Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 December 17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< December 16 December 18 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy keep as a bad faith nomination. The very first edits in Special:Contributions/Conspiracy Smasher were to create this nomination, and subsequent edits, including the nomination of Alex Jones (radio) (AfD discussion) for deletion have revealed that this person is here merely to disrupt and to provoke on a contentious issue. I am closing this and the other AFD discussion, and have revoked the account's editing privileges indefinitely. We can do without this. Uncle G (talk) 05:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America
Articles for deletion/Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America (2nd nomination)
 Articles for deletion/Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America (3rd nomination)
Articles for deletion/State terrorism by United States of America Articles for deletion/State terrorism by United States of America (fifth nomination)
Articles for deletion/American terrorism
Articles for deletion/Alleged U.S. war criminals
Articles for deletion/State terrorism by the United States (sixth nomination)
Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Started by POV pushers. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Conspiracy Smasher (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

User's first edit Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a well-sourced article. Dekisugi (talk) 23:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete under WP:SOAP. Also impossible to keep NPOV with this kind of hate article, but that is a side issue. Pharmboy (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - For reasons stated on six previous AfDs; article is not a soapbox, it consists of verifable facts. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 23:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. While it may make for unpleasant reading for some, it's not a soapbox. It's a well-sourced article that people can read and find helpful in forming their opinions. I'm not asking people to either agree nor disagree with it. Just read it. And, by the way, describing it as a "hate article" says all too much about the closed minds out there. Whatever happened to the 1st Amendment? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment So the 1st amendment only applies if I agree with you? Pharmboy (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
      • No, Pharmboy, the 1st Amendment means that you have the right to express yourself. Without others, who don't like what you have in mind, trying to shut you up by throwing around unhelpful ill-considered phrases such as "hate article". Clear? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Perfectly. You are trying to shut me up because I see the article as hateful, and clearly stated that this can't be considered a reason to delete AFTER I stated my policy reasons for voting delete. Really, talking down to me isn't the solution, we just have different opinions and you just can't let that be. Move on, I'm much too old for this. Pharmboy (talk) 00:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - what has changed since the six previous Afds? Well. take a good look and you will find that the references are now vastly improved, and the content has been significantly expanded upon and improved since the last afd. The content references what is now a considerable body of academic and human rights literature consisting of either references to descriptions of U.S. state terrorism or in-depth examinations supporting the hypothesis. See the references section which includes contributions from professors from Yale, Princeton, MIT, Columbia and Hong Kong University, among others. If you require more evidence that this is a serious scholarly concern, constituting a significant alternative discourse, albeit not representative of the mainstream, then I would be happy to provide a long long long list of academic references. BernardL (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Per others. Article seems well-sourced and neutral. Rray (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Well sourced, notable subject, and title is NPOV. Joshdboz (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It doesn't matter that it was started by POV pushers, the great thing about a Wiki is that you can correct errors. 75.175.30.154 (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep As was concluded in previous AFDs. the article is about a notable topic and has multiple references from reliable and independent sources, satisfying WP:N. It seems fairly neutral and NPOV. The rest is a content dispute, and not a topic for AFD. This is not to say I agree with everything it says, but that is a matter for editing, not deletion. Edison (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep given that it is well sourced and the topic is notable. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Convert to a list format While no doubt containing factual info, the whole article is impossible to read, and has no structure or flow. It needs to be changed into a list, with links to the articles where most of the content is already duplicated, or to new articles such as allegations regarding El Salvador. The whole thing is an insult to proper style and readability, and serves no purpose as is.MickMacNee (talk) 02:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Snowball keep, obviously a notable subject, contains reliable sources out the wazooty. It's tagged for PoV already; PoV seems to be the only problem I can see with it, and that alone is not a reason to delete. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:SNOWBALL --Strothra (talk) 03:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Although the article has its POV problems, it's reliably sourced. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Sourced and notable User Doe ☻T ☼C 04:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Per others; article has reliable references. No evidence of use as a soapbox. KurtRaschke (talk) 05:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 01:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles organizations

List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles organizations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Notability and all that jazz. We don't need to list every single minutiae of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles' universe. Relevant aspects of the series can be merged into the main article or the characters article. We have wikias for information like this. I (talk) 23:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - nn as per WP:CRUFT also unreferenced etc. Sting_au Talk 23:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as fancruft, not sure how notability is nom. Pharmboy (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This article is neither relavent nor important, and it does not belong in an encyclopedia. If people feel they really need to know this information, then this article should just be merged with another article on a similar subject. Skittlesrgood4u (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I can't remember the last time I've laughed out loud at an AFD title, but this is one for the memory banks. RFerreira (talk) 05:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --RedShiftPA (talk) 06:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This list is not that useful. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to David Cohen. The non-existence of sourcing and poor tone make it a bad idea to keep this article around at the moment, and the notability concerns are quite real. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 14:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Denis P. Cohen

