does NOT violate the terms of use for SELF PUBLISHABLE SOURCES. RevenantPrime 1:18AM (UTC-5)
Whether they are self-published sources does not matter, what matters is the lack of reliable sources. Corvus cornix 17:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Self-published information is always a source of last resort, and an article based entirely on self-published sources is not appropriate for Wikipedia. (see WP:SELFPUB, partially quoted above). The one reliable source given (MTV Take-Action-Make-Art competition) makes no mention of this online group. --Phirazo 18:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Work is currently being done to gather more widely published sources with connections to the group. The problem with finding published sources specifically mentioning Evoke is that the group itself is non-profit. Thus, group members using Evoke work to win awards/etc are unlikely to connect it with their affiliation to the design hub. Concerning the MTV-TAMA Competition, that was used as an example of an award garnered by a member of the group, whose name IS mentioned. Perhaps linking to his Evoke member profile would make this source more usable? Would it be okay to gather a team of people to make a professional article about this group, as well as the online art scene? RevenantPrime 1:46PM, Nov 9 2007 (UTC-5) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.116.36 (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment aren't you in effect proposing to form a team of people to do original research, to make the article itself a primary source? It sounds like a better approach would be to form a team of people to get Evoke recognized in reliable sources which could then be cited to justify the article. It sounds like you're conceding that you can't source notability for this article; notability is defined by reliable sources.--- tqbf 18:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not exactly original research. More a collection of materials already out there - i.e. citations from published sources relating to the contents of the article. Thus, the article would become a good source of information on the totality of the information related to the group and online-art, which is, at the moment, quite disorganized. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't believe, since it would not make any original claims, that such an article would be considered original research.
*Idea- although perhaps an article about Evoke solely may not me of general use to Wikipedia, an article about groups such as Evoke, DepthCore, Phirbrush, CGTalk, etc - groups which are in and of themselves self published material. They are a widespread phenomenon - when you go to New York and see an iPod ad, or you see a spiffy Nike commercial or Nokia phone design, it is probably someone in one of these groups behind it. One problem with writing an article in a FREE encyclopedia on this material is that much of the material is heavily copyrighted. Perhaps using some work from Evoke as an example, work that could be released from copyright (I could arrange for this), could form the basis for an article on this growing cultural phenomenon? Maybe mention the group in the larger context of this largely unmentioned subject.RevenantPrime 1:57PM, Nov 9 2007 (UTC-5) —Preceding comment was added at 18:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have read this information and, as an artist myself, am quite familiar with Wikipedia's policy on copyright. Some members of the group have volunteered to play lower resolution, watermarked versions of their work under public domain or Creative Commons licenses so that they may be used as examples for a possibly broader article on digital art as a whole.--RevenantPrime 18:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but could you provide any sources for the assertion that members of groups like this have developed iPods ads, Nike commercials or Nokia phone designs? I'm pretty sure these are all developed by in-house designers or design agencies. I don't see how a group like this has anything to do with it. AlistairMcMillan 20:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of course most of that work is done by in-house designers and design agencies. People in such agencies are also often found in this type of group. It is sort of like a graphics collective where people are picked out of the group when they are good enough to become professional and work for a group such as Platinum-FMD (a for-profit graphics group). In any case, some members are active in both commercial and personal endeavors, here are a few sites of people in Evoke and DepthCORE (a similar project to Evoke) active in profit and group activities:
http://www.superlover.com.au/
http://www.shinybinary.com
http://hejz.com/
http://www.aeiko.net/
http://www.colorbunch.com/
http://www.dopaminart.com/home
http://sumeco.net/
http://www.xtrabold.net/index.html
http://www.crisvector.com/
http://www.jesar-one.com/start.html
http://andrewhefter.com/index.php
RevenantPrime 01:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're still discussing this article, and since you have two contradictory votes in the debate, can you <strike></strike> the text of the vote you don't currently support? --- tqbf 01:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Article has shown that there are reliable sources to back it up, and there are more sources being located to corroborate information for a broader article on online digital art.--RevenantPrime 18:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)--RevenantPrime 03:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Ted, are you Ted Yavuzkurt, a co-founder of this group? If so, you should disclose your WP:COI. If not, I apologize. --- tqbf 18:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - where should I post that? I am merely acting as a compiler of information for the article as most other in the group/with knowledge of it do not know how to edit such an article. The text contained is primarily written by others who have submitted to me by email. In fact the whole idea to start the article was via someone sending me an email saying I should do an article on digital art groups and such since Wiki is deficient in the area.--RevenantPrime 19:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question - perhaps I may not be the best person to post up the contents of this article. Since it seems like it will be deleted, do you think it would be a conflict of interest to write a broader article about the digital-art scene, including references to Evoke? Or perhaps I could have my material perused by a third party who could then edit and post what he/she feels is neutral? (I don't feel I've posted anything in this article that would qualify as vanity - most things are backed up).--RevenantPrime 19:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. WP already has coverage of DeviantART; maybe that's a good place to start, and perhaps some of that content should be factored out into a seperate artgroup article. A good faith start might be to concede (via a delete here) that the article you wrote covering your own group isn't the place to do that.--- tqbf 20:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note - all the current sourcing in this article remains WP:SPS, or not relevant to the actual article. None of the "keep" in this debate addresses the argument for deleting it. --- tqbf 18:52, 12 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 - hahnchen 23:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warcraft universe

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

Reads like a plot summary and apparently is, which is what Wikipedia is not.

It has poor use of sources to reference its relevance to the real world. Chances are, readers who do not play the Warcraft games will have interest in reading this article due to its lack of significance to the real world, failing notability.

It also appears to be gamecruft, which ends up being an attractor to original research, furthering it from having a reliable source.

With the lack of notability to the real world, having only one source, and reading like a plot summary, this article has too many issues for it to stay. IAmSasori 22:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless there is some assertion that this can be talked about intelligently, AKA with creator commentaries, early designs, design evolution, it is just plot stuff taken from other articles. Judgesurreal777 22:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree the article needs massive reworking. But I think the subject is noteworthy enough to be included. Ccehlers 19:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)— Ccehlers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep there should be some sort of overview article on the Warcraft fictional universe. 132.205.99.122 20:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have no problem with this one as long it's keeps up the real world context and dose not bury itself in pure fiction like the other Warcraft articles. Needs to be cleaned up but has the potential to be one of the only Warcraft articles worth keeping.Ridernyc 22:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I see no reason for it's deletion. It's a good article. It's also not very long, so cleanup would take less than an hour. --businessman332211 04:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reasons given by nominator unsourced, original research, and fancruft are grounds for improvement, not deletion, and by nominator's own admission may not be relevant to this article. Nominator claims unnotable and yet provides no indication of what notability criteria they think this article fails. Most importantly claim by nominator that topic is non-notable because non-fans would not read it shows a lack of understanding of notability. I am not a fan of hip-hop or opera - but the 'fact' that only fans would read those articles does not mean those articles are non-notable. Edward321 06:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am rather anti deletionist in any case, but this article has real potential. Sure, it's not very good at the moment, but it's the stuff that featured articles can be made from. There is a lot that could be said which hasn't, despite a lot of stuff to be pruned. There is no reason to delete it. I also agree with the previous "keep" comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuzzibloke (talk • contribs) 14:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - (quality of the current stage of editing aside) An article about the Warcraft Universe is entirely called for. If Wikipedia didn't have an article about the setting of the world's most popular video game, that would seem a bit odd.... -Harmil 23:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Edward321. Articles that need to be improved should be improved, not deleted. And there's no deadline for improvement. And just because someone is unfamiliar with something is not evidence that the subject isn't notable. Rray 16:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a research synthesis is a perfectly acceptable source in academic research. With thousands of users and players and dozens of articles on the real world effects and applications of the WoW MMORPG, articles like this need to be improved, not deleted. Improving requires work, deleting is not work. Web Warlock 16:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - What's wrong with it being about the game? When I looked at the article, I wanted to learn about the game. Sure it needs some real world info, but what's wrong with telling us about a video game? I'm sure the majority of people that come to it don't go there wanting to read nothing but quotes from Blizzard Officials and a tiny bit of info about the game. What's it's relevance to the real world? How about the fact that I've put tons of hours into all the games? And a lot of my friends? I say keep it, and just add the info you want. If this article is deleted for being so much about story and little else, you should just go ahead and erase every video game article off of here and make sure they all turn into info on nothing about the developers and development of the game. And in return I'll never, ever look to Wikipedia for video game info again. -- MaxDuo (talk) 18:35, 13 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 16:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beatrice Kelly

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

Non-notable actress. Virtually no career and no coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO. Valrith 22:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (it's "Kelley", by the way), she has a long resume for guest starring on TV shows, but the article's only claims of notability are to a show which doesn't even exist yet, and a one-off guesting appearance. Her imdb entry doesn't show anything really notable. Corvus cornix 22:56, 8 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. Merge isn't even considered due to a lack of references, and regardless there's a consensus to delete anyways. Daniel 03:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adults on the autistic spectrum

edit
Adults on the autistic spectrum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Adults on the autistic spectrum has been tagged as an orphaned, uncited essay since June. The only articles that link to it are sociological and cultural aspects of autism and List of autism-related topics. There is no accurate, cited content in this article which isn't or can't be covered in autism, autism spectrum, sociological and cultural aspects of autism or List of people on the autistic spectrum. There is no cited content to be merged: the article should be deleted as part of the ongoing cleanup and consolidation of the walled garden and POV forks in the autism-related articles. There is no need for a separate article, when adult issues, separate from issues affecting all people with autism, can be covered at Sociological and cultural aspects of autism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 8 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. Non - admin closure. Best suited as an example of Green flourescent protein. due to the more general nature of this topic. No need for an article about every green fluorescent animal every made ... :: maelgwn - talk 02:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fluorescent green pig

edit
Fluorescent green pig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I question notability: only one major piece of news coverage, BBC, only other major coverage off Boing Boing. Only 614 ghits Computerjoe's talk 22:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It just goes to show how far genetic engineering has advanced, that we now take things like this for granted. Green pigs, yawn, anyone can do that, right? If notable only means "popular", I'd add that besides BBC, it's been covered by CBS News, ABC News, MSNBC, and who knows how many magazines and newspapers. Mandsford 00:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It was ONLY on BBC. Not that important... I'm sure more information will come up that can be added.--Cartman005 02:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know... if you look for "green pigs" instead of "green-glowing + pigs" you'll find these: [www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/13/earlyshow/living/petplanet/main1206675.shtml]

[abcnews.go.com/Technology/Health/story?id=1498324 -] [www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16385433/ - 47k] Mandsford 18:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Organisms spliced with GFP is standard procedure in molecular biology and genetic engineering so I'm not thrilled with the development. I would be interested if there is something peculiar in mammalian DNA that inhibits the gene's uptake. However, the general public seems to be fond of glowing organisms (I don't know why we don't have articles for flourescent green bacteria, butterflies, flies, mice and fly catchers). Personally, should the article be kept, I want the article merged into an article titled "organisms transformed with GFP or luciferase" to satisfy the curiosity of the general public. Otherwise delete it since the GFP covers it in a one liner anyway: "To date, many bacteria, yeast and other fungal cells, plant, fly, and mammalian cells have been created using GFP as a marker."--Lenticel (talk) 03:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Rockpocket. While individually notable, I don't think there is much notable difference between green flourescent pigs and green flourescent anything else. But this would fit well alongside mention of other such uses of GFP. This is popular enough that we might eventually have an article just on GFP's application, and there really wouldn't be much point having cookie cutter articles on every species ever made to glow. Someguy1221 07:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why should this be deleted?? I do not understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiderpiggy (talk • contribs) 17:50, 9 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 19:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Flag Desecration in the United States

edit
American Flag Desecration in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Irredeemably POV, redundant to flag desecration. Blueboy96 22:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, no--just delete the thing. Who's gonna search for "American Flag Desecration in the United States"? Blueboy96 22:25, 8 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 to List_of_notable_Yu-Gi-Oh!_cards after merge already done--Tikiwont 10:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Beast Cards

edit
Sacred Beast Cards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Like the Legendary Dragon Cards, their relevance is to the anime only: they do not appear in the manga and are not considered popular in the real card game. Suggest Delete and Merge to Egyptian God Cards, as the Sacred Beasts are primarily based on them, and a similar sub-entry (Wicked God Cards) already exists on the page. The Clawed One 21:58, 8 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 both. Daniel 03:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mycetic spore

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

Non-notable fictional technology that lacks reliable sources to indicated any real-world notability, or context for this entry. While the Tyranids are notable, I'm not sure that every technological transportation device used by them is — and a search for sources that backs up real-world notability has come up empty. A prod template was deleted without comment, or any address of these concerns, by another user. I recommend merging this back to Tyranids, or transwiking it. Haemo 21:19, 8 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 19:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish architects

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

Redundant. Link-for-link copy of Category:Turkish architects, and no other content. ~Matticus TC 20:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • At the time of writing, the same user has created no less than 78 "List of..." pages. [12]. Now, I'm not about to mass-nominate the lot, and some of them do have value as lists, but a quick random sampling shows much the same pattern in most of these articles - duplicates of existing categories with little to no other content. ~Matticus TC 21:50, 8 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 since the lack of reliable sources has not been adressed. --Tikiwont 10:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rowan Taylor

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

I suspect some if not all of the information here is either a hoax or simply plain wrong. Although I'm not questioning the existence of a Rowan Taylor, it seems that if the information contained in the article is accurate, reliable sources should be a little easier to come by that what I've found. It seems a little odd to me that the only source is a obituary from a blog. Unless someone can find sources, I recommend deletion for the reasons of disputed factuality Tx17777 20:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Something does in fact smell funny here, I'm just not sure what it is. One would think that the claim of "one of the most prolific composers of all time" would be backed up someplace where one could find it - but I can't, and neither can these folks on the Classic Music Guide forums. There are under 300 Google hits on his name, and many of them are in the Mormon sphere; it appears he was known in that area, but beyond that, there's not much to go on. Delete unless someone can track down some rock-solid sources to indicate notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless WP:RS can be found; we can't hang an article on a blog obit. He was real as far as I can tell and there may be something to the "most prolific" claim, but it is one made by sources of dubious independence from him. As it is, borderline WP:PROFTEST and failing general notability. --Dhartung | Talk 21:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • He existed, all right. Notability may be another issue. An OCLC search turns up five of his scores, including his 1957 MA Thesis at Brigham Young University, which was his Symphony No. 7. The other works are all more recent, and are "reproduced from manuscript" in holdings of various libraries, except for a piano piece, He Annointed the Eyes of the Blind Man, found in a published collection of sixteen short pieces, Mormoniana, (New York: Mormon Artists Group Press, distributed by Mormon Arts & Letters, 2004, ISBN 0850510112), and includes a CD recording. A Google search turns up a dozen or so musicians who list Taylor amongst their teachers.--Jerome Kohl 21:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another thought—more of a question, really. The body of the article cites a number of "Who's Who" type books. Entries in such books can be (and often are) little more than vanity-press entries, written by the subject. However, some have higher standards than this. I don't see a specific guideline in WP:RS for this kind of book. What is the consensus on their status, and, if they are even marginally respectable, wouldn't they better be put in a reference list and be cited as reasons for keeping this article?--Jerome Kohl 23:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Normally such books are not used to justify notability (whereas various "dictionaries of national biography" often are). They are not in depth enough to provide more than verification of certain aspects of a person's career, and for anything controversial they should be avoided, but in general I don't think we need a hard rule against ever using them. --Dhartung | Talk 03:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another reply As someone who is listed in a few of those "Who's Who" books, I know what I am talking about: not a source for notability at all! All info in those books is provided by the subjects themselves and, as far as I can see, not checked by the editors of Who's Who. So these are not independent sources to start with. Also, one can get into those by self-nomination, or they can get to you (by ways that I have no clue about). They mainly try to sell you their (expensive) books or (equally expensive) plaques that you can hang up in your office to brag about your inclusion. (Guess how much money I spent on this crap.... :-) --Crusio 21:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and stubbify - I have found some sources online using a search engine. I'm not sure if anyone will prove he's a notable composer outside of Mormonism, but I think there might be enough reliable material out there to at least create a verifiable article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would suggest that you add a "References" section containing some of these reliable sources that you have found. (This would be the most potent argument for Keeping.) The best source my own Google search turned up was the obituary, which I duly added. As has been pointed out already, this is merely a blog (as opposed to an obituary in a newspaper or magazine), and an External Link, as well (not a "Reference" or "Source" or entry in a "Bibliography"). FWIW, I have also searched OCLC (with results described above), as well as JSTOR, Music Index, and RILM, none of which yielded so much as a single hit.--Jerome Kohl 07:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is it necessary that he is notable "outside Mormonism"? As far as I am concerned, notable (whether within or outside one's own community) is just that: notable.... --Crusio 21:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 16:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Claim of notability seems to rest on him being the most prolific composer ever. A wee google turns up this musicweb-internatinal.com article MusicWeb Christmas Challenge: Who was (or is) the most prolific composer of all? which notes that 1) Wikipedia's article on Georg Philipp Telemann states that the Guiness Book of World Records states that Telemann is the world's most prolific composer (here) 2) several other candidates can reasonably lay a claim to the title too, and 3) that Wikipedia also includes the same claim for Rowan Taylor, but goes on to say of the Wikipedia article:

    "This cites respected publications such as Who's Who in the World as listing him but a check of the 2004 edition didn't find an entry for him (he died in 2005). We were also sceptical about him because a search of the Pierce College website - he definitely taught there for many years - failed to find anything. In the end we resorted to searching Grove Online and found about 45 people with Taylor as part of their name - none of them were called Rowan. We do know that he wasn't a complete figment of someone's imagination, but the lack of an authoritative source made us unable to accept the claims made in Wikipedia about the number of his compositions."

    If all the unsourced claims of dubious truth are removed then we are left with a stub, but one with no grounds for a claim of notability. Pete.Hurd 04:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Pete Hurd. --Crusio 11:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pete Hurd. The only item in the article potentially notable is the claim of having conducted the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra. But like the "most prolific" claim, it needs to be put in context. Leopold Stokowski is a notable figure, but not everyone who played string bass for him is. Lukas Foss is a notable composer, but not all his students are. Also the length of study is important. (I had a one-hour composition lesson with Luciano Berio once--that does not make me a student of Berio's). In the end we have no cited pieces, major publisher, discography, links to performances, etc. Does not suggest notability. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 04:50, 14 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, apparently. Daniel 03:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OpenProj

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Was speedied twice under WP:CSD#A7. Hu12 20:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: It's presently more active on SourceForge[13] than projects (with articles) such as Pidgin, Inkscape, and wxWidgets. It survived AfD just two weeks ago, give it more time to improve. (SEWilco 17:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Weak keep for now - I may be slightly biased as I'm a SourceForge junky who's been watching the project grow and progress, but renominating an article after two weeks is a big no-no in my books, except when circumstances change or new evidence is brought to light. — xDanielx T/C 11:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article was nominated previously as a Contested Speedy WP:CSD#A1, as "little or no context". Previously This was speedy deleted twice as Spam WP:CSD#G11. As noted by the context of the last debate even bringing this article to AFD was noted by one editor as unecessary..."The administrator's decline of the speedy request was bizarre". OpenProj Has had four (4) months to either be expanded or fix the previous problems. It is not Wikipedia's mission to promote or advertise non-notable software. This is an encyclopedia.--Hu12 20:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. An AfD filed less than a month after a prior AfD that voted "Keep' is an AFD filed in Bad Faith. jonathon 18:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing someone without justification of making Bad faith nomination is considered a form of personal attack. --Hu12 18:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first AfD was closed "keep" on 29 October 2007. The second AfD was filed 8 November 2007. IOW, less than ten days after closing, it was renominated. From WP:NOTAGAIN "If an article is frivolously nominated (or renominated) for deletion, then editors are justified in opposing the renomination. Frivolous renominations may constitute disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, especially when there was a consensus to keep it in the past, or when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination." Pay attention to that last phrase. jonathon 01:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is a flawed assertion. Three votes were "Week Keep" and one keep. The essay WP:NOTAGAIN clearly notes An article that was kept in a past deletion discussion may still be deleted if deletion is supported by strong reasons that were not adequately addressed in the previous deletion discussion; after all, consensus can change. WP:NOTABILITY was not the reason for its previous nomination[14]. It is hardly frivolous in any sense of the term to seek broader consensus.--Hu12 02:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can change, but not in the course of a week. — xDanielx T/C 04:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but inclusion criterion does not.--Hu12 20:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Going by the guidelines on what makes software notable, the following factors are to be considered:

  • List of Reviews in:
   * Newspaper articles;

= check 

   * Books;
   * User Guides;
   * TV Documentaries;
   * Magazine Reviews;

= check

  • List of distributions that include it;

= unknown

  • List of:
   * Multiple non-trivial articles;

= check 

   * Reliable published works:
         o newspaper and magazine articles;

= check 

         o books;
         o television documentaries;
         o websites;

= check 

         o published reports by consumer watchdog organizations;
   * Awards it has won;

= check 

   * Distribution channels;

= unknown

Obviously the article needs a lot of work. The only component of the software notability criteria that it might not meet is distributions that include it. jonathon 22:10, 12 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 consensus as not meeting notability set forth at WP:MUSIC. Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Augustine's Garden

edit
Augustine's Garden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Band appears not to be notable; according to article have only sold 1000 copies of 1 album. No independent sources have been added for verifiability. Article was created with many spam links (which have since been removed). Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 20:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nom. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 20:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why Delete? . I was a founding member none of the links were spam, they were to show notability that we were an active band. The 1000 thousand copies was from us sending our ADAT tapes to Disc Makers to have 1000 copies with a UPC code produced. Look at the client list at Audio-Chroma.com, Search in Google under Augustine's Garden and we're the first thing above all else that comes up. I don't understand this Wikipedia thing as to how to decide if this a legit band. Slingshot 57 are my personal friends and they are completely independent which is exactly the Augustine's Garden case. So how can one like myself add an honest article without someone saying it's not honest? I can call independent sources and have them add for verifiability if that's what it takes. But I think this is silly. No spammer would be this bold to prove relevance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxo (talk • contribs) 21:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Nothing to demonstrated notability per guidelines. The question isn't whether or not it is a legitimate band, but whether or not it is a notable enough band to be included in wikipedia. There are criteria to meet, see Wikipedia:Notability (music). Trivial mention in The Observer here but that's about all I could find. --BelovedFreak 22:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I read the guidelines. Go ahead and delete as I already went ahead and got rid of the info on the pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxo (talk • contribs) 9 November 2007
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 13:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Namek saga

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

Poorly written and mispelled recreation of the redirect Namek Saga that is now merged with Freeza Saga. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 01:12, 7 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, DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 20:24, 8 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. No assertion of notability whatsoever. Stifle (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pushplay Productions

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

No cited sources for verifiability and no assertion of notability. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 20:15, 8 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:G4. Stifle (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chalmers Computer Society

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

A university computer club. (Checks again). Yup, that's about it. Guy (Help!) 20:14, 8 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 16:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Wahabi movement

edit
Indian Wahabi movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • The word Wahhabi itself is a derogatory term, as noted in the very article on Wahhabism; there is no group, in Arabia, India, or elsewhere referring to itself as this.
  • Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab, for whom this movement is named, not only didn't start any new movement called "Wahhabism", but his personal influence during his lifetime never went outside of what is modern day Saudi Arabia.
  • Syed Barlevi, the person cited in the article as the founder of this so-called "Indian Wahabi" movement, was actually a Sufi, a movement that actually exists and is quite different from what is usually ascribed to "Wahabis".
  • There are no actual citations in the article supporting it's factual or historical accuracy (which as i've already explained is highly dubious).
  • The sole external links is an extremely partisan site that itself provides no citations for it's claims - which are more or less copy pasted into this article - containing simply the same claim of this movement without any proof. The article was written by a medical doctor, not a historian, and the site itself seems to be some sort of a commercial site geared mostly toward selling merchandise, not provided academic and reliable information on history.

With all of this in mind, the article in and of itself at least qualifies as wholly unsubstantiated and possibly created as an advertisement for the above site. However, considering that Syed Ahmed Barlewi was involved, that makes me suspect is as being an attack page even more; the Barelwi and Deobandi articles (about two rival Muslim religious movements in India) are constantly hit with blatant POV due to members of the opposing side, and this wouldn't be the first attack page i've nominated for speedy due to this behavior that's spilled over here onto Wikipedia. MezzoMezzo 20:04, 8 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 19:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starbrights

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

An unencyclopedic article on a duo, complete with information on how their CD might be ordered. Fails WP:MUSIC. Only reference to notability, that they have "won several contests including best singer title awards and outstanding performers of the year!", is unreferenced. The creation of a single purpose account. Victoriagirl 19:58, 8 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. Daniel 03:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orxata Sound System

edit
Orxata Sound System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Admin removed prod with the words "not applicable". Since there are no third-party sources, nor indeed, i believe, any assertion of notability, i think it is applicable. so here we are. tomasz. 19:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's incorrect. The A7 criterion specifically says:

    "No indication of importance/significance. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, organisation, or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources."