Denis P. Cohen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)--

Non notable biography; mostly unverifiable, looks like a vanity listing, similar articles about several members of the same family RedShiftPA (talk) 23:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep Won election for 10 year term as judge for starters, which always passed on wikipedia. The article needs citations and lots of work, but I can't see for the life of me WHY you would AFD him for "notability". I found plenty of published cases by him by googling ' judge "Denis P. Cohen" ', and this pushes the limits of wp:agf. Pharmboy (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment As you have added the other two, I can't help but to see they are all 3 notable. I am not sure why you don't think elected officials are not notable, and I think her activities and associations past muster as well. I still say speedy keep and be done. Pharmboy (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete By your standard, a traffic court judge in Nome, Alaska is notable. Notability is established by being the subject of non-trivial, reliable and independent sources. Having an opinion released on the internet is none of those things. It merely establishes that he is a judge. An article about his more notable father and brother that mentions his existence as a judge does not constitute a source of which he is the subject. Full disclosure: I originally prodded the article and wished that the nom had contacted me prior to the AFD. Montco (talk) 00:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    • As to the other two, David Cohen is quite notable in Philly and I could find sources easily so keep on that. Florence Cohen was never elected to anything so she doesn't even have that to fall back on. Weak delete as a figure in Philadelphia who could have some notability if sources were provided.Montco (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I would say winning a state or fed election is automatically noteworthy, city or county election for higher office (sherriff, mayor) is likely as well. That seems the purpose of an encyclopedia, particularly since wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. As for her, I can see where that is borderline. Pharmboy (talk) 00:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • comment All three are up for delete here, which I think is a terrible mistake, to lump them together. Are you saying delete all 3? Pharmboy (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. The main driving force behind this article is User:Zulitz. His/her endeavours [1] have brought to the attention of the wider world the activities of (takes deep breath) Mark B. Cohen, David Cohen, Florence Cohen, Mark J. Cohen as well as the subject here, Denis P. Cohen. As early as last February, Montco was at Zulitz' talk page imploring, probably close to tears of exasperation, that "I must insist on some sources for this shrine to Rep. Cohen" [2]. I can only ask here - Zulitz, do you have any more up your sleeve that you're keeping from us? Perhaps a Zebediah T. Cohen? The mysterious Russian cousin Igor M. Cohen? The mad step-aunt locked in the attic, Gwendoline Audrey P. Cohen? Your audience eagerly waits for the magician to reveal his hand. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    • COMMENT It really doesn't matter if he is family or friend if the article meets policy, and you are violating wp:agf. You can make a claim of COI on the pages if you think that is the issue. But attacking him (and the articles were decently written) simply because he is adding people that are ARGUABLY notable is not wp:civil, particularly since he is not participating in the conversation. In other words, don't be a dick. Argue in good faith over content, not about the author. Pharmboy (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Now now, Pharmboy. I was violating nothing, other than the author's pride. I have attacked nobody, but, hopefully, managed to raise a smile among those who have read my remarks. I would be grateful if you would refrain from referring to me as a "dick", simply because I draw attention to a thread among the author's contributions. Have I made myself clear? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Your sole contribution to the conversation has been personal criticism of the author. Yes, that is pretty clear. Pharmboy (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
As you said to somebody else on your own talk page (I'll leave the grammatical errors in for purposes of accuracy in quotation) "You are reading entirely too much "personal" in this. I don't know you, it can't be personal. Continuing to think was personal is a waste of your time, please don't make it a waste of mine. Please look around and read some of the basic policies here, and see how others handle issues. A reply is not necessary." Other than grammatical accuracy, I couldn't have put it better myself. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 01:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not taking it personal as you didn't attack me. You are attacking the author of the article on a person basis, making fun of his contributions, and he is not here to defend his actions. That is why I linked the "dont be a dick" article, as that IS being a dick. You have not made a single vote on the subject at hand or said anything constructive about whether the articles should be deleted or kept, you just waltz in and start smarting off about the author. If you don't have anything constructive to add to the conversation, then don't bother. Pharmboy (talk) 01:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, Pharmboy, (nomen est omen), I hardly think that calling people "a dick" is anything constructive, is it? I'm of the opinion that my contributions have been highly beneficial to both the tone of the debate and its eventual resolution. Over to you. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I may have been too hasty in nominating these articles together. I will try to untangle this.--RedShiftPA (talk) 00:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No evidence to suggest that this judge satisfies WP:N or WP:BIO. In places it reads like someone's holiday letter rather than an encyclopedia article (His sister has 3 kids and works in a medical office, he was elected president of the Overbrook Farms Club, etc). No references. (edited)Edison (talk) 01:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • KeepThis article was just started last month, and it needs more work. Judge Cohen is a Democrat appointed to the bench to a major trial court by Governor Tom Ridge and confirmed by the Republican-controlled state senate in time for him to be sworn in to office in December, 2000. He was then elected citywide with the support of both the Democratic and Republican parties in 2001. Now beginning his 8th year on the Common Pleas Court in a city of almost 1.5 million people, he is certainly a notable public figure. He notabiltiy is enhanced by the fact that he served under three District Attorneys who then won statewide office, U.S.Senator Arlen Specter, Governor Ed Rendell, and Pennsylvania Chief Justice (effective January 1, 2008) Ron Castille. User:Zulitz, 11:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment User:Zulitz wrote and did most of the editing for this article --RedShiftPA (talk) 07:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Perhaps the subject is notable, but there is little evidence of notability from the article. Tone sounds like a family tree listings. Second comments by[[[User:Edison|Edison]].
  • Delete per WP:BIO. Local trial court judges are not inherently notable. Note that Denis P. Cohen is just one of 93 judges in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. [3] Looking at Category:Pennsylvania state court judges, one will find that most of the Pennsylvania state court judges who have Wikipedia articles are those who also served in the U.S. Congress or as Federal judges -- with very few who only served as local trial court judges. As a means of comparison, we have an article about Judge Lance Ito but not for most (if any) of his colleagues in the Superior Court of California for Los Angeles County who have their chambers in the same building. Why not? Because he is notable per WP:BIO, and they generally aren't. If Denis Cohen presides over a nationally publicized trial, then it might be appropriate to have an article about him, but I don't see anything like that here. Finally, working for famous bosses does not make an employee inherently notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • By the way, the Philadelphia District Attorney's office employs "600 lawyers, detectives and support staff" [4], so being an assistant district attorney in Philadelphia is not a rare status either. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Question Where is the deletion rationale provided by the nominator? I do not see one. LaMenta3 (talk) 06:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Rationale was restored. Looks like it was accidentally deleted.--RedShiftPA (talk) 07:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as a stub of a reasonably notable sitting judge of several years. I deleted all the cruft and the libelous content. Why would such material be libel, you ask? A judge is prohibited by ABA Model Rules from serving as a fiduciary for non-bar-association charities. To allege that he "deeply involved" in charity work is to invite his disbarment from the bench. Even if true, WP should not be involved in starting a proceeding before a judicial conduct commission. It looks much better now. I'm sure all of it can be verified with a simple Google search. Bearian (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • By what standard is he "reasonably notable"? WP:BIO says that "Just being an elected local official ... does not guarantee notability ...." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Also, I suspect that the article was not intended to be libelous, due to its otherwise hagiographic content. More likely, the civic activities described either took place before the subject became a judge or were of the kind that judges are allowed to participate in. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Someone should really add a section on how he ran over redshiftpa's dog. Mykej (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:17, December 23, 2007

[edit] Abdul Hamid (Manipuri Poet)

Abdul Hamid (Manipuri Poet) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Nominated to AfD on behalf of User:AWDRacer, who is not familiar with the process, I declined the original speedy because of the inherent difficulty in gaging assertions of importance on a poet, especially if they operate outside the regions better covered by Internet. — Coren (talk) 23:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete added by — Coren (talk) as a hand for AWDRacer Thanks to Coren's help, I am nominating the Abdul Hamid (Manipuri Poet) article as an article worth deleting. The following is an exact replica of what can be found on the discussion page and this clearly illustrates my thoughts and feelings over what I think is a fake article:

    Aeja1370 along with other IPs at his disposal has been consistently reviving this exact article back from what could've been dead. If speedy deletion tags are added, they are removed by him/her or any number of his sockpuppet accounts.