    Zetawoof(ζ) 20:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A non-notable article (WP:MUSIC) is not an article without assertion (A7). We cannot use A7 here because of trivia sources found via Google. [16] If the article is controversial is better to nominate for deletion not using speedy criteria. Carlosguitar 21:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it that were the case then no articles about music groups would ever be speedily deleted. Again, to quote A7, An article about a real person, group of people, band, etc. "Band" refers to music band, obviously, so CSD A7 is specifically designed to include bands and groups. CSD A7 is related to the content of the article, not how many Google hits the subject gets. There is no assertion of importance in this article, so it is technically A7. It's slightly worrying that you, being an admin, don't fully understand the speedy deleteion criteria. Crazysuit 22:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:GHITS is not the argument to keep nor to delete. I never said that this band is notable, what I am saying is the WP:CSD#A7 is not applicable here, that is a lot different. CSD should be used on a case-by-case basis and that is what I am doing. It is slightly worrying if an admin delete a unreferenced article (A7) created by a newcomer when the sources may be found using Google. I am sorry, but no A7 is not applicable here. Carlosguitar 23:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (reset indent) This might be down to a misunderstanding of the way you used "not applicable" regarding A7 here. I had the impression you were saying that tomasz was incorrect for tagging this as A7, so I defended tomasz's (correct) use of the A7 tag. But now I think you just meant that you were removing the tag because you believed this band are potentially notable, which is different. I agree that an article tagged as A7 shouldn't be speedily deleted if it might be notable, but my point was that anyone who tags an article with no assertion of importance as A7 is correct in doing so (though that doesn't necessarily mean that article article must be deleted). Crazysuit 06:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand if tomasz did a poor search and believed that Orxata Sound System has "no importance". On the contrary it is far away to be delete by speedy criterion and A7 is used incorrectly to say that this article is non-notable and unverifiable. Anyone? Never! The trivial citation from independent sources that I posted above, cut out any argument that this band is has "no importance". Carlosguitar 00:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - the article is very new, and has never been tagged as unreferenced (I've now done so). We should give it an opportunity to have references added. I don't read Spanish, so I cannot evaluate the results, but a search through the Gnews archives show that they have been at least mentioned in newspapers so there is some possibility to find sources to support notability for the band. -- Whpq 17:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 04:53, 2 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 19:43, 8 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. — Scientizzle 17:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MailChannels

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

First off: possible conflict of interest issues with the article creator, but that's not why I'm nominating it. I'm nominating it because although the article is well-sourced, and notability is ostensibly asserted, all the sources seem to be about the concept, rather than the company. In my eyes this makes the concept - tarpitting to prevent spam - notable, but not the company itself. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 09:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The recognition by the MIT Spam Conference establishes notariety. The newspaper articles referenced provide coverage of the spam conference awarding the company's founder the "Best Paper Award." Someone deleted a previous reference to a blog posting by Nick Shelness, who is the former CTO of Lotus -- arguably a good source on the topic of electronic mail. If someone could put that blog post back in, I think the notariety of the company would be reinforced. Additionally, I wonder why TurnTide is considered sufficiently notable for Wikipedia? There are only two references: one speaking of Symantec's acquisition of the tiny startup, and another bit of puffery from the Internet Research Group. MailChannels technology is as significant as TurnTide, so IMHO it is notable and should be in the Wikipedia. Ken.simpson.mailchannels 04:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the Washington Post Article referenced in MailChannels is all about MailChannels the company. Tarpitting is the general area of innovation, but MailChannels is only one of two company's to ever successfully commercialize this approach, hence the MIT Spam Conference award. "Spammers are impatient, so a Canadian company has developed new technology to capitalize on that impatience to cut the volume of unwanted e-mail messages flooding the Internet." I don't see how this article is about the concept rather than the company:

"The company has secured customers in a wide range of fields since its founding in 2003. The city of Richmond in British Columbia reported halving its spam volume after deploying the company's software across its government networks. Cornell University and Northeastern University also are clients." This quote does not discuss the technique. It discusses the company.

Please don't delete this article. It is clearly notable.

Thanks, Ken Ken.simpson.mailchannels 04:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 04:54, 2 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 19:40, 8 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 G11- . nancy 20:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirsten gronning

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

Not Notable PhilB ~ T/C 19:38, 8 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. No assertion of notability. Stifle (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaatul Islamiyah Society Group

edit
Jamaatul Islamiyah Society Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A non notable organization. No references beyond its own web site which is thus not WP:RS Prod was dropped with no comment. Obina 19:36, 8 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 keep arguments were, on the most part, unpersuasive. Daniel 03:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ainsley Brooks

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

Extra, bit-part actor, and highly unlikely to be the subject of an independent biography any time soon. Sources are not independent. Guy (Help!) 19:20, 8 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 16:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William C. Bollard

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

This article about a lawyer was written by a member of his family, from the username, Dbollard99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It was re-created by that editor after having been deleted. The article itself makes no real claim of notability; this is the lawyer of a notable person, who appeared alongside them to discuss their case, but was not the subject of independent coverage in his own right, at least as far as the sources go. Guy (Help!) 19:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. The article states the reasons for notability (attorney for high profile case w/lots of press coverage). In addition plenty of references. Callelinea 20:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge to Duane Chapman. I'm having difficulty finding any evidence of notability for this guy outside of that case. Stifle (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. notability does not automatically transfer from clients to attorneys. If he starts getting written about as a "go-to celebrity lawyer" or some such, that's different. Right now he's just a mouthpiece for his customer.--Dhartung | Talk 03:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable--the notability is not for the attorneys--this seems really an attempt to get another article for Duuane Chapman. Really notable roles in multiple cases, when there is documentation for the attorneys specifically being iscussed, would be what is needed. DGG (talk) 22:53, 9 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. Forming consensus for the categorisation of this page, either with or without the article, can be pursued editorially on the talk page (and this often works better as AfD discussions have one added element which only confuses consensus: that people can give the opinion delete).

I also find this comment to be one which makes me confident that this page can serve an encylopedic purpose into the future, and gives added value to those wanting to keep an annotated list insteading of deleting and categorising it. All-in-all, there is no consensus to delete this article outright and no consensus to delete it and turn it into a redirect. Daniel 10:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nazi Party leaders and officials

edit
List of Nazi Party leaders and officials (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a useless vandal magnet list. The kind of articles listed here are better grouped using categories; we have Category:Nazi leaders, for instance, that already substantially duplicates this article. We wouldn't lose much by just deleting the article; there is no annotation to speak of, and there are no redlinks included as potential topics to write later (they were removed so that false entries would be more easily detected). Right now it's just a drain on resources. Mangojuicetalk 19:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Saying it's a vandal magnet is a null-arguement. You might as well remove the pages on George W. Bush, Jesus Christ and Jaffa Cakes while you're at it. But in fairness, your weak arguement is backed up by the supporting category. And seeing as there are no red-linked names, then I vote Delete. Lugnuts 19:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Does the category for Nazi leaders contain all these people? No. And would some of them be eligible for inclusion in that category anyway? No, because "Leader" and "Official" are two different terms. Example, Karl Brandt (clicked on randomly) probably doesn't count as a "leader", but being Hitler's personal physician and being tried at Nuremberg he can certainly count as an "official". I'd suggest a small cleanup to improve the article by noting the exact nature of their involvement with the Nazi party on the page. Tx17777 19:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:LC point 7. Stifle (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I feel its a weak excuse for deletion based on possible vandalism. Callelinea 20:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How many arguments to avoid can we fit in one deletion nom? The only one that might have merit is that it might be better served as a category, but this list can provide more information than a category could, particularly because many of the people on the list wouldn't be notable enough for their own article, but warrant inclusion in a list with historical significance such as this. Also, a category doesn't provide an at-a-glance way of determining what they did or what their position was -- something that is a short bit of information. LaMenta3 20:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It can, but it doesn't. How does this particular list provide more information than a category? Where's all the at-a-glance information that you're talking about? "Give this a chance to work," just like Neville said about Adolf. It's the easy bake article, done with no effort and no attempt to make a list of names. It's not a list of Nazi party leaders, it's a list of articles. If someone had added a sentence about who Gunter d'Alquen was, or why Franz Ziereis is important, that would be different. Mandsford 00:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Delete only if a category is created for it.--Cartman005 02:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Delete if a category is created for Nazi officers, as there is already one for Nazi leaders. Nothing here that couldn't be in a category, which solves the vandalism magnetism. Why is it that the editors who comment in these deletion discussions think it's clever to make rude comments? It doesn't make you look clever. It doesn't even make you look adult. Noroton 02:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess it's because AfD is a snakepit where one expects to be hissed at, emotions run high when it comes to the fate of someone else's work, we're all amateurs pretending to be editors, and, sad to say, being nice usually means having your comment ignored. Which comment do you think people found more interesting -- the one about creating a category, or the one about people who don't look clever or adult? Unless it's a direct personal attack, like "Mandsford, you are an asshole and a liar", I try not to worry about it. Mandsford 18:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or turn into a category. 132.205.99.122 20:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is no rule alt all against having this list as well as a category. That somethign attrracts vandalism is solved by attention from WP editors. "Spam magnet" should never be a reason for deletion, unless we want to stop covering a large range of notable topics because we don't want to maintain the quality of the encyclopedia by editing them. DGG (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For certain low-value articles that tend to attract a lot of vandalism, it seems to me that deletion is a good option if there isn't an editor interested enough in maintaining it. In this case, a category would cover the same territory just as well as it's covered now.Noroton 03:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vandalism here is basically always directly damaging libel, though. That may also be the case for controversial living peoples' biographies, but since we can't do without those, the solution is to get more people to pay attention and watch for vandalism. Here, categories make a viable alternative, and Category:Nazi leaders already mostly supercedes the list. We have to accept vandalism when there's no alternative, but not when there is one. Mangojuicetalk 12:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question/comment -- you can watch a list for vandalism. Is there a way to watch a category (besides the individual component articles)? I could make a case that it may be harder to manage libelous vandalism by relying on a category than a list. On the other hand, I also suspect that 90+% of vandals wouldn't know to think of vandalizing using category additions. On the whole, I'd say this is a no-brainer keep except for Mango's libel concerns. --A. B. (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, most of the vandalism here is some joker adding a redlink to the list that is probably the name of someone they know in High school. Articles like that won't stay in categories because they'll be A7 speedily deleted. As for high-profile biographies, they are much more heavily watched than this. (Although, if this does get kept, I imagine there will be several more watchers at least.) Mangojuicetalk 13:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep....it is a helpful quick reference and map to each individual's page of each person listed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.50.177.74 (talk) 22:15, 12 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 19:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Clachan

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

A non-place. The name is common to numerous small hamlets and simply means 'the village' The coordinates lead to a small off-shore rock. There has been some discussion of this becoming a dab page, but no action to that effect. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 18:48, 8 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 defer per Eurocopter tigre (talk)'s 11:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC) comment. Daniel 03:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Romanian Air Force IAR-330 SOCAT crash

edit
2007 Romanian Air Force IAR-330 SOCAT crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Though this certainly was a tragic event for the families and personnel involved, the crash of a single military helicotper on a training flight with no other mitigating factors may qualify as a news story in Romania, but it is not notable in an encyclopedic sense, and it doesn't meet the Project's proposed notability guidelines. I hate to say it, but training accidents happen all the time, and unless there are unusual circumstances involved, it just doesn't rise to the level of encyclpedic notability. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why the article is notable for Romania, as well as Romanian Aviation:

  • 1. The Romanian Ministry of Defense invested over 50 million dollars in a modernisation program for the IAR 330 in cooperation with Elbit Systems. The program started in 1998 and ended in 2005 (2 years ago). So, we have a helicopter crashed after 2 years of its modernization. Was this program a waste of money? - I think this covers a part of the WPAVIATION notability guidelines, Accidents are generally not notable unless unusual circumstances are involved ... results in downstream changes to the industry or procedures. sourced on Romanian Air Force official site
  • 2. The Romanian Air Force attack helicopter fleet currently consists of 23 IAR 330 SOCAT aircraft (yesterday consisted of 24). That means we lost 5% of our attack helicopter fleet during peacetime. Also, this covers another part of the WPAVIATION notability guidelines - It is the first crash of a particular type of aircraft. Realitatea, Romania operates 24 IAR 330 SOCAT attack helicopters
  • 4. The aircraft was lost in suspicious conditions, as the weather was perfect and it didn't send any SOS signals to the military air traffic control authorities. Sources mentioned above at #3 are available for this section also.

This is it for now, but I will add things here as soon as I will have more informations. --Eurocopter tigre 18:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC) -[reply]

    • Comment - the problem is, none of those arguments are arguments from guidelines. And, none of the material in those arguments is included in the article. This really seems like something that is better covered in the text of the article on the actual helicopter. And, all these arguments are OR unless you cite sources. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further comment - you've added sources above, yes, but they're all in Romanian. Are there any English sources? WP:V doesn't mandate english sources, but it recommends them, and the lack of English sources suggests lack of wider notability. And how is Bucur Nicolae notable? I don't see a WP article on him, and 2700 hours really isn't a lot (wouldn't even get you in the door at most Part 135 operators). AKRadeckiSpeaketh 19:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you telling me that only people who have an article on wikipedia are notable?? --Eurocopter tigre 19:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, that is a standard we frequently use. Notabiltiy has to be demonstrated somehow, and notability in articles has the same standards. In other words, has or could an article be written about this person? What makes this guy notable? He certainly wounldn't pass WP:BIO. If you think 2700 hours makes someone notable, you need to think again. As I said before, with that little time, there's not a single medevec operator, or fire department who would hire him (usually, min time is 3,000 hours, with 5,000 preferred). Since that's the only information you've provided how else are we to evaluate his notability? AKRadeckiSpeaketh 20:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • You didn't read my comments carrefully, as i sad at the beginning:Why the article is notable for Romania, as well as Romanian Aviation:. 2,700 flying hours is quite much for the RoAF, which suffered a severe lack of funds after the 1989 revolution, until late 1990s. Also, he was an attack helicopter squadron commander (the RoAF currently operates two attack helicopters squadrons). So, you can't say a person who commands half of an attack helicopter fleet of an air force isn't notable for that air force/country. --Eurocopter tigre 21:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually, I did. We don't have separate notability standards for Romania. We also don't have articles for squandron commanders. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 21:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • But not all the air forces have the same size, therefore such an accident wouldn't be notable for the US Air Force for example, but it would be notable for Romanian Air Force. Anyway, how about arguments #1&2? --Eurocopter tigre 21:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Let me talk about argument #1&2, #1 is pure speculation since we don't know what caused the accident it's irrelevant who modernized the helicopter and how much money were spent, even if the cause is technical it's still not encyclopedical info, Wikipedia is not to be used to analyze ROI #2 so now Romania has 23 attack helicopters instead of 24 -- bid deal! So if one of the 23 helicopters loses a wheel or something and will remain only 22 operational, will we need an article for that, what if Romania buys a helicopter and has again 24, do we write an article about that too? -- AdrianTM 21:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This crash happened yesterday. Until further information can be obtained, it's probably impossible to say whether this crash is notable or not. I suggest delete but with no prejudice to recreation should any info come out to make it notable (eg. more info on the "suspicious circumtances"} Tx17777 19:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable accident, the pilot while experimented is not a notable person (or celebrity) and the rest are mere speculations, the circumstances are "suspect", but what happens if the forensics reveal the causes and they are no longer "suspect", will we delete the article then? -- AdrianTM 19:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait -- I'm not sure this is a valid option in an Afd, but it looks like this is still a developing event, and so it's too early to tell whether it's really notable or not. In the meantime, I think it's worth giving User:Eurocopter tigre time to develop the article, and make his case -- he's put quite a bit of work and heart into it (and, I must confess, I lent a bit of a hand), so what's the rush? Turgidson 19:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some sources in english:

--Eurocopter tigre 20:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — While Eurocopter tigre makes a good argument, I do have something to say.
  1. If this incident is important to Romania’s IAR 330 program, it could be mentioned in the IAR 300 page.
  2. First crash for an aircraft is not necessarily notable.
  3. If the pilots are notable, a new page should be made about them.
  4. The only reason it is suspicious is because there hasn’t been an investigation yet.