    I have previously flagged this article for speedy deletion and now I've decided to flag it for spamming/advertisement. A simple Google search will reveal that none of the important details that distinctively indicate that the person in this article exist; no such person on Google with that name with that birthyear and place WHO has written a book titled "Sakyeng Mingsenda (The Mirror) in 2004. In fact, there's absolutely NO indication that such a person even exists despite the fact that the original author(s) claim he is "dearer to the literary world". It seems important for the author that this article be kept alive for no known exterior reason for a "famous" person who cannot be found on a quick Google search. If one had time, they will conclusively argue that this article could be intended to make a mockery out of Wikipedia.

    I have written some notes to whom I believe are administrators but they have done nothing about it as of yet. AWDRacer (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete - as is article fails WP:BLP. I say weak delete because as per Coren's concern I feel this article would have benefited from input from editors with access to local sources. The article is a biography and according to policy should cite sources. Sting_au Talk 23:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    While I understand that it's an apparent biography of a person, if the so-called biography has no sources whatsoever, any Average joe can place erroneous, misleading, and possibly libellous information on pages. At the same time, this Joe can exaggerate his personal exploits, downplay or deny or withhold his humiliating points. This Joe can also make himself to be much bigger than he really is; while he may be working as a menial job at a firm at the day time, he can write himself as a leading figure of authority who has accomplished much, all with the luxury of having no sources. These claims, thus, must not be accepted if there are no sources. For all we know, the original author of this article could be writing an article about himself.

    If you think an article like this should be allowed, how would you feel if I decided to write an article about you or myself as a person using nothing but baseless claims? In that I could describe myself as a genius; the next Einstein, or a charismatic military leader; the next Napoleon Bonaparte, while I describe you as a lowly henchmen who follows orders, gets humiliated in public before shortly being exiled from the country. I can do that because these are the baseless claims I am talking about with absolutely no evidence of truth within it. While all this information is clearly toward my benefit, I believe Wikipedia has no room for something like this. Once there is evidence that disregards or dismisses that information, I have absolutely nothing to show for it. My concern is that people use Wikipedia to spread misinformation to gain respect which normally would not have been deserved. AWDRacer (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete fails wp:bio with no WP:RS and no way to wp:verify. Pharmboy (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:VERIFY. — Satori Son 16:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Google searches turn up no reliable sources to establish notability, or verify any of the article content. -- Whpq (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 01:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DJ Proper

DJ Proper (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Probable COI; no sources; notability not established; 788 google hits for "dj proper" OSbornarfcontributionatoration 22:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete - no evidence at all of notability. He's just some guy. andy (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:BLP no independent reliable sources referenced - so fails WP:V. MySpace is not a good source. Sting_au Talk 23:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Who? Someone needs to start an article called DJ Pharmboy for me if this stays ;) Pharmboy (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:BAND. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Unsourced, non-notable. — Wenli (reply here) 00:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no source for notability. -Lemonflash(O_o) 00:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, quite literally fails the everything test. RFerreira (talk) 05:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment User:76.79.240.23 Decided to blank this page for some reason, and wanted others to know without having to look up history. He contributed to the article previously. Reverted, gave warning on user page. Pharmboy (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
User:76.79.240.23 made a comment at the top of this page. I've reverted and copied his comment below and given advice/warning on his talk page. andy (talk) 01:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
"this is not fair. dj proper is a notable dj and there is several reliable sources to prove it. he is a producer of offical remixes for black eyed peas/nas and has done established work ( so if you wanna debate it then please explain it to the black eyed peas who had him at their studio with will.i.am and dj motiv8 to produce this song) or go to the many flyers of his production with many platnium artist with him opening and personal working with them .please refer to his website http://djproper.com or to the fact he is sponsered by several large companies for their equipment like EMU<RANE<propellerhead software). he makes a living doing his music and has many flyers,songs, and associations to keep this page outside of myspace...he has a over 10 years of established work ,websites, and it would not be fair to erase this page. so if you wanna erase this page your wrong..because there should be no debate over the work..if you say its not notable to produce music for a platnium band with them at their studio and get paid for it or work 100's of shows with the people listed....then you are just messed up or have no real facts to support your agruement because the work is offical the shows are real and the history is there...so i can prove the realness of the page with offical songs,flyers, and proof of payment for shows and production....so please consider that it be unfair to erase this page"
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 without prejudice to re-creation as a redirect, which I will leave to subsequent editors. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of University of Michigan head football coaches

List of University of Michigan head football coaches (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is covered here. Separate article is not needed. michfan2123 (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete page and Redirect to here. Mh29255 (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant. Already covered properly in Category:Michigan Wolverines football coaches and Template:WolverinesCoach as far as list form goes, and as already stated, the exact same material (that provides more at-a-glance info) is on the Michigan Wolverines football page. I would have nothing against this page existing if it needs to be split off the main article for size reasons anytime in the future. Redirecting for now is acceptable, as this is a likely search term. LaMenta3 (talk) 06:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete useless list. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect as a likely search term Whpq (talk) 17:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you could do it either way, the only reason I created a separate article was because some other schools have them Tigersfan1992 (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 20:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psilofyr

Psilofyr (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Self referencing Fancruft, with no context, real-world content or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside the Greyhawk pantheon, which is in desperate need of cleanup. Gavin Collins (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect into List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. BOZ (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    I'd like to change my vote to Keep or Merge per Robbstrd below. BOZ (talk) 14:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge. If Gavin was truly interested in "cleaning up" these articles, he'd work to improve them, rather than tagging and nominating them for deletion. Then again, perhaps he's more interested in being a dick. Prove us wrong, Gavin--put some effort into making something better for once.--Robbstrd (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I can understand your frustration, but I don't think we need to descend into name-calling. We should assume good faith about Gavin's motivations. Or, failing that, we should at least address the concerns raised instead of attacking the nominator. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 03:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
If you go here, I think you'll get a better understanding of the situation. It isn't so much that Gavin tags & nominates articles for deletion, but that he does it at a rate that no one can keep up with (not to mention that he frequently fails to read the articles & so mistags them). He seems to think Wikipedia is on a time table, which it isn't. Many times he's been asked to take a break so those of us interested in these articles can take the time to review & improve them, but no such luck. It's easy to tag content--if Gavin actually took the time to create/improve some content, many of us would have a more favorable view of him.--Robbstrd (talk) 08:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Gavin is doing great things here by helping clean up Wikipedia. He should be commended for his actions with the biggest possible barnstar Pilotbob (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect - into List of Dungeons & Dragons deities as per BOZ. I am sure I could find enough information to keep this alive as it's own article it really belongs in the list, which itself should be expanded. Plus Gavin has no interest in improving articles, only deleting them. Otherwise he would have contributed something, which he has not. Web Warlock (talk) 02:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge Per Robbstrd, whose comments today are particularly insightful. :) Rray (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, article has no mention of real world notability. Although Gavin.collins may not be improving articles, he is improving Wikipedia by nominating pages like this for deletion. AnteaterZot (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    comment it is mentioned as being one of the 30 best adventures in *this* world. And Improving? I seriously doubt it. Web Warlock (talk) 00:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Without sources, what you say is unverified. We can delete this page, and you can put it back when you find sources. AnteaterZot (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • comment I hate to say it but no-one who has argued 'keep' has proved that it's notable at all. Are the sources WP:RS and in-depth ones about this being in particular? If so, explain and mention them in this AfD for me please. If things don't belong in the wiki it's not wrong to send them to AfD. You might be annoyed because a lot of people don't understand what passes for notability criteria when it comes to sci-fi, games etc. You need to explain it to me, cos I'm a girl and not into these things.:)Merkinsmum 23:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into List of Greyhawk deities. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 03:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This is clearly not notable in the real world. Pilotbob (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge as per WebWarlock. Edward321 (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per GentlemanGhost. This is pretty obscure. Hobit (talk) 04:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This is pretty obscure. Fails WP:N and others. --Jack Merridew 10:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete extremely obscure. Even merging with Myconid entry seems pointless as every monster created for D&D does NOT need its own article. That is what the Monster Manuals are sold for, to get the details on specific monsters. Wikipedia should not remove the need for purchasing those books. For those things in the SRD/OGL then they should be looked up on the appropriate internet sites for those things. I do not feel the entire SRD should be replicated on Wikipedia. shadzar|Talk|contribs 21:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment That is the first sensible comment written by a RPG expert that made any sense about these articles. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
So he's an expert because he agrees with you, while everyone else is a fanatic? BOZ (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, what I want to know is if he understands why this is obscure, but Tiamat isn't. They are light-years apart, but a number of folks (who don't appear to know much about the subject) don't understand the difference. Hobit (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was Merge to Distributed Proofreaders#DP Europe - Peripitus (Talk) 12:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Distributed Proofreaders Europe

Distributed Proofreaders Europe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
  • No assertion of notability made. Advertising. will381796 (talk) 05:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect into Distributed Proofreaders#DP Europe. --A. B. (talk) 13:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit confused as to how this could be considered advertising. Everything stated in the (admittedly rather small) article was factual, and I made no attempt to encourage people to visit or join. Also, DP Europe is a separate entity from the original DP, both in its mission and in its legal status. Combining it with the main DP article implies that it is part of DP, when it is not. If the issue is that there is not enough information, then please mark it as a stub, but don't delete it. If it needs to be "notable" then please explain what needs to be added. Thank you. Dylan38 (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge & redirect as above. Separate articles for subsidiary entities are discouraged per WP:ORG. Dylan38: It's advertising if it is just here to give the organization a presence, without citing reliable and independent sources to demonstrate notability. --Dhartung | Talk 23:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is not a "subsidiary entity" as is explained in the article and by Dylan38, so merging is not appropriate. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Why merge into an article on a separate organisation? Distributed Proofreaders Europe is not part of Distributed Proofreaders, as is explained in the article and in this AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply Well, Distributed Proofreaders Canada is a redirect to the main DP article, and in general, I just don't see how this European satellite organization is notable independantly of DP itself. Thus, it should be covered in the context of the main DP article. --NickPenguin(contribs) 22:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:17, December 23, 2007

[edit] Boys Suck

Boys Suck (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Looks like it fails WP:MUSIC, and is a non-notable band. I couldn't find any reputable third-party sources from searching Google. Also I didn't want to try to speedy, because the "Notable mentions" section looks like an attempt to demonstrate notability. FrankTobia (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete I agree, lots of weak claims (listed a DEMO as their 'cd', jebus...), no sources, no verification, no notability. Pharmboy (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - nn fails WP:MUSIC. Sting_au Talk 01:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete this not-notable band, one of many many many. --Lockley (talk) 07:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - no proper assertion of notability, and fails WP:MUSIC. Could also some more sources, that are reliable. Rt. 18:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN band. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:18, December 23, 2007

[edit] Durindfire

Durindfire (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable offshoot of Starwars, sourced to a wiki. AvruchTalk 22:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - No real-world notability. It belongs on the Star Wars wiki where it came from, not in Wikipedia. -FrankTobia (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to University of North Carolina, his current place of employment. Possibly notable but the very poor state of this article means that leaving it as it is would be a bad idea. Any future article will need way better sourcing. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 20:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scott oliaro

Scott oliaro (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Insufficiently notable college athlete and trainer. "In 1999 Sports Illustrated dubbed him the 42nd best athlete to ever come out of Vermont." That shouldn't be enough to get one into a general reference encyclopedia. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - fails WP:BIO no reliable sources referenced. Sting_au Talk 01:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The (weakly) asserted notability is not sufficient to meet WP:BIO. Maralia (talk) 03:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but dear God, do something more than dump the guy's resume on here. I don't have time to mess with it, but did a quick search on Google and discovered at minimum that Mr. O a) was a record-breaking Ivy League athlete and b) is a published (author? subject matter expert?) on head trauma injury. Will send a note asking for revision by original author, who I HOPE is not Scott Oliaro himself (ahem, WP:COI) ΨνPsinu 21:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Psiun, respect, but I'm not convinced Mr. Olario meets notability. The Google 'author' thing appears to refer to papers rather than books. The '42nd-best-athlete' phrase unfortunately sounds like a joke. --Lockley (talk) 07:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - it does appear that he was a significant college athlete. There is a NY Times article about his record breaking performance. There are also a couple of articles behind pay-to-view walls from the Boston Globe and LA Times. -- Whpq (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I wikified the article somewhat and tried to add the references, but it still needs some cleanup. --NickPenguin(contribs) 21:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. I had to think about this one for a while. He broke one record, and that was pretty much it for him. Is a single-game Ivy League record notable? If it was an SEC record I'd say yeah, but a Division I-AA record I can't say so. Does being a head athletic trainer make him notable, probably not. The two combined? Maybe, it's tough to say. It's a tough call though, I can see both sides of it. I'm fine with it being closed either way. Wizardman 18:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:18, December 23, 2007

[edit] Land of Hypocrisy

Land of Hypocrisy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Apparently non-notable book, and reads like ad copy. — Coren (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, no indication that this book is notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - unable to find any reviews to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete g11, advertising, g12 copyright violation. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wyong Golf Club

Wyong Golf Club (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Appears to have been created entirely for promotional purposes, and does not meet Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete, major copyvio issues and whatever is left is their website repackaged for Wikipedia: blatant advertising. Mr Senseless (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete : blatant advertising/spam. Mh29255 (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn after additional sourcing added to article. Nominator requests early close. Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fish Karma