Also, the other pages mentioned (2007 Hukou F-5F crash, 2007 Shatoy Mi-8 crash, 2007 Blue Angels South Carolina crash) are definitively more notable. The first resulted in five fatalities, and it occurred during an international military exercise. The second involved 20 fatalities, and the third occurred during an air show. – Zntrip 00:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the time being, for the reasons outlined by Eurocopter tigre. If the article doesn't expand much beyond the present state, consider merging to the IAR 330 article, but let's not kill this just yet. Who knows, it could turn into this. Biruitorul 02:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise: As the opinions are very different, some want to keep it, others want to merge it, others want to delete it, I propose the following compromise - Give me 31 days, until the investigation is over, to see if I have enough sources to expand properly this article (maybe the results of the investigations will make this even more notable). If not, I will agree with the deletion/merging of the article. Thoughts? --Eurocopter tigre 11:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support compromise: Sounds like a good compromise to me — along the lines I was proposing above: wait and see, but with a reasonable yet definite upper bound (1 month sounds just about right). This loks like a borderline case to me, but I would err on the side of caution, and giving editors who want to develop an article that has some potential the chance to do it. After all, what's the rush, and what does it cost to keep an article like this one for a while, to see how it goes? I think it's more important to encourage good-faith, enthusiastic editors (such as Eurocopter tigre) in their endeavors, while of course providing needed feedback and reality checks, if necessary. Turgidson 14:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support compromise I think this is reasonable especially that this article is nominated for deletion only for non-notability and somebody worked hard on it (and it's obviously a good faith article) However, I think that in one month substantial info has to show up in order to make this article notable, as it fails this criterion right now. -- AdrianTM 15:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support compromise - per AdrianTM's comments. - BillCJ 17:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support compromise - with a couple of caveats...Tigre actually needs to address this in a month. I've seen cases where promises are made, the time goes by and everyone's forgotten about it. As Adrian says, it fails currently, so I am willing to consider new material/refs in a month, but I don't want to see a month go by and Tigre come up with the same arguments, (that the pilot's notable, or that it's the first of its type, or because Romania is so small). If there is new information that genuinely, without rationalization, supports notability, then I'm all for it. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict -Inserted above) Would the SOCAT fleet being grounded be a first step toward notability? (Non-English source, info per Adrian.) - BillCJ 19:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope, i'm not that kind o user. Actually, the hole IAR 330 SOCAT fleet was grounded today until the end of the investigations. I've already find the source, and a new section will be added to the article in the next couple of hours. Alan, please consider closing the AfD whenever you think it should be closed (I prefer closing it today, as everybody seem to agree with the compromise). --Eurocopter tigre 19:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I'm too involved in the discussion here. There's a general rule that if you're involved, you don't close the discussion. I'll let another admin do it. Oh, BTW, I'm not inclined to see the grounding as notable, it's actually SOP to do so in such cases, as a precaution, in case there's a systemic finding. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 01:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support compromise - this was my initial idea too, but I didn't want to offend the creator by calling for it. Let's wait a month, then reconsider in more dispassionate terms. Biruitorul 02:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support compromise — With conditions set by Akradecki. – Zntrip 03:54, 10 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 19:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wexelblat disaster

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

While writing/editing geological disaster articles I came across this one, found it interesting and decided to expand. To my surprize it turned out to be a neologism of very unfrequent use. While the topic seems notable, but the term is not (yet). Nearly all content is sourced from a sci-fi writer Bruce Sterling personal hobby webpage, plus an interview with Wexelblat guy, who playfully says he is "chagrined" with the term (oh really? don't use it yorself, then). Laudak 18:31, 8 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 the consensus. RMHED 15:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Amazing Race 13

edit
The Amazing Race 13 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable future season, and WP:CRYSTAL. Place12312 18:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Probably not any less notable than all other seasons with articles. Is also not a case of WP:CBALL, because it quotes the official "APPLICATION PROCEDURE AND ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS" for dates. Lars T. 19:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The WP:N guidelines for films say "Films which have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced shooting should not have their own articles. Until then discussion of the film may be included in articles about the film's subject material. Sources need to confirm the start of shooting after shooting has begun." I think it's reasonable to assume that this can be taken to apply for TV shows as well, so for now a paragraph in The Amazing Race article will be sufficient. Tx17777 19:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable. --Thankyoubaby 20:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although, having said that, I don't really think notability is the issue here. It's probaly fair to say that this will be notable when it's aired, but at it's still in the earliest of early stages, it's more an issue of WP:CRYSTAL Tx17777 20:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lars T. The crystal ball argument is a non-starter. WP:CBALL refers to systematically-named pages that, while they will exist, don't have any real information about them. TAR13 isn't like that. Stifle (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The show and series is notable, even if it will be another year for it to be released. WP:CBALL must be imposed per Lars T. Plus, the show will be out next year. BeanoJosh 21:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. According to this mornings paper, due to the writer's strike, this season has been fast-tracked to air in the spring. 74.245.206.9 05:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lars T. The same discussion happened for the survivor 16 article, and once the applications were available, the results was keep due to clear evidence that the series WILL happen Survivorfan101 14:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Good god, the information is solid, coming right from CBS's website. They've greenlit the production - and it's almost inevitable that this would lead to production. This isn't like a movie, and the same criteria don't apply. Even if for some odd reason production was shut down, and it wasn't completed, there would still be an article on this never completed season. I see no point in deleting pages that will only reappear in a few months, and really wish the wikiNazis could perhaps raise the issue on the Talk page before shooting the gun. Nfitz 00:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-Info is from the official application. I'm not going to bother to explain the rest, I've said it millions of times in AFDs and I've created some of the Amazing Race articles right from the application. Perfect source. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ 05:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even if the article might not entirely satisfy various criteria at this moment, it very shortly will. --Limegreen 06:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as the greenlighting of the season has been confirmed by at least one verifiable secondary source (USA Today). --MASEM 14:04, 10 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. Hut 8.5 07:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Quinn (phreaker)

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

No assertion of notability, no references, stub content. --- tqbf 18:23, 8 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 15:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ScrollZ

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

Much as I hate to do it, I must nominate this article for deletion. It has not established notability, and zero reliable sources (making it entirely original research). For full disclosure, flier (the author of scrollz) and I have been friends for at least a decade (probably longer).

I also question whether this article was submitted on AfD in good faith, but that still doesn't change the fact that no notability is clearly asserted. -- Dougie WII 20:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - With regards to claims of an "edit war" -- I made one change one time. I discussed the matter with flier, the author of ScrollZ, who informed me that there is no, nor will there ever be, an independant reliable source to make any claims in this article verifiable. An unsigned irclog posted to a talk page is nowhere near our reliable source guidelines. Beyond those (fatal) problems, there is no claim to any sort of notability, as evidenced by the WP:RS and WP:OR policy violations. The issue became completely moot when I discovered those violations; thus I nominated for deletion. Hope this clears things up. /Blaxthos 20:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Though I hate to admit it, the rationale for deletion seems fairly valid. There are very few citations and Google only generates about 24,000 hits for 'ScrollZ', compared to about 202,000 for 'ircII', 900,000 for 'BitchX', 1,300,000 for 'Irssi', and so on. Rhapsody Scarlet 14:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - The two articles you mentioned, BitchX and ircII have zero citations or sources, so if you delete this article for lack of sources, you should delete those articles also, under the same logic. We're taking about an IRC client, the fact that "only" 24,000 webpages mention it on IRC-related sites is notable in itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.maurice (talk • contribs) 19:10, 13 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 by by Caknuck per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gakuen Sugar Star. --Tikiwont 10:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nica Bianca

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

NN & COI issues. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gakuen Sugar Star and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haru Kotobakanata. Nominated by VivioFateFan, who didn't quite manage to complete the AfD process Tagishsimon (talk) 18:13, 8 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 for the reasons given in the nomination. Bearian 16:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ถ้าคุณแน่? อย่าแพ้ ป.4!

edit
ถ้าคุณแน่? อย่าแพ้ ป.4! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This doesn't seem notable enough for inclusion in the English language version of Wikipedia unless all foreign-language game show adaptations are automatically notable, which I don't believe to be the case. Also has non-Latin alphabet title, that at least should be changed if the decision is to keep. Dougie WII 17:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:OTHERSTUFF - if this article said anything different to what is described on the page for Are you smarter than a 5th grader, for example significant differences in rules or format then it might be worthy of being kept. This article does not, it is nothing more than a description of a localized remake. I suppose it could be worthwile to rename to to an english title and put in a redirect, but to keep it is just unnecessary repetition of information Tx17777 21:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect/delete no-one is going to put this in the search bar of the english wikipedia, I wouldn't even know how to do it in this alphabet. Would belong in a country more local too it's wikipedia, where people might actually search in that language, not on the english wikipedia.Merkinsmum 23:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Okay, author is NOT smarter than a fifth grader when it comes to making a title for an article. Written in Thai for no apparent reason other than "just because I can"; a fifth grader would know that the English speakers who might read this just don't have those keys on their computer keyboard. Or that the kids who would look at it would ask, how do you pronounce it? Cute, but dumb. Good article, however. I suggest a move to "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? (Thailand version)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandsford (talk • contribs) 01:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (although a translation of the non-English titles should probably be put into the article on the show). With the exception of the students being in the 4th grade rather than the 5th, which may easily be a cosmetic difference only, there's nothing sufficiently noteworthy about this show by itself to warrant a separate article from the general franchise of "Are you smarter than a 5th grader". See, for example, another internationally successful gameshow, where the only versions to have their own articles are ones with visible differences from the original concept, despite there being a different version for many different markets. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BigHaz. The Thai edition of Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? doesn't sound all that different from the U.S. and other international editions of the show; there's no need for a separate article about it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to US quiz show, which appears to have been widely franchised. Peterkingiron 00:27, 12 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 19:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

121 Community Church

edit
121 Community Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A delightfully praiseful writeup of a church which nonetheless completely fails to demonstrate what distinguishes this church from a hundred thousand others. It exists, it does the things all baptist churches do, and it does them in pretty much the usual way. Guy (Help!) 17:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem to be notable. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 17:55, 8 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 15:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edit

This is not a good list, so please delete it. (this comment was by the nom- User:Chiefslaw)

Is this a bad faith nomination? Lunchscale 17:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, bad faith would be if it was his hated enemy's page or something lol, but Chief, you are supposed to say what you don't like about it, is there a reason it should be deleted? See Wikipedia:Deletion_policy :) For instance, do you think it should be a category rather than a list? Nom's name had been accidentally removed- I added.Merkinsmum 18:43, 8 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 19:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cynical Orange

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

I cannot find an assertion of notability. At the very least, it needs to be completely rewritten. THobern 17:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've just realised that the whole thing is a word for word plagiarism, although it does give a misleading citation.--THobern 19:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Could somebody with the know how please delete this then? Thanks.--THobern 13:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
If consensus decides to delete, then the closing administrator will delete the article. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, cheers.--THobern 11:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by THobern (talk • contribs)


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Gothic art movement

edit
Neo-Gothic art movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable group which seems to exist only to promote one artist (the twice-deleted Charles Moffat). All the links go to a website which attempts to position this as an art historical movement, but that website is a promotional vehicle for Moffat. As such, there are no other sources for this as an art movement. freshacconcispeaktome 17:21, 8 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. W.marsh 15:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USS Watseka (YT-387)

edit
USS Watseka (YT-387) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unremarkable Navy tugboat, biggest claim to fame is that it's one of the Naval vessels named for a woman (a Native American woman that is). Lars T. 17:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And why exactly would they be? Unless they say anything but "Was build, tugged some Navy ships, then was sold for scrap", dump them all into a list without links. Lars T. 01:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--A. B. (talk) 14:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not useful precedents. One is a destroyer (a major warship). One is a patrol boat, but one which at least saw action. In the third, the AfD was very brief with comments like 'started by a troll'. The present case is a minor naval vessel which seems to have spent its career shunting ships around harbour. The Land 14:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are two implicit precedents here: #1 there have been only 3 AfDs of any commissioned ships and #2 there are a ton of other Navy tug articles that have been around unmolested for a long time and edited by a number of editors. --A. B. (talk) 14:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very sensible. I have a book with information on every ship which served in the Imperial Japanese Navy, down to the last patrol boat and 'miscellaneous craft': I think it would be sensible to talk about it before unleashing every single one on its own article. The Land 19:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How are you defining "boat"? Many would call the watercraft on the left in this picture a "boat" and the one on the right a "tug". --A. B. (talk) 01:30, 14 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. W.marsh 15:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heinrich Himmler's Great Chair

edit
AfDs for this article:
Heinrich Himmler's Great Chair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is advertising and cannot possibly be attributed to a reliable source. Ich checked The Occult Roots of Nazism on this, and there nothing about a chair by Wiligut. The original creator of this article seems to have quit Wikipedia. Zara1709 16:19, 8 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. Any "merge" of material to The Colbert Report#Wikipedia references would be giving undue weight to Wikipedia on The Report - the section in the main article is plentifully sufficient. If someone really badly wants to put one or two sentences in that article from this deleted one, ask me on my talk page and I'll give you the appropriate fragments. Daniel 04:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and redirect to The Colbert Report#Wikipedia references for existing links. Daniel 04:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia on The Colbert Report

edit
Wikipedia on The Colbert Report (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I'm well aware that this deletion nomination is likely doomed to a snowball close given how popular The Colbert Report is among Wikipedia editors, but I think it should be deleted and merged into The Colbert Report. This seems like an example of Wikipedia giving undue weight to mention of itself; while I understand the instinct, self-promotion in terms of article focus is not something we should strive for. While the subject of Wikipedia has certainly come up several times on his show, it doesn't seem to have been mentioned any more often than bears, global warming as real due to the success of An Inconvenient Truth, the Megyeri Bridge, the number of times he mentioned his broken wrist, etc., etc. Like all of those examples, his occasional references to Wikipedia are part of a running gag, and nothing more. It doesn't merit special attention, even though (like most of his major bits with cultural impact) the fallout of vandalism received some news coverage.

I'm not opposed to the inclusion of this content in principle; I just think it would make for a better balance of coverage if it were relegated to its current subsection at The Colbert Report. Dylan 16:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"'Keep'" This entry is factual, well-researched, and funny as hell. Also, according to Wikipedia's own goal of presenting a global perspective, I find this entry particularly relevant, as I don't have access to the Colbert show here in Taiwan. It's a good thing that I read it when I did, cuz it might be gone tomorrow. Wikipedians who suggested that Colbert did more to promote Wikipedia than he denigrated this venerable institution are right. IMHO, so-called "criticism" of Wikipedia should be given free time here. And, apparently, if Colbert wanted, he could drum up plenty of support for a potential "bears on Colbert" entry. Haha. --Torchpratt 14:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not entirely sure whether or not it should be merged into the main article, or have some other article created to merge into with other stuff... I guess merge is best. Maybe we should have a mergeto tag instead then. mattbuck 16:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Well, I propose merging as a way of signaling that the content itself is not at odds with deletion policy, just its placement and breadth; The Colbert Report#Wikipedia references already has a pretty good summary of this article's contents, so a literal merge isn't really necessary. What I mean is: Let's save what merits saving from this article, stick at The Colbert Report, and then delete the extraneous detail. Dylan 17:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete per Dougie WII - insufficient content based on independent sources to justify a separate article. Addhoc 18:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simply delete This information is useful if you're researching this TV show for some reason, but otherwise it's just rehashing of the aired material. There were a large number of articles before on Colbert Report joke words, as well as one big summary article compendium of Colbert jokes. Although there's nothing particularly harmful about having factual, easily verifiable info on WP, this kind of regurgitation or "fan-nonfiction" pretty clearly falls into WP:NOT. Not to mention the obvious conflict of interest and WP:OR. This article has had time to mature, and it's ended up as just masturbation. When someone besides Colbert writes a book about the relationship between Colbert and Wikipedia, then we can have this article. But that book would probably rather focus on the way that pure vanity, which is what defines Colbert's comic character, tends to draw fawning admiration from those with inferiority complexes and/or too much time on their hands. Potatoswatter 18:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to clarify that last sentence, Colbert is a parody of a characters like Bill O'Reilly, and if you respect him in the same sense as Bill O'Reilly and the conservative community, then you're only part of the parody. Not that there's anything wrong with that... I'm not gonna deny human nature... but this article is also part of the same grand satire and shouldn't be taken seriously. I guess to tie it to one rule it would be WP:POV. You don't "get" this article unless you're inside the joke. Potatoswatter 18:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge somewhere 132.205.99.122 20:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete — it's simply not notable as a subject. All of the sources discuss tangentially related things, which already have articles. It's not really a synthesis, but it's definitely cobbling together loosely related things to try and form an article — when they would be better treated as part of a cogent overview in, say, Stephen Colbert. --Haemo 20:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Potatoswatter. Wikipedia doesn't seem like the place for this. Stifle (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Stephen Colbert, arguably, has done more to make people aware of Wikipedia than any other human being, taking the service's reputation from nerdy to hip by making it an object of satire. I suppose this could be merged into an article about The Colbert Report or about Wikipedia in general. However, when one looks back years from now to see why Wikipedia's popularity rocketed in 2007, Colbert will be one of the reasons cited. Wikimedia Foundation will break records for the amount of donations this autumn, and it's due in large part to the "advertrising" done on The Colbert Report. Mandsford 01:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So now articles are kept based on their subjects' influence on Wikipedia? Do you have any reliable sources to back up your assertion that Colbert has had such an influence on Wikipedia's popularity or fundraising? Dylan 03:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, being made fun of automatically makes me less nerdy? Didn't realize that. I should ask for money more often…
  • Actually WP is a very popular American phenomenon, and I've seen it mentioned on news besides CR. Perhaps not as much, but then CR more often directly discusses vanity, which happens to have a cultural connection to WP. I don't see what Colbert can do that various scandals on defamation or fraud, which make the real evening news with a broader audience, don't. Maybe Colbert happens to be your main TV news? Colbert talks about pop culture, and if WP wasn't pop culture it wouldn't get mentioned. If you have a reference, prove me wrong. Potatoswatter 05:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being made fun of doesn't make you less nerdy; how you respond to being made fun of determines that. (And yes, it did take me awhile to think of that as a comeback. I'm slow.) Mandsford 14:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems to me this is more an article about criticism and satirization of a very notable subject, Wikipedia, than it is an offshoot of articles about Colbert. Wikipedia criticism is a valid subject, even when its masked in humor, but especially when the satirist is a very notable subject (Colbert Report). The article handles the subject well, not excessive, and self aware that the article it self becomes part of the joke (to say nothing of this deletion debate). Deletion will make us Wikipedians look like dilettantes (as if that label hadn't been applied before), but certainly makes the satire just a bit more spot on. Wag of the finger to the nomination. Jacksinterweb 02:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this Wikipediacruft! Noroton 03:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge or whatever - please, this is an encyclopedia. I beg to see encyclopedic merit in an article that shows how a computer website has been mentioned on a TV show. Now, a mentioning of this topic in an article may be merited, but this being on its own article? MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 03:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my arguments on the talk page. To reiterate, we shouldn't have articles about how every person/organisation/online encyclopaedia is presented on The Colbert Report. Even if for some reason we decided to have an article Bears on The Colbert Report (which would be plainly ridiculous) that would be more justified seeing as he mentions them a hell of a lot more than he does Wikipedia. If the article is to be believed, Colbert has mentioned Wikipedia about 5 or 6 times on his show... No need to merge, information is already in main article. Hammer Raccoon 14:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to further clarify my point, Wikipedia's satirising on The Colbert Report is no more deserving of an article than any of his other favoured topics, including bears, Democrats, George W. Bush, Iraq, gay people etcetera etcetera - none of which deserve entire articles devoted to their presentation on a single TV show. Hammer Raccoon 14:58, 9 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 10:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SkyscraperPage

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:WEB. What news there is, seems to be mainly trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Hu12 16:14, 8 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 15:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music Video Codes

edit
Music Video Codes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A few things wrong here. Firstly, it isn't clear about this subject's notability. At first glance, it has plenty of references, but these all seem to relate to Myspace, or contradict what is written in the article. The page is more about music videos in Myspace, Myspace, or the supposed popularity of these codes - I quote from the last section - "At its peak, the term was searched over 500,000 times in a given month, providing us an insight into one of the Internets great phenomenon". This isn't backed up as a fact, and the alexa.com link here contradicts the "MusicVideoCodes.com is also a top 6,000 English website " statement in the article. Montchav 19:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. Topic is of minor notability, this article is largely spam for one website. I think that "music video codes" are a key part of the social networking phenomenon, especially so on MySpace which was the first site to allow this customization. But the article would need better sources and substantial rewriting. --Dhartung | Talk 20:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep May be in need of a review of the sources/references but the spread of music video codecs is definitely a major part of the social networking phenomenon, and if this is a major source of these codecs (as the article claims), than it is probably notable. Random89 08:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete this is spam. This is marketing for a website Doc Strange 16:30, 8 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, Caknuck 16:05, 8 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 19:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elysia

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

a collection of facts with no actual sources to establish a connection. this is basically a trivia page and a violation of WP:OR to try to imply they are connected as a concept. Law/Disorder 03:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I note there is no AfD tag on the article, you may wish to do so, otherwise this will be closed as out of process. As for the article, redirect it to Elysium, and if there's any sources discussing the phenomenon of using Elysia, we can add a line or to on that article. i (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oh, woops, ok then. Law/Disorder 05:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx T/C 22:15, 9 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, Caknuck 16:08, 8 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 19:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrik Lindberg

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

A member of a notable gaming clan. Cannot find any reliable sources on him, looks like the page was also made by him. So delete.Snakese 23:45, 3 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, Caknuck 16:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No assertion of notability. Likely vanity article. Decoratrix 18:17, 8 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 19:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle City RM2k

edit
Battle City RM2k (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable game made with a free RPG Maker 2000 program. Cannot find any sources. so delete. Snakese 23:51, 3 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, Caknuck 16:09, 8 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 (nomination withdrawn). Carcharoth 15:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David H. Kelley

edit
David H. Kelley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced stub article on a Canadian archaeologist and genalogist. No independent evidence of notability. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think that being a Professor Emeritus (which is easily verifiable[18]) he is quite obviously notable. References are included as links to papers written by him (his bibliography includes papers published in American Antiquity, Current Anthropology, American Anthropologist and many other top of the line journals, through 4 decades). And the notability of his contributions to mesoamericanist studies are outlined - althpugh grantedly not prefixed with the phrase "He is notable because ...". I think this AfD is nealy baseless.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 16:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —Deor 16:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google Scholar and Google books searches show multiple significant publications in journals and books. Seems to have been a quite important scholar in the field of Mayan language in his day. Deor 17:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Big guy in Mayan studies. Specifically, in deciphering the Mayan script which was a great mystery until the mid-late 20th century. I don't know about his later genealogical efforts but he's one of the major Mayan script scholars. --lquilter 17:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Sppedy Keep Good grief. We have countless articles on marginally notable comic book characters and low selling music albums, but someone goes on a witch-hunt against a true scholar who is quite notable. Please save AfD for the garbage subjects, of which there are plenty. Decoratrix 18:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless citations from independent reliable sources are provided to omply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 21:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to provide citations here and now in an AFD. The article describes his reasons for notability already. Per WP:ATD, tagging an article or sources {{verify}} is preferred ("If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. ... {{verify}}"). --lquilter 00:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He seems to be clearly regarded as an expert on Maya writing. Along with the Google scholar results mentioned already, his book "Deciphering the Maya Script" has attracted multiple reviews from J. Latin American Studies, Hispanic American Historical Review, and Latin American Research Review. —David Eppstein 22:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Brittanica thinks he's notable enough to cite, though I had to use the Google cache as the link doesn't exist any more. Corvus cornix 23:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, as others have noted Kelley was one of the earliest and pre-eminent promoters of the (ultimately successful) phonetic approach to Maya script decipherment, and the significance of his contribs in this regard are documented at some length in leading works on the subject, such as by George Stuart and particularly in Coe's Breaking the Maya Code. His glyph readings (such as identifying the name of K'ak'upakal in Chichen Itza's inscriptions) were among the first to be validated and helped 'turn the tide', so to speak. Even discounting his influence on Maya epigraphy, his academic career spanning about half a century would likely be notable in its own right. His speculative investigations into diffusionist contact theories are likewise notably commented upon in secondary publications, despite (or even, because of) their unconventional approach and the annoyance among other academics they caused at the time. It was perhaps remiss not to have set out the refs and notability claims more explicitly before now; have begun to add the appropriate and verifiable refs and over the next couple of days will look to work them into an expanded text, which hopefully will make his notability claim that much clearer. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:55, 9 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 15:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Heartless

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

I believe a page like this has been deleted before but I can't remember the exact name. Anyway, this is a list of non-notable video game monsters, not unlike the much-maligned (and repeatedly deleted) lists of video game weapons/cars/planes/collectible cards/goodies/etc. Thus, it fails the inclusion criteria for this encyclopedia. Axem Titanium 15:42, 8 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 07:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pop-Port

edit
Pop-Port (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable cellular phone feature. This proprietary connector design belongs in a developer manual, not in a general-audience encyclopedia. While there may have been many instances of this connector shipped, its mass production doesn't make it notable. Listing at AfD after {{prod}} removed by User:200.42.72.146 without comment. Mikeblas 15:32, 8 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. References added, notability established. RMHED 15:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denys Spittle