Fish Karma (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Fails the General notability guideline in WP:N and the specifics in WP:MUSIC. Not at all happy about the copyvio status of this article either - see discussion page - we do not normally simply copy wholesale, even with permission. Springnuts (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator, article now well sourced. Springnuts (talk) 18:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep - As this artists is still active and has releases spanning 15 years and connections to Mojo Nixon & Jello Biafra, Fish Karma does meet the General notability guideline in WP:N and the specifics in WP:MUSIC. I am satisfied with the copyvio status as the material was originally written by this user and is used here with permission.Powerofshark (talk) 22:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:BIO per WP:SOURCES. Sting_au Talk 22:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I haven't decided yet if I think it's salvageable. It relies for sourcing primarily on the website of the record label that handles the artist, which violates WP:V. The notability guidelines require objective evidence. The individual may have two albums on notable independent labels, which would meet WP:MUSIC criteria. Alternative Tentacles Records qualifies. I'm not sure about Deep Shag Records, since it seems to pin its notability at least in part on this (and Harlan Ellison). The other two artists wikilinked within the label site are not helpful, since one of those sources back merely to the label and the other leads to a disambig page which does not seem to contain the band referenced. I'm not convinced of the notability of Deep Shag Records, since WP:MUSIC indicates that a major indie label has been around more than a few years (check) and has "a roster of performers, many of which are notable" (not that the article indicates). The individual does seem to have local notability (See here and this Tuscon paper indicates that "Fish Karma has still had an illustrious career, at least here in the Old Pueblo."), but I haven't been able to find anything beyond local coverage, coverage by the record labels and directory style listings. I look forward to seeing if others have more luck, which may help me make up my mind. *In the interests of full disclosure, I have to reveal that I'm currently leaning "delete". :))--Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you need a little push ;-) I'm still relatively new to Wikipedia. I can understand how the mere promise of reliable references is enough to save an article from speedy delete, but this is an AfD discussion. Shouldn't the article show reliable sources to meet WP:BIO?Sting_au Talk 02:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you make a good point. :D I'll be watching the discussion to see if anybody turns up to whip out reliable sourcing. Sometimes there are dramatic "ta da" moments of 12-page biographies buried in the New York Times, but not that often. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable artist/band. Passes WP:MUSIC with 5 albums, at least some on recognized labels.--Michig (talk) 21:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I've changed my vote as I'm now happy that the article has been reliably sourced. Sting_au Talk 07:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article has now been sourced to show notability of this artist. Well done to those involved. Capitalistroadster (talk) 08:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:18, December 23, 2007

[edit] Jon Jaszczak

Jon Jaszczak (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Per WP:NOTE this article should be deleted. A Google search [5] turned up exactly three results, none of which referenced any of the little information mentioned in the article. SimpleParadox 21:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:18, December 23, 2007

[edit] Northern Line (City branch) Thames crossing

Northern Line (City branch) Thames crossing (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete OK the London Underground is notable; we have articles for many of its stations, but is each stretch of track also worthy of an article? There is a line, this has crossed it. (lame puns intended). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to Theistic Satanism --JForget 01:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Devil Worshipping

Devil Worshipping (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Author removed PROD tag, so here we are. This essay is entirely original research so I redirected it to Theistic Satanism. Author reverted the redirect and added more original research. —Travistalk 21:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: I chose to redirect to Theistic Satanism rather than Satanism because similar redirect Devil worship points to the former. —Travistalk 21:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes I confused it because there was something about that I can freely edit it. But there is no connection in the theistic satanism. In Satan Worshipping the Satanism is only sub category. It includes also all other sciences, Satanism is only studying the Satan thoughts. Satan Worshipping is to give to the Satan worship and love. Describe hes beauty and intelligence. So even the word Theistic is wrong and it have nothing to do about worshipping which is central part of our religion and most important. Satan -ism means Satans thoughts; Satan -worship means hes admiration and worship. Misa666 (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Original research. Tanthalas39 (talk) 22:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect as per above. --uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 00:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, and in the meantime, please stop linking to the page from other articles. This kind of half-baked conspiracy theory guff has no place in Wikipedia. Fuzzypeg☻ 00:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete+redirect. Wizardman 18:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] THC Winter

THC Winter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
  • Delete - Article fails WP:MUSIC Sting_au Talk 20:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article fails WP:MUSIC in that the album and its tracks have not made any ratings or charts that would give them notability. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 21:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article meets WP:MUSIC as, to quote the guideline, "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles..." The band does meet notability guidelines in two areas. --  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 22:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete; may have sufficient notability. Automatic notability is normally only available to very notable bands— otherwise the album but be notable on its own. — Coren (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Salmonella Dub per WP:MUSIC#Albums and songs. — Satori Son 16:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect per Satori Son. --NickPenguin(contribs) 21:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:19, December 23, 2007

[edit] Teamdata wireless

Teamdata wireless (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Per WP:NOTE this article should be deleted. Also may be a violation of WP:SPAM. SimpleParadox 21:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was smoke. east.718 at 00:19, December 23, 2007

[edit] Shwag

Where I come from, "shwag" is just another word for swag, or giveaway items used for promotions. I'm unfamiliar with this definition, and it seems that everyone who has read the Wikipedia article since February 2007 is similarly bemused. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as the initiator of this request, the term is not verifiable by encyclopedia standards. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - as per WP:NEO as not verified. Sting_au Talk 21:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Relatively new term - only used in assoc with marijuana for about 40 years. Google turns up 40k hits when searched for with marijuana. Probably should be spelled with a c in front of the h. Mykej (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    • The newness of a term is not a factor, WP:V using reliable third party sources is. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    • High Times Magazine price lists use the term(although with the c added as noted above). [[6]]. They're about as authoritative as it gets for MJ. Mykej (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Personally I think that leaves us with little more than a dictionary definition but I am interested to see what others may think. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that we need a section in the naming conventions saying that "common names" doesn't mean slang names. Looking in the The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English (ISBN 041525938X) and The A-Z Encyclopedia of Alcohol and Drug Abuse (ISBN 158112404X), that's all that this is: another word for low-quality marijuana, nothing more. We already have articles covering the quality of marijuana. They are cannabis (drug) and cannabis (drug) cultivation. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang. Uncle G (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete A dictionary definition, lacking references. Edison (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, just another dictionary definition and WP:NOT a slang dictionary. RFerreira (talk) 05:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as a term it is not WP:N. GtstrickyTalk or C 17:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, article fails to be much more than a dictionary definition. (jarbarf) (talk) 00:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Kubigula (talk) 03:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zainudin Bin Nordin