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

Assertions of notability, but no evidence supplied Mayalld 15:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have written this entry on Denys Spittle since is an important figure in architecture (RCHM) and collecting important works of art eg illuminated manuscripts which have recently been exhibited at Fitzwilliam Museum Cambridge. Currently there is little web presence for this person so I thought It important to do a biog of him so his contribution to archeology, art history etc is saved for future researchers. If this is not correct for wikipedia then please delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirkdale (talk • contribs) 15:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note I moved the above comment from the creator from the article's talk page. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 16:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep co-author of some academic-looking books, and although Google only shows one news article, it is the New York Times and does appear to assert notability. Given this fellow's period of activity, though, I wouldn't be at all surprised if there are more news sources that simply aren't online. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The page creator described him as important but unknown Mayalld 17:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable enough. I have done some cleanup, which makes article read quite a bit better. Still needs work. Decoratrix 18:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for your interest. This is a work in progress, perhaps I should have written an article offline first, but I am new to WP so...
    This is why I want to keep this entry and continue working on it...From the top of my head: Denys Spittle was educated at Cambridge Uni, wounded in action in WW2 and was left on a greek island to recover, his colleagues forgot about him and he spent the rest of the war wandering around said island with his notepad drawing broken Corinthian columns. This was to become an important archaeological find, once he was picked up from the island at the conclusion of the war. He authored 5 + volumes of Samothrace. He is an expert in manuscripts and his vast collection was displayed at Fitzwillie Cambridge. He was head honcho at Cambridge office of RCHM. He had many valuable works of art that he collected. He was awarded the OBE. He was FSA since 1956.
    My entry was put on speed delete by Mayalld, he bases his conclusion on my reporting that Spittle was unknown. What I meant to say was that he is virtually unknown now, and online he has virtually no presence, his books are out of print and so on. I have no vested interest in championing Spittle other than I thought his input into architectural history and archeology should be noted for future reseachers in architecture/art history/archaeology. Thanks to Iain99 for showing me how to enter onto this discussion.Kirkdale 19:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
consider tagging new articles "underconstruction" (in double curly brackets, not quotes), to discourage over-zealous editors from deleting uncompleted articles. Peterkingiron 19:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to say that I have no particular vested interest in getting the article deleted. I'd have done just the same for any article that failed to show apparent notability, on the basis that if we don't adopt a rather tough line on non-notable bios, then they will multiply. As the article has improved somewhat, I'm moving to a more neutral position. If it improves further, I'll move again Mayalld 20:50, 8 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 15:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sipahh

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

Advertisement with no claim of meeting WP:Notability. WP:COI issues. Contested prod. Fabrictramp 15:31, 8 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 keep votes are largely subjective. east.718 at 04:15, 11/15/2007

Nokia 6810

edit
Nokia 6810 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable product; just another cell phone which was replaced by a different and better model a few months later. The article doesn't establish notability, and has no references. I don't expect that substantial references are widely available -- just self-published reviews and user blogs. Listing after {{prod}} removed with weak assertions of notability on the talk page. Mikeblas 15:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, too many articles about phones. Stifle (talk) 21:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Although the phone wasn't out for too long and wasn't a big model, I think it is still a notable product. BeanoJosh 21:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete phone with no claim of notabilty This is a Secret account 23:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The list of Nokia phones is nearly complete so it would be a shame to start deleting them now. Though moving all the 68** phones to one article would be better Towel401 14:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my arguments in the below Nokia thread and [21]. Sufficient sources seem to exist. --W.marsh 15:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm looking at your news.google link, W.Marsh, and I can't see why it is a reason to vote "keep". In fact, it demonostrates what I point out in my nomination -- that there aren't substantial references for this product, and therefore it fails notability. None of the 10 links on the first page your search produces are substantial or usable, in fact. There's simple PR regurgitation, mostly. Per Search Engine Optimization, many of the hits don't even go to content relvant to this phone. Here's a summary of the top ten links:
  1. InfoSyncWorld: 350-word capsule review. This is not "substantial" per WP:V.
  2. ImageGallery link that goes to the same above capsule review.
  3. "Nokia Extends..." goes to TOC content that is not 6810-specific.
  4. "Nokia pushes design" goes to a page that lists a for-purchase Gartner Group report. Dunno what it says about this phone, but it can't be used as a reference because Wikipedia wants accessible references
  5. "Partners with i.game": A $5 report. It's from PR Newswire, so it's just a press release; it's only 1445 words long.
  6. Think equity: Another pay article; $88 for a 12 page piece which is about RIM, and probably only mentions this phone in passing.
  7. Not English-language link
  8. Not English-language link (Spanish? Portuguese?)
  9. Not English-language link
  10. Not English-language link (Japanese)
Am I not seeing the same material you linked to? Or am I misunderstanding your point? -- Mikeblas 17:50, 14 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.

Armani Flagship Store in Hong Kong

edit

The result was speedily deleted by Mike Rosoft as "Spam, copyright violation". -- KTC 16:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armani Flagship Store in Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Likely advertising: article started by user with same name as architects. No assertion of especial notability. Armani certainly notable, but not every one of their outlets. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 15:24, 8 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 — Caknuck 21:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia 6233

edit
Nokia 6233 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

These products don't meet WP:PRODUCT. The article is a list of specifications which are completely un-cited, and reads like an advertisement or marketing brochure. The article is unlikely to be repaired as substantial references don't exist for such products. Listing after {{prod}} was removed without comment. Mikeblas 15:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a Nokia directory. Stifle (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sources exist [22] we can have an okay article here. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia... we can cover stuff like this. I'm not interested in it, but some people are. Why not provide them neutral, accurate information? Mikeblas and I have had this out before and it's probably an "intelligent people may disagree" situation, can we leave it at that? --W.marsh 21:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an analysis of the first ten links at the Google News page you've linked to, w.marsh. Just like the other phone AfD where you posted another link, these seem more like an argument against the article than one for it:
  1. techtree.com, a 1200 word review of the phone. Not substantial coverage.
  2. infosync.com, a 350-word review of the phone written before it was released.
  3. infosync.com again, this time after its release. 390 words, which is just a capsule review that's not a substantial reference.
  4. infosync.com again, a 150-word announcement, not a substantial reference.
  5. strategy.com, this link is 404.
  6. For-sale document from pqarchiver.com of the PR Newswire press release. Not usable as a reference.
  7. Same thing as previous link, at highbeam.com, another PR republisher.
  8. Same thing as previous link at noticias.info, another PR republisher.
  9. lexisnexis.com charges $3 to view the whole press release about stores in India now delivering the phone. Can't use subscription sites as references.
  10. It's the PR Newswire piece again, now at AccessMyLibrary.com.
Again, the point of the AfD is that no substantial and appropriate secondary sources are available. The product receives coverage consisting of millhouse capsule reviews and "repeated" press release announcements. A notable product would have substantial coverage from third parties. -- Mikeblas 05:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1200 word reviews are a good thing. Try to find that much information in prose on the average town or river we have an article on. The point is that we can provide some decent information here, and this is a topic some people are going to want an encyclopedic article on. No one's going to come here looking for information on this topic and say "Whew, I'm glad they didn't give me an article at all, no one's written a book about this phone!" People want as much information as we can give them... in this case we can give them some neutral, encyclopedic info. Maybe we can't write a FA, but it's still going to be denying decent NPOV information to a lot of people to delete these article. No one comes here to marvel in all the articles we don't have. If we have encyclopedic information on their phone, great. If we have a redlink, we're less useful for a very poor reason. --W.marsh 13:04, 15 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 to delete. W.marsh 15:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jarlaxle

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

Non-notable fictional character. This unreferenced article is written completely in-universe, and I don't believe secondary sources are available for this character -- demonstrating its failure to meet WP:N. Listing at AfD after {{prod}} was removed with the comment "remove prod" and no other discussion or changes to article. Mikeblas 15:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: Major Forgotten Realms character, is a significant character in the novels Homeland, Exile, Sojourn, The Legacy, Starless Night, and Siege of Darkness, by R. A. Salvatore.

Sources do need to be added, however - --Geck0 17:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: Jarlaxle is also mentioned in Elaine Cunningham's Daughter of the Drow and additionally, he also appears in the TSR Villain's Lorebook (TSR 9552, July 1998) on page 37, for AD&D 2nd Edition rules and I believe also in 3.0 and 3.5 Edition WotC sourcebooks also. --Geck0 16:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. These are both from WoTC or TSR, and therefore primary sources. -- Mikeblas 16:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He also appears in the PC game Baldur's Gate 2, by Black Isle Studios, as an NPC. This is not a WoTC or TSR source and neither is it a Primary source. He also appears in the Devil's Due Publishing Comics. Surely in this case, primary sources are more important than secondary ones? What about other similar articles, like the one on Artemis Entreri? I notice that also the Bregan D'aerthe page is also under the knife. --Geck0 18:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Information beyond plot and game guide material is required to justify a stand alone article. Jay32183 20:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I understand the dilemma here, but this also means the articles on the Do'Urden and Baenre families, as well pretty well all Forgotten Realms (and Dragonlance, et al.) articles should be deleted, because secondary sources are hard to obtain. Is this the stance Wikipedia wishes to take? --Geck0 21:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is, at least according to WP:PLOT and WP:GAMEGUIDE. WP:N requires that topics have significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the topic to get articles. Jay32183 21:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Of course a lack of sources is a reason to delete. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, which says so. -- Mikeblas 06:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, it doesn't. "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." (WP:PROVEIT) This does NOT mean a poorly written and sourced article is reason to delete. That an article needs improvement is not grounds for deletion. --Anon 121.209.160.15 03:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not confuse the issue. I don't think there's anything in this article that's in dispute, or unverifiable. If there's an issue, it's with the character's notability, not the verifiability of the information presented. Powers T 21:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes, I agree with the first issue here, but I do feel he is a notable character, but due to a lack of secondary and tertiary sources on almost all Forgotten Realms (and other WotC game settings) Wiki articles, it is nigh on impossible to prove this. As I said in another comment, if verifiability is the issue here, then virtually all TSR- and WotC-related articles should be deleted. The only ones left would be on Drizzt Do'Urden and perhaps Liriel Baenre, which is unfair, in my opinion. --Geck0 21:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The footnotes can be added, if someone can find the time to do so. I don't have all the source books to hand, but I shall try and footnote as much as possible, with the sources I do obtain. I also do not believe the article to be a cut and paste job entirely (some of it could be). The character is well established in not only novels by R.A. Salvatore, but in the lore of Forgotten Realms (in their source books, written by many different authors). All that needs to be done is a re-write, with footnotes. This is not a delete job. It needs editing, that is all. Is anyone willing to add further sources, linking them to footnotes, as well as changing the in-universe perspective? --Geck0 16:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable character that plays a fairly major part in most of the series. The lack of verifiable sources shouldn't be a major consideration as this is a fictional character in a larger series - many characters don't have sources. In addition, the in-universe perspective could be fixed with a little effort. --220.52.64.59 14:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note. A lack of verifiable third-party sources means the subject of the article is not notable, per WP:N: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." -- Mikeblas 18:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Edward321. Rray 16:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - add additional sources to improve the article, cite them in text. Wikipedia is not on the deletionists timetable. Web Warlock 16:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge to Bregan D'aerthe. I don't see that we need an article for the leader/founder of the group, but for the group itself which makes strong claims to notability within the setting (outside, not so much... room for improvement, I'd say). -Harmil 18:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Except Jarlaxle is no longer the leader of Bregan D'aerthe and is currently adventuring with the rogue assassin Artemis Entreri. Bregan D'aerthe is currently being lead by the drow psionicist Kimmuriel Oblodra. Jarlaxle did form Bregan D'aerthe though. Since his departure, we don't hear as much from Bregan D'aerthe as before, but that doesn't mean they're not a notable band, but due to the nature of Forgotten Realms novels and realmslore, we may not know of their current actions, or how powerful they are. The Zhentarim are far more important, in my opinion. I would say merge his article with that of the Baenre family, but his attachment to that drow family is a spoiler, so I would advise against that as well. Geck0 20:33, 13 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 non-notable biography. Existing references are trivial at best. PeaceNT 13:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Allen Lambert

edit
David Allen Lambert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable genalogist, fails WP:BIO. The article includes four references: the first are to sources which are clearly not idependent of the subject, and the next two are simply to listings of his books on the websites of online booksellers. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:05, 8 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 to Capistrano Unified School District. Hut 8.5 07:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shorecliffs Middle School

edit
Shorecliffs Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a page about an unremarkable school. No assertion of notability. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 15:10, 8 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 all contributions by users User:Aedas and/or User:Redbean1027 as blatant self-promotion and possible copyright violation (articles may not be actually GFDL-licensed), with the exception of articles that had existed before the users' edits (Prince's Building, Pentominium, The Marina Bay Sands, Ocean Heights (Dubai), West Kowloon Cultural District); they were reverted to the previous versions. - Mike Rosoft 16:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U-BORA Towers

edit
U-BORA Towers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Clear advertising for a commercial real estate project under construction. Notability not asserted. I tried to db-spam it but someone keeps deleting the tag. Dougie WII 14:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pretty obvious advertising / promotion. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 15:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also advertising for building projects by same firm. Appears to be made by same user under different name after original name was blocked.