Zainudin Bin Nordin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete one of five members of a constituency council, akin to a city council or county supervisor in the U.S., unsourced as well. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - per WP:BLP article as is fails WP:V. Sting_au Talk 21:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think you misunderstand. He is a member of the Singapore national legislature, one of five representing his constituency. This is akin to a congressman in the USA, not a city councillor. I've improved the English in the article to make this clearer and added a source. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as a politician in a national legislature. -- Whpq (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete; except for DGG's, the only keeps arguments put forth center on what else exists. — Coren (talk) 04:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Towns in A Series of Unfortunate Events

Towns in A Series of Unfortunate Events (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sourcing, and as such is just an in-universe plot repetition of story elements from the articles on the Series of Unfortunate Events books. It is thus duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not here to discuss how this page is different from all the other articles you mention. This AfD is for Towns in A Series of Unfortunate Events and I'm not even bothering to look at the other articles. By the way. Is that (because it's no different) your justification for voting to keep? Did you bother to check WP:SOURCE? Sting_au Talk 13:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you want me to go through the books and get a cite for each sentence in the article? I can get you a book title, chapter number, page number, even line number for each sentence. If that doesn't provide the references you so desire, there's really not much else I can do. Clamster 15:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
That is not the primary issue; the main one would be that there isn't anything like a commentary on how this was created, and what the influences were in creating the town, etc. Get about 3 of them and you have multiple reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete nothing more then plot sumaries of non-notable fictional locations. Ridernyc (talk) 04:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The main elements of fiction are plot characters and setting, and any article discussing multiple settings in a important series of works is notable. Not every town in it would be notable enough for an article, but the group article like this is appropriate coverage. There is no consensus whatsoever that secondary sources are needed for material o this sort. DGG (talk) 08:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
So we ignore WP:Plot now? call it want you want it's nothing but plot summaries with no real world context. Ridernyc (talk) 13:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Clearly fails our notability policies and guidelines. Unreferenced, trivial and crufty. Eusebeus (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence of meeting WP:FICTION Secret account 22:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per notability and verifiability (appearances in books, video game, movie, etc.), but possibly rename and expand as Locations in A Series of Unfortunate Events. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
This page is one of five pages which contain information that used to be on a List of Locations in a Series of Unfortunate Events page, but was moved to Towns in A Series of Unfortunate Events, Watercraft in A Series of Unfortunate Events, Geographic locations in A Series of Unfortunate Events, Business locations in A Series of Unfortunate Events, and Houses in A Series of Unfortunate Events after a long discussion on numerous article talk pages and the Lemony Snicket Wikiproject talk page. Clamster 03:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails notability at WP:FICT, has no secondary sources, unnecessary plot repetition. •97198 talk 11:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no claim of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nifty Nine

Nifty Nine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Per WP:NOTE this article should be deleted. SimpleParadox 21:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete This could have fallen under the {{dn-nn}} non-notable speedy. I'm goign to tag it as such. Improbcat (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. —Random832 21:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] West Little Rock

West Little Rock (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete unsourced one-liner about a nn neighborhood in Little Rock. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete despite user:Minopas saying that deleting it makes us stupid. DS (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Worms: Ultimate Destruction

Gives the appearance of a hoax, no sources, probably speculative. Delete per WP:NOT. TeaDrinker (talk) 20:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete not true, however there is a PC worms game in production. (Shadowmoon13 (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC))

I think this should be kept. It is 100% true! (Minopas (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC))

  • Delete as a violation of WP:CBALL, at best. At worst, hoax; only supposed source is a member-only forum. GlassCobra 21:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who is saying delete it, stop it. (Minopas (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC))

Please leave this article alone. I am new here, and all i want to do is be cool. (Minopas (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC))

  • KnowledgeOfSelf looks into his crystal ball and sees a delete in the making KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 21:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete : completely unverifiable per WP:V and possible hoax. Mh29255 (talk) 21:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete junk. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 21:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as well given the major WP:V problems. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable. Say, KnowledgeOfSelf, can you dredge up some lottery numbers in that thing for me? Tony Fox (arf!) 21:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • You'll have to pay me one hundred billion zillion dollars, to get em out of me. ;) KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 21:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Anyone who thinks this should be deleted is stupid. (Minopas (talk) 07:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC))
  • Comment Closest thing i can find to this article is this (Shadowmoon13 (talk) 09:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC))
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.   jj137 ♠ 02:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sony Ericsson T650

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Sony Ericsson T650 Articles for deletion/Sony Ericsson T650 (2nd nomination)
Sony Ericsson T650 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete This was deleted before on mixed POV & notability grounds, from this one-liner, I'll assume POV has been dealt with, so is it still worth keeping? IMHO, no. Even if this were sourced, not each model of each consumer product is notable - go your average Wal-Mart, Tesco, or local equivalent and there will be 10's of thousands of UPC's not each of them is notable even if they do sell a lot of the gizmos. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a catalog of every cel phone. Come back when it has multiple substantial references from reliable and inedpendent sources and is not an unreferenced oneliner. Edison (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regnart Elementary School

Regnart Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete nn elementary school. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. I've stuck a speedy tag on it. Michaelbusch (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom: article is completely non-notable per WP:N. Mh29255 (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. elementary schools are not generally notable and this one-line sub-stub doesn't make a case for this being an exception.Capitalistroadster (talk) 08:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, rename, stubify. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 17:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jews in Apostasy

Jews in Apostasy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Note, this article has been moved to:

Jews in apostasy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

This article, tagged for neutrality since April of 2007, provided only a single general reference - and "reference" links to to Wikipedia articles. There is no evidence that such a thing as 'Jews in Apostasy' even exists. Some of this information, if it can be cited, might be useful in an Apostasy disambig page - but I think the article establishes, if nothing else, that the world 'Apostasy' is not used in Judaism. AvruchTalk 20:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Avruch: Of course the English word "apostasy" is not a Hebrew word, but the translation of the word "apostate" is very much a word that's part of classical Judaism. Usually, a Jew who converts to another religion that Judaism terms an apostate, in Hebrew that would be meshumad as he has undergone shmad. One who denies God's existence is an apikores, a min, or mumar -- variances of this idea of "apostasy." These are very complex yet very solid issues that cannot be brushed away. The notions of "apostasy" and "heresy" in Judaism are very real. Wikipedia is not here to judge matters of theologies based on "popular usage" and you are therefore urged to withdraw your nomination since it is based on an entirely faulty assertion. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 03:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I've read the Jewish Encyclopedia article you reference (which is not listed as a reference in the article), and it reads like something we would delete pretty quickly if it were a Wikipedia article. Even its own rating gives the article a 2.75 out of 5. If there is no common usage of the term 'Apostasy' then it is considered original research to have an article under that name rather than the words actually used. AvruchTalk 11:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
There is no question that the JE is the most notable and reliable of sources, nor that anything that is notable enough for it is notable enough here. Lobojo (talk) 11:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Huh? Having read the article about Apostasy, I question whether your statement 'most...reliable of sources' is true. Aside from the inherent issue of a tertiary source quoting a tertiary source, it suffers from an extreme tone problem and is apparently written from a very strongly held point of view. This doesn't necessarily bar it as a reference, but when it is the ONLY reference? AvruchTalk 11:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Avruch: You are also overlooking the fact that the article was created over three years ago when many such articles were started from scratch by being cut-and-pasted from the JE by some WP Judaic editors to get the ball rolling on Wikipedia and then presented for further editing (it still happens.) Again, I repeat that, since I have never cut-and-paste anything from the JE, the article was part of another longer WP article and because of space issues it was put here by me (something that happens on WP.) The fact that it was primarily derived from the JE should not be disparaged because at the JE it was created as a group effort of many scholars many of whom were not even particularly observant of Judaism but were nevertheless recognized as academic scholars in the field, so your critique is off the mark. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 01:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable & unverified article per WP:N and WP:V. Mh29255 (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - seems to survive WP:N the reference and an external link to the Jewish Encyclopedia seem reliable. I did have WP:NOR concerns but I consider this article worthy of inclusion here. A good clean up, footnotes etc. Sting_au Talk 22:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Mh29255. The reference is an encyclopedia article about Spanish crypto-Jews, not apostates. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC) Weak keep and rename It wasn't at all clear that the Jewish Encyclopedia was a source. I've corrected that. There's potential for an article about Apostasy in Judaism. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
comment You are looking at the wrong reference. There are two JE references in the article including a reference to APOSTASY AND APOSTATES FROM JUDAISM. Jon513 (talk) 13:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, he was looking at the references correctly. The Apostasy article from JE was an external link, not a reference (inaccurately so). AvruchTalk 19:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I was looking at the only reference. I fixed the article to indicate that the Jewish Encyclopedia article on "Apostasy and Apostates" was also a source. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Rename A simple Google search establishes that the current title is not a common phrasing. However, the words "mumar", "meshumad", etc seem to be the standard/notable words in describing Jews who converted. See [7] on naming issue Joshdboz (talk) 23:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep because this article is based on the Jewish Encyclopedia article about APOSTASY AND APOSTATES FROM JUDAISM: so it is notable and well sourced, and the claim that it "only" links to articles in Wikipedia is not true. This is solid Jewish Encyclopedia material, that should actually be expanded and not hounded for deletion simply because the notion does not sit will with some folks. As far as I can recall, all the material in this article was once part of the very long Jew article (it might have been part of another article, as I can recall setting it up as a spin off due to the length of another article -- it has been three years, so I do not recall exactly), and when that article became too long and cumbersome parts of it were split up. At any rate, the article is about a valid and key concept and subject in Judaism (regardless if Jews know about it or do or don't use it) and there is absolutely no reason for this nomination that makes no sense. IZAK (talk) 03:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK (talk) 03:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - When a user like IZAK creates an article, it takes a bold person to nominate it for AfD, and that is for good reason. Why would he create an article if it was not on something notable? He knows all the rules, and works for wikipedias best interest. But mainly it is clearly a notable topic, it was in the Jewish Encyclopedia, though I am not sure that the A in Apostasy should be capital. Lobojo (talk) 04:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Lobojo, while I truly appreciate the praise, the truth is, as I have stated, that this article is basically from the Jewish Encyclopedia and I did not "create it" I simply moved it from another article that it was attached to, and since this was over three years ago, I can't remember exactly which one, but I think it was the Jew article. Anyhow, the topic of the article is more than notable and well-sourced because it's mostly from the Jewish Encyclopedia. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 06:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: should this article be merged with Heresy in Orthodox Judaism or is there a distinction? --MPerel 05:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Hi Miri. The answer to your question is: No, because the notion of "apostasy" is part of Judaism long before the labels of Orthodox, Reform, Conservative come along. Just look at the Jewish Encyclopedia article APOSTASY AND APOSTATES FROM JUDAISM:, and you will see that this subject is not the "property" of Orthodox Judaism, it is part of the history and practice of Judaism for thousands of years. And it should not be made to look like some sort of "irrelevant" subject. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 06:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I wonder if that article should be merged into this one then. What do you think? The bulk of the heresy article seems to talk about apikoros and mumar, which overlaps with this article. There's basically only one sentence in the heresy article about the modern movements, just to say that Orthodox Judaism views the other movements as heretical. --MPerel 07:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Note: Now I see that that someone has created a Minuth article, so soon we will have to have a "series" with a template to match. See: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Apostasy & Heresy & Minuth. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 06:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep though the title should be changed to something more idiomatic in English. This is different from heresy. There is some overlap, in the sense that if one is sufficiently heretical one is no longer a Jew. But in modern use at least the concepts are very different.DGG (talk) 08:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Hi DGG, see my response [8] to User:Miri, above. Thanks. IZAK (talk) 09:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep given that the Jewish Encyclopedia is a reliable source. Capitalistroadster (talk) 10:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Jewish Encyclopedia is enough for a keep. Bhaktivinode (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • weak keep The article overlaps with Heresy in Orthodox Judaism a bit too much and the distinction is not well defined, but AFD is the not place to establish order on a series of article. I hope that these articles can be merged or renamed to cover the subject better. Jon513 (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and merge First, the concept of heresy in Orthodox Judaism has many grey areas but also has plenty of reliable sources available discussing it. Second, "apostasy" may not be the best article term for current usage. Given that other editors have pointed out several other articles which have substantial overlap and which could probably be merged, I believe the issue of the appropriate article name should be discussed as part of a merge discussion including Heresy in Orthodox Judaism and Minuth. Note that Apikorus redirects to Heresy in Orthodox Judaism. I agree the concept here is principally one within Orthodox Judaism and should be clearly described as such, rather than ascribed to Judaism generally. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Egfrank has pointed out below that Reform Judaism also has boundary issues and related questions about the limits of Judaism, different from Orthodox Judaism, which include matters such as interfaith syncretizations in contemporary society. For this reason, discussion may result in a broader article which is not limited to Orthodox Judaism. However, my recommendation that this AfD result in a keep and a separate merge discussion address how to combine the overlapping articles still stands. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per IZAK. Culturalrevival (talk) 05:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Although this topic is notable and deserves an article, there are serious long standing problems with this article and the article Heresy in Orthodox Judaism with which a merger has been proposed. None has (yet) committed to dealing with them, not even among those here defending the article. If someone is willing to commit to dealing with these issues, then my recommendation would change to Keep, merge, rename to "Apostasy in Judaism".
  1. WP:SYNTH - the article defines apostasy very differently from the JE article from which it is allegedly sourced. The JE article defines apostasy as "rebellion", makes no claims of denominational ownership and takes a historical approach to its changing significance in the Jewish world. Apostasy in Judaism defines apostasy as an orthodox only term, narrows the definition to adoption of a second religion and makes no acknowledgment of changing perceptions over time.
  2. WP:V - apostasy (more politely called "converting out" or sometimes "secularism"[9]) is a deep concern of all religious streams of Judaism yet both articles present this as exclusively an orthodox issue and provide no citations to support this denominational exclusivity. Nor could they: all of the material in Jews in Apostasy predates the denominational splits within Judaism and ample material exists indicating that this is not an exclusive orthodox issue. In 2004 the US Reform movement lodged formal protests against Presbyterian funding of missionary activities targeted at Jews[10]. The conservative movement publishes counter missionary materials on its website[11]. In fact one of the guiding motives behind the 19th century Jewish religious reformers whose thought spurred the creation of today's non-orthodox Judaisms was the desire to fight against apostasy - Jews converting to Christianity because they saw it as a purer more modern religion or because they simply found being a Christian more convenient.[12] See also Meyer, Response to Modernity pp 44, 65, 68, 97, 204.
  3. WP:NPOV - this rule requires that all points of view be represented yet there has been no significant editorial effort in that direction. There is no way that an encyclopedia article written in 1906 can adequately cover a topic that continues to be of deep concern to the Jewish people. RAMBI has 427 (academic quality) sources listed[13] almost all of which were written after the JE article. They approach this issue from almost every point of view and academic discipline imaginable: psychology, sociology, social commentary, theology, halakhah, ethics, history, among others. A lot of social and historical water has passed under the bridge since 1906 and much of it has significantly affected the attitudes towards apostasy and heresy. Among them: the holocaust; Jewish-Arab tensions; the rise of Jewish denominationalism; the increasing acceptance of the belief that religion is a personal choice rather than a biological identity; the development of hybrid religions such as Judaism+Buddhism, Judaism+Native American Spirituality and Judaism+Christianity; and the increasing acceptance of secularized forms of Judaism. Egfrank (talk) 08:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Points 2 and 3 in particular could be copied helpfully to the article Talk page. HG | Talk 00:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: I agree that both (a) The article has received unsourced edits which have caused its contents to veer from its cited source, and (b) the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, while a reliable source, is only one opinion in a subject where there are multiple opinions, and this is one of many areas where what it has to say is rather dated. However, AfD concerns subjects rather than articles, so the question is whether a reliable article on this subject is possible, not whether the current article content meets this goal. Bad articles can be improved. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 18:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Bad articles can be improved - in fact, they ought to be either improved or deleted. It doesn't appear that anyone has taken the initiative (including a keep voter, IZAK, the author) to improve it beyond its sorry state. AvruchTalk 18:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
See WP:DEL#REASON and the listed bases for deleting an article. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 04:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
"Include, but not limited to..." It probably should also list "Crap, not otherwise classified" but this fails for more than just that, as you see in above discussion. Avruch talk 15:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
On religious matters sources, as you noted, can be opinionated. I think there's a difference between deleting an article as crap because it isn't notable, sourcable, etc., and deleting an article as crap because an editor doesn't like what the sources have to say. I say this as a person who is not a big fan of the Jewish Encyclopedia, has often found its views opinionated and outdated, and has sometimes inserted "According to the editors of the Jewish Encyclopeda" into articles to avoid presenting their opinions as fact. But on many matters it provides reliable information and the viewpoint it offers is generally a signficant one. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Can we at least agree that "apostasy should not be capitalized? Click on that link to see how it's used in the article. I requested a non-controversial move at wp:requested moves and I think it's fairly clear. The title seems to be capitalized the way it is because of previous edit conflicts between Apostasy in Judaism and Jews in apostasy.
Oh, and in response to Avruch, editors my be awaiting a resolution of this discussion before spending time and energy improving an article that's been nominated for deletion.--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps - but it isn't a new article, and its been tagged for cleanup since May of 2006. AvruchTalk 19:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, keep is my vote. I have a little problem with one encyclopedia using another encyclopedia as a source, but the fact that JE has an article on the subject shows that it's notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Since the article seems to deal more directly with Jews who are or were in apostasy than the concept of Apostasy in Judaism, I think the article is best kept under its current title (with the exception of downcasing "apostasy", which I believe is uncontroversial).(refactored for clarity) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
On further reflection, I think that "Apostasy in Judaism" seems like a more elegant solution to namind, but would require a rewrite of the article so it focuses on the concept rather than the people associated with it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but rename, perhaps as per User:Malik Shabazz. StaticElectric (talk) 05:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but rename because the emphasis of the article should be on apostasy, its various types and historical manifestations. While it may be helpful to mention notable individuals, esp those who shed new light on the subject matter, the specific Jews (or former Jews) can mostly be covered in bio articles and listed in the See Also or by category. I might lean toward "Apostasy and Judaism" insofar at it's a more flexible scope than "Apostasy in Judaism," but either is fine. Thanks. HG | Talk 17:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Wanted to add that apostasy and heresy are quite different. Apostasy means abandoning the religion. Conversely, heresy means attempting to 'keep the religion, except that some authorities reject the attempt as too far afield. Apostates are typically self-identifying, even if they don't use the word apostate. Conversely, heretics typically do not self-identify as heretics, because they still consider themselves within the fold. In rabbinic discourse, moreover, there are terms for various types of non-believers and non-observant Jews, who are not quite apostates or heretics. Hope this is useful. HG | Talk 18:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Note. Has anybody mentioned that this article is set up as the spin-out from Apostasy#In_Judaism? As such, most of the AfD deletion arguments, as given above, don't seem plausible or applicable. In addition, the summary style arrangement does indicate the need for an appropriate rename. Thanks. HG | Talk 18:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flippin' Flapjacks

Flippin' Flapjacks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I couldn't find a single website confirming the existence of this band. The names sound fake so this might be a hoax, but even if it does exist I don't see WP:BAND being satisfied anyway. shoeofdeath (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete - but, since this is here: It fails WP:BAND and WP:V. Jauerback (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete : no references per WP:V and possible hoax. Mh29255 (talk) 21:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete even if not a hoax the WP:V problem is outstanding. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Unreferenced, unverifiable article that fails WP:BAND. — Wenli (reply here) 00:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, fails the everything test. RFerreira (talk) 05:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirected, feel free to merge usuable