Dancing_Towers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Armani_Flagship_Store_in_Hong_Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Prince's_Building (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Boulevard_Plaza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

-- Dougie WII 15:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And some more:

MTR_Tung_Chung_Cable_Car_Terminal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Terminal_2_of_Hong_Kong_International_Airport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Evangel_College_Hong_Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
HKIEd_Jockey_Club_Primary_School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dillard_University_–_DUICEF_Building (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

-- Dougie WII 15:49, 8 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 14:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ChhagolNayanaHarini

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

Previously PRODed. Now Transwikied. No evidence that this is a notable term in it's original language as opposed to a foreign language Neoglism of some sort. TexasAndroid 14:27, 8 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 14:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-football

edit
Anti-football (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Neoglism TexasAndroid 14:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 14:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rewrite. As it stands, the article is just a coatrack to attack the Glasgow Rangers. But the term is quite common, and is certainly not a neologism. AecisBrievenbus 14:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The phrase is very new is now apparently not new and has been used by reliable, third-party published sources, including BBC and The Herald (Glasgow). -- Satori Son 15:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - since it's already been copied to Wiktionary, and it's just a defamatory term for a style of football some people don't like. If you must, a single sentence in the main football article would suffice. - fchd 17:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Rewrite, This article as it stands is just a coatrack for criticism of Rangers. The club most closely associated with the phrase are Barcelona, who have used it, or similar criticisms of any defensively organised opponents they fail to score against for many years. The phrase is not a neologism at least not brand new, it is used here Google book search from a book published in 2001 about the 1968 Intercontinental Cup, and here it was used by Johan Cruyff in 2002 to criticise Brazil after they won that years World Cup Nacion.com. The Spanish original translation of the phrase (anti-futbol) is commonly occurring. The article should be rewritten so that it doesn't simply read as an incredibly recentist attack on Rangers. King of the NorthEast 17:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's a phrase used as criticism, not a specific tactic that can be described. I've tried to make the article more neutral but it looks like it was created as a coatrack. A dictionary definition would be enough. Snigbrook 18:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Surely this is anti-Rangers not anti-football. Peanut4 20:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm starting to change my opinion. This is starting to be better sourced. Still not sure how relevant a term it is or just a buzz word by a couple of bitter footballers. Peanut4 21:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as it stands per my timestamp, it is a widely-used term, with many well-researched sources. Again, as at this timestamp, there is no more criticism of Rangers than there is of either Chelsea or Real Madrid, for instance. No longer a coatrack. Ref (chew)(do) 02:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Quite regardless of the longevity of the phrase, the article is almost entirely about the use of the phrase, and not about the concept. As such it is purely lexicographical, and not encyclopaedic. If someone wants to write an article about the tactics and motivations of defensive play, or anti-football, there might be something that merits a place in an encyclopaedia, but this is not encyclopaedic, it's about usage of a translated phrase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin McE (talk • contribs) 11:53, 10 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 14:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shelli Yoder

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

This went up for prod, but I wasn't sure if the winner of a state pageant was notable or not. Brought it here for discussion. Esprit15d(۝ • ۞ • ▲) 14:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: As the PROD initiator, I vote for deletion on the grounds of non-notability. By the way: Is it appropriate for an editor, following the expiration of a PROD (which fact User:Esprit15d fails to mention), change the rules and create an AfD? The entire Wikipedia community had five days to remove the PROD and prove the article is notable. No one did. I do not appreciate User:Esprit15d's unprofessional and capricious actions. Maplewooddrive 16:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My actions aren't even remotely out of harmony with policy. To avoid future misinformed tirades, you need to familiarize yourself with the policy here (especially read under procedure for administrators, which is the relevant portion to this incident).--Esprit15d(۝ • ۞ • ▲) 19:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if the article had already been deleted or Esprit15d were not an admin, there remains a perpetual right to request undeletion under the PROD policy. Stifle (talk) 21:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies to ۝ and my fellow Wikipedians on this page for my strong language. I guess my frustration got the better of me. I should always assume good faith (as per WP:AGF).Maplewooddrive 00:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, even admins like me can make mistakes. All's forgiven. Happy editing!--Esprit15d(۝ • ۞ • ▲) 12:08, 10 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. by admin Tone. W.marsh 14:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bratty Daughter (House of Bloo's)

edit

This article is about a character who appeared in one episode of Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends. Just one. It should be deleted and fast. YuckieDuck 14:14, 8 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. W.marsh 14:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beyblade 2000

edit
Beyblade 2000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I don't think every season of a tv show is supposed to have an article (I did a quick search on various sci-fi shows and none of them to be knowledge had specific seasonal articles). Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance. These seasonal articles have none of those context or analysis.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason, that is non-notable seasonal articles:
Beyblade_V-Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Beyblade_G-Revolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Macktheknifeau 14:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep. As per arguments made just yesterday. This is/was a program that is shown globally. Google test 'Beyblade cartoon' comes up with a lot of results. Why the hate? --EndlessDan 15:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This has nothing to do with the original articles AFD. Regardless of if it was "shown globally", these season articles do not warrant their own page. Macktheknifeau 15:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So then what's your argument? According to your nomination, it's that *you* don't feel that every show deserves it's own page. Which I agree with, to an extent. However, this isn't a local access show we're discussing. When a show yields hundreds of results as per a simple Google test and is screened in multiple countries - this clearly demonstrates notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Endlessdan (talk • contribs) 15:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe Macktheknifeau is stating that individual seasons of a show do not inherently deserve an article, nor do they inherit notability from the show itself. -- 68.156.149.62 17:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, that is exactly what I mean. The seasons have no notability, nothing I could find supports the notion that they should have seperate articles on each season, and the articles make no attempt to show why each specific season of this tv show is notable. Delete these non-notable season articles, and put them in the original page's thread. Macktheknifeau 14:58, 9 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 14:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zamball

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

Prodded but removed by original editor with no explanation. This article appears to be a hoax. There are no references provided, and searching through Google reveals nothing in the short search results to support this article. Whpq 13:39, 8 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 14:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Above & Beyond Children's Museum

edit
Above & Beyond Children's Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Previously prodded, unclear notability. Prod removed Moglex 14:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the museum has been the subject of multiple articles in a reliable newspaper. The museum's effort to remain open despite financial problems has been controversial. Royalbroil 15:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article talks about floor space and financial problems but does not address notability in any meaningful way. It appears to be a worthy regional project that does not reach the level of notability. --Stormbay 18:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's the subject of independent secondary sources. The article putting too much emphasis on floor space and financial problems is a content issue, not a notability one. --Oakshade 16:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete museum with no claim of notabilty, travelwisconsin is a travel guide, and the other two sources are the local newspaper, which isn't really independent. If more sources are added outside the local area, will change vote. This is a Secret account 02:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The struggle to stay afloat financially is gripping and predominates in the references. The references do not address notability and that is the crux of this discussion. --Stormbay 22:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There would not have been stories about its financial problems unless those secondary sources considered it notable. Business struggle all the time, but not all of them are covered in the press. --Oakshade 16:45, 9 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 19:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This nomination appears to have been inadvertantly duplicated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Rudnick. Note the space in that debate's name that is lacking in this debate's title. Both noms took place on the same day, so it is appears to be an inadvertant duplication (as opposed to a second debate following DRV or some such circumstance). The article was deleted on 13 November after this debate was closed, but the other debate remained open. As no editors noted reasons to Keep the article, the result does not appear to be in question - however, I wanted to ensure that the situation was noted here for the record. I have ended the duplicate debate as a non-admin closure. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Rudnick

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

Mr. Rudnick has NOT been the subject of 1)A credible independent biography 2) Widespread coverage over time in the media 3) Demonstrable wide name recognition from reliable sources 4) n depth, independent, coverage in multiple publications showing a widely recognized contribution to the enduring historical record in the person's specific field. And this is just the start Thisarticleisundueandneedbeerased 23:48, 7 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 14:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Benton

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

Do I really need to to get into it? Look at the Wikipedia:Notability (people) and then look at this article. I think it's clear. I fact, this damn thing should have been long gone by now. Damn it. I guess if I were to add an arguement in favor of deletion I would begin by just reminding us that Danny Boy has NONE of the following working in his favor; The person has been the subject of a credible independent biography. The person has received significant recognized awards or honors. The person has demonstrable wide name recognition The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. But you can't blame th sorry sap, I mean, he's only 24 Thisarticleisundueandneedbeerased 00:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Google hits are all to self-penned references. No independent sources. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 13:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non notable. Sports blogger for AOL and MSG (a regional cable/radio network), but only writes for group blogs. Sports bloggers don't even have profiles at either site, so these are not exactly high-profile endeavors. Unable to confirm the claim of writing for Sports Illustrated and Yahoo Sports, or any claim regarding guest radio/podcast appearances. Maralia 14:05, 8 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 redirected. W.marsh 14:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic data center

edit
Dynamic_data_center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Dynamic data center concerns a non-noteworthy corporate neologism.-- Mumia-w-18 14:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rescinded. Oops. A Google search seems to show that it's noteworthy. Sorry everyone.-- Mumia-w-18 14:49, 6 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 (A1) by Charles Matthews. Non-admin closure. Blueboy96 23:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haru Kotobakanata

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

Same as previous VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 11:37, 8 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. W.marsh 14:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Foley (actor)

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

You want reasons? okay, I'll give you reasons. Here's just a few to get the conversation started -- Roley Foley has NONE of the following 1) significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions. 2) a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. 3 unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Just because one doesn't "have" these things does't mean one is not a good actor. It just means one is an actor with NO business being on Wikipedia. Read the guidelines. Read the article. Read between the lines. Let's delete this vanity and move on with out lives Thisarticleisundueandneedbeerased 01:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Not notable enough yet for a page of his own. Looking at it again I think he does, just, qualify. So Keep Alberon 13:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep At least three incoming mainspace links. Imdb says he played in a lot of things, including playing a named character for 31 episodes in a notable TV show (Caitlin's Way). Notable enough for me. – sgeureka t•c 17:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well, I created this page so I guess I considered him notable enough to have a page. He was a Monster of the Week for Buffy, and a main character in a television show that lasted 2 seasons. WookMuff 01:46, 9 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 in lieu of relisting or deleting, I'm going to redirect to DevilDriver. Seems like a standard redirect. W.marsh 14:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Boecklin

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

Let's ask ourselves whether Mr. Boecklin - Has had a charted hit on any national music chart. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country. Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country, reported in reliable sources.[3] 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). Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury or Grammis award. Has won or placed in a major music competition. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that page.) Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network. Thisarticleisundueandneedbeerased 00:07, 8 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 07:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV overturns to a CSD G4 speedy deletion. Xoloz (talk) 13:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick A. Reid

edit
Patrick A. Reid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Well, let's begin with asking ourselves a few question (inspired by wikipedia guideline). Is/Has 1)The person regarded as an important figure or widely cited by their peers or successors? 2)The person known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique? 3)The person created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews? 4)The person's work either (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries. ? Now, let's not lie to ourselves anymore Thisarticleisundueandneedbeerased 00:40, 8 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 16:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scouting in Cumbria

edit
Scouting in Cumbria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I seem to recall that there was a policy against local chapters of larger organisations having their own pages. In any case, the article says that there is scouting in Cumbria, then provides us with links to outside websites for the various chapters, which I know is against Wikipedia policy. Nothing on the page suggests anything at all notable. Fee Fi Foe Fum 08:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources. However, chapter information may be included in list articles as long as only verifiable information is included.

The Scouting Project guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/MOS#Non-national articles is derived from the WP guideline. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 00:38, 9 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 (G11) by GRBerry. Non-admin closure. Blueboy96 23:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Internationalised curriculum

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

This article appears to be primarily an advertisement for the Praht Thai School and its teaching methods; there are no sources that would support that this is a significant or widely discussed educational concept. This AfD should include other articles with a similar problem by the same creator:

Not sure how to address your concerns but this is a project that exists and is being delivered in answer to the growing problem of education quality in the Asian region. It is entirely factual and real. It is far from an advertisement but an acknowledgement and explanation of a new methodology in dealing with this important area of education. Please do not censor what needs to be told Praht Thai School is the first to utilise and implement this programme and the only place people can currently see it in action. They must be part of the process - they are the pioneers.This form is the pilot for what it is hoped will become the standard national curriculum form for many countries in the region. It has been the work collaboration of many ministries including Singapore and Australian Ministries of Education.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ArisB (talk • contribs)


Delete: Written like an essay and/or advertisement for the school. Unsourced, unnotable, subject. SpigotMap 12:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi\ Thank you for your feedback but as this article refers to a new methodology just released the kind of cross references you mentioned may be difficult to source. I will however look for them and include them as I find them. This IS important information and balances areas you have not touched on in relation to the area such as the article on parallel immersion which appears to be written by the school mentioned in that article. The work pertaining to the Internationalised curriculum has been conducted by many people over a number of years. While one of the founders of the syllabus has worked closely to ensure the roll out of the first school is successful, this refers to its implementation and affect not to its commerciality. This is every bit as important a milestone as syllabuses such as IB curriculum and Wikipedia is a place that such major breakthroughs should be found not censored. Please reconsider your stance and maintain this important information online —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArisB (talk • contribs) 13:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, maybe you misunderstand how wikipedia works. ALL content must be written in an encyclopedic manner, must be sourced by independent secondary sources, per WP:RS. Essays are not part of the (front-end) of wikipedia, this is an encyclopedia. Subjects also must pass WP:N. SpigotMap 13:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to explain how important it is; those kinds of comments aren't really helpful. All we need are the reliable sources that verify its importance. If no such sources exist, then the subject is not notable, and it'll be deleted no matter how important it is. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the main article was just speedied. Michaelbusch 20:17, 8 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 14:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albion Middle School

edit
Albion Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article about a middle school does not assert notability. A PROD was removed with comment: "ususally dont delete schools", but without addressing the notability issue. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 12:08, 8 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#G3. Wikipedia isn't a place for completely unverifiable "religions" made up last week. You don't have to do even a "gentle stretching of WP:CSD#G3" to apply this to such a blatant nonsense page creation.--Isotope23 talk 16:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kieferism

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

Hoax. PRODded by another editor, PROD removed with no reasoning given. No GHits to reliable sources. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 11:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think we can apply that here. The article claims the religion was founded a week ago and has now grown to a "Major, moderated religion". This isn't the case of a page made by someone with a unique, but sincere religious belief, but a clear case of silly vandalism. I think it qualifies as a case of hoax nonsense as specified here as it is so blatant WP:CSD#G1.Alberon 12:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Having conducted a good-faith Google search, I have found no evidence that this is a religion practiced by a significant number of people, or which has been written about in reliable sources. It appears that this religion is not quite notable enough for Wikipedia to require an article about it. That, and it's a fairly obvious and not particularly interesting joke page which could reasonably have been speedy-deleted as nonsense. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:23, 8 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. W.marsh 14:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Arlene Fraser

edit
Murder of Arlene Fraser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

OK. I created this article as it seems to be a notable murder case, and was surprised that Wikipedia didn't have anything about it already. However, it may violate WP:NOT#NEWS, although this particular case seemed to have generated continued media interest in the part of the world that I come from. I don't know, what do you think - is the case notable and Wikipedia-worthy? h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. It's good of you to nominate your own article. As to what to do with it: it does not seem very notable, but the book on it would suggest a sufficiency of notability to cause the author to write it. I'm going to guess that this debate will be more about whether people are deletionists or not. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, there are a multitude of sources about the case since 1998 from both the BBC and the Scotsman newspaper alone that I can find, and a book about the case, excluding all the other news references that I haven't looked at yet, or stuff that isn't available online. But that's why I nominated it - I want to see if people think it violates WP:NOT#NEWS. Certainly the case seems to have had more than temporary notability...--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should also mention that this is the third article that I have created myself that I have nominated for deletion within the past two weeks. I'm not sure exactly why I do this, but it isn't mere attention-seeking. It's the fact that I don't seem to have faith in myself that if I make an article about something, especially a pop culture/news-related subject, that it is truly notable despite the existence of sources. This is because I assume that Wikipedia would have an article about it already if it was notable.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 02:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I get the feeling that if this case had happened in the United States, Wikipedia would have had an article on it already and no one would have considered deleting it. News coverage has extended for far longer than in the Madeleine McCann case, although obviously not quite in the same manner as the latter's extreme and constant press coverage.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Surely the existence of a book written seven years after the event establishes notability, in the same way that the existence of an independent biography does for biographical article. Good to see that the article is called Murder of Arlene Fraser rather than Arlene Fraser because it's the event that is notable, not the person. Phil Bridger 14:40, 10 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 14:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deep fried radio static

edit

Also much of the information is confirmed in the 26 ghits if you bothered to read them in entirety... many of which are show listings and bio info on the artist's own myspace page confirms that they are indeed from San Francisco and have indeed used other monkiers, while this may not be the most credible source th information has at least been suggested and if there is better information feel free to update the wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.196.129 (talk) 21:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a noise band, you may not find it relevant, but thats because your not privy to it's pertainence... No reason to delete it... reason for you not to read it. If there is inaccuracy feel free to edit it and make it more accurate... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.196.129 (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deep fried radio static (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Vaguely asserts notability, but isn't notable anyway. The 26 unique ghits do not verify this article. MER-C 10:57, 8 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 14:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xavener

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

Contested prod. Fails WP:FICT, has no reliable sources to demonstrate real-world notability, only ghits on fansites Gavin Collins 10:14, 8 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 14:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tenh

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

Contested prod. Fails WP:FICT, has no reliable sources to demonstrate real-world notability, only ghits on fansites. --Gavin Collins 10:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 10:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article could perhaps be merged into some sort of geographical overview of the kingdoms and regions of Greyhawk, but Tenh is an important element of the fiction that's being discussed, here. Of particular note is the Living Greyhawk campaign (a Wizards of the Coast-sponsored organization of regional teams of gamers around the world) whose central team ("Triad") has published articles such as COR2-11: Escape From Tenh, and others that involve this region in story elements that are now part of the Greyhawk canon. -Harmil 13:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please go ahead and do so. But if you move this material to another, make sure you add secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside of the Greyhawk canon, otherwise the potential threat of deletion will not go away.--Gavin Collins 13:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your consistent use of language such as "opponent" (as I've noted on your talk page) and "threat" in discussing the AfD process and surrounding discussion makes me wonder what kind of goal you have here. -Harmil 14:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Gavin, independent notability is required for the subject of the article, not each topic within it. If Grayhawk is notable, than a discussion in its article of something notable only within that context is acceptable. —Quasirandom 00:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response On the contrary, every article must stand on its own feet when it comes to primary and secondary sources. This is not even an article: it is 2 sentences, neither of which are sourced. There is no evidence that this ficitional dukedom has any notability at all, even within the game setting. --Gavin Collins 10:08, 9 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 14:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zodal

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

Contested prod. Fails WP:FICT, has no reliable sources to demonstrate notability, only ghits on fansites. Gavin Collins 10:00, 8 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. W.marsh 14:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Celene (Greyhawk)

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

Contested prod. Fails WP:FICT, has no reliable sources to demonstrate notability, only ghits on fansites. Gavin Collins 09:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I think that the establishment of notability for Greyhawk has already been accomplished indisputably. This article is arguably too small a satellite, though I think that could be argued either way. So, you could certainly make the case that it's not notable enough on its own and should be merged, but I don't agree that deleting material which is notable within its genre is reasonable. I know you don't agree with that, but there it is. I'll have to let other editors weigh in to resolve. -Harmil 14:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That is just your opinion, which is not supported by any evidence; there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate the notability of Greyhawk, only a long list of primary sources orginating from the publishers. Celene has no real-world notability at all; as far as I know, its just a fictional location that is named on a map of gaming instructions. The primary sources do not indicate that this ficitonal location has any notability per se. -Gavin Collins 09:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not my opinion. That's fact as supported by the sources in the article. We rely on primary sources to tell us about the notability of a subject within its own sphere of influence. What we do not rely on primary sources for is to tell us about the notability of the subject within a larger sphere of influence than the scope of the primary sources themselves. That is, we rely on the sources given here to indicate where Celene falls within the fictional universe of Greyhawk because the sources are authoritative within that scope. You continue to confuse primary sources with non-sources. They have their value. -Harmil 14:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are 100% incorrect. Notability of a fictional concept cannot be established with in-universe information. Primary sources allow you to discuss the topic within another relevant article, but they do not justify a stand alone article. By using only primary sources the article fails WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:NOT#GUIDE, WP:N, and WP:FICT. Jay32183 20:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, ghits is "Google-hits", which apparently turns up mostly fansites when the term is searched for. BOZ 20:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I guess that makes sense, although I've never heard the word before. Rray 23:40, 9 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. W.marsh 14:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cauldron (Shackled City)

edit
Cauldron (Shackled City) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Ghits from fansites don not provide real-world content, context or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside the Dungeons & Dragons canon.--Gavin Collins 10:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 10:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm tempted to say speedy keep on the basis of the truly incomprehensible AfD listing. What fan site? Paizo? Paizo is, in this context, a primary source, I'll grant, but they're the publisher (or were at the time) of the world's most subscribed roleplaying magazine, so I don't think "fan site" is appropriate. What's more, using insulting or derogatory terms in referring to the subjects of an article in the AfD listing is just bad form in the extreme. Gavin Collins's crusade against fantasy-related articles on Wikipedia is 'widely documented elsewhere, but this AfD will certainly become the touchstone of concerns about his edits. -Harmil 12:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just a note here... Gavin meant Google hits, of course (as he explained here), but since this makes at least twice that I've seen this same misunderstanding happen, maybe we should all try to write out Google hits or write it as G-hits or something. Pinball22 14:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about misunderstanding, though it was quite a confusing sentence. As others have stated, Cauldron was the central topic of 12 issues of one of the worlds two most popular gaming publications (the most popular, if you're only talking about roleplaying games). The problem (as I noted at Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions) is that the idea that notability is not inherited breaks down when a topic such as Arrakis is the central setting of an otherwise notable work of fiction. Is the central setting notable? I think that it does inherit that notability (where, for example, the dragon that appeared in issue 11 of the Shackled City series would not, because it's a minor feature of the notable story). Shackled City was the first of a line of 3 adventure paths that each spanned a year of Dungeon (12 issues) and was widely written about within the gaming industry (see the Shackled City article). That's all about Cauldron and the story-line that took it from obscure outpost in the Greyhawk lore to the exploded and ruined center of a major plotline. -Harmil 00:18, 9 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 14:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arnd

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

Contested prod. Fails WP:FICTION, hasn't any reliable sources, just ghits on fansites. Gavin Collins 10:03, 8 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 14:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiff University Swimming & Water Polo Club

edit
Cardiff University Swimming & Water Polo Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable club. The 25 unique ghits do not verify the article. MER-C 09:55, 8 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 19:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs in The O.C.

edit
AfDs for this article:
List of songs in The O.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Listcruft meets fancruft. Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely associated topics; neither is it an indiscriminate collection of information. A previous AfD in May delivered many keep !votes for "social importance" and that "music plays in important part in television", however it isn't clear to me how either of those reasons justify a 60KB list of song names. •97198 talk 09:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And can I add that Mix 1, Mix 2, Mix 3, Mix 4, Mix 5 and Mix 6 already exist. •97198 talk 09:37, 8 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 14:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Telchuria

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

Fails WP:FICT. Gavin Collins 09:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge This region is not significant enough within the Greyhawk published materials for its own Wikipedia article. It should be a redirect, but beyond that any content should appear on an article about the geography of Oerth. -Harmil 13:16, 8 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 19:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Lynn

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

An model/actress, who appears to be not notable. The article has been deleted four times already[23] (though, it would appear, not with the present contents of the article the first two times around) and I'm bringing it here for consensus on deletion and salting. Thanks. Malcolmxl5 09:08, 8 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 wasdelete as an unsourced neologism, probably made up in school one day. Bearian 16:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.s.a

edit
P.s.a (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced, probably non-notable. Contested PROD. Computerjoe's talk 08:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info: I've added the AFD template. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 12:31, 8 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 WP:CSD A7, by Anthony.bradbury (talk · contribs). —David Eppstein 16:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaica mann

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

An unencyclopedic article on a self-published author. Fails WP:BIO. The creation of a single purpose account. Victoriagirl 07:44, 8 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. W.marsh 14:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wong & Owens, Ex-Porn Stars

edit
Wong & Owens, Ex-Porn Stars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This SNL skit is not the sort of ground-breaking comedy that might deserve an article, such as the Coneheads or even Stuart Smalley. According to the article they only appeared in two episodes. Fee Fi Foe Fum 07:40, 8 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 14:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Air Flight 007 conspiracy theories

edit
Korean Air Flight 007 conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I mean no offense to the person who has made this his mission, but the article is totally unnecessary and fails to satisfy several policies and guidelines. (Like WP:RS or WP:V for example.)
Korean Air Lines Flight 007 has a section discussing the theories which gained press attention, revolving around whether the plane was on a spy mission or a legitimate passenger flight. Anynobody 07:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A slightly expanded entry in the main article is probably a better approach than this page.Alberon 10:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, expand section in parent article a bit and redirect this one. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete By their very definition conspiracy theories generally can't be supported by reliable sources. --Nick Dowling 10:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The usual utter bilge. Is there any event in the last hundred years which wasn't actually ochestrated by an evil cabal of aliens, jewish bankers and baby eating neoconservatives? Nick mallory 11:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I orginally split this off the main article because it was so extensive that it overwhelmed the rest of the content. I had the naive hopes that the daugther article would be clean-upable, but sadly that hasn't happened, and it has become a POV magnet for a particular individual who runs a website that advocates that the plane didn't crash and that the passengers are still being held in the gulag. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 16:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What a mess! --John 17:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Agreed. As a followup to Akradecki's comment, the split off helped reduce the KAL 007 article to almost half of its former size (41,018 to 20,917), and did . When half of an encylopedic article is facts and half is speculation about conspiracies, a split like that's an excellent move. I think that it's better to have a septic tank to hold stuff you don't want stinking up the place, especially since the KAL 007 article was being ruined. However, even a septic tank has to be cleaned. The solution may be to pare down this article so that there can still be a section of the parent article that says, in effect, "Don't put that crap here". Mandsford 02:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It actually has been parred down, the only WP:RS I've found about conspiracy theories and KAL 007 are in the main article already. What's left isn't enough to justify a spin off, which is why that's up for deletion. Anynobody 06:13, 9 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 19:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GroupSwim

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

Delete promotional sounding article about nn company, who is just in beta phase of its product - been deleted as speedy twice before but let's see what the community says; blurbs in on-line magazines that review tech companies and products, are they paid to do these? dunno, but not the significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources to show WP:N per WP:CORP. Carlossuarez46 07:13, 8 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 blatant advertising. Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thepeapodfamily

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

Doesn't fit any CSD, so here it is. Non-notable book, whose article is unverifiable - nothing on google. MER-C 07:06, 8 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 14:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Franklin Company

edit
Richard Franklin Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete unsourced article by User:RFCO (a WP:SPA with WP:COI?) about a nn company that publishes a football poll - it does not contribute to the BCS standings, so just a guy's poll on his website, that has ads to loan you money. Carlossuarez46 07:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poll is not one of the two human or six computer polls used in calculating the composite Bowl Championship Series ranking (see [24]) and is thus likely entirely non-notable. The only non-BCS poll that is notable is the AP poll. This is a non-notable company that publishes a non-notable poll. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:33, 8 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 16:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Col. Bruce Hampton and The Aquarium Rescue Unit

edit
Col. Bruce Hampton and The Aquarium Rescue Unit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Band seems to lack notability. No chart history of the band is present, fails WP:MUSIC, and founder of the band lacks notability as well. Admc2006 06:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the band members because they also fail notability and the album page lacks a track listing:

Bruce Hampton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jimmy Herring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Oteil Burbridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
In a Perfect World (Aquarium Rescue Unit album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_November_8&oldid=1116721521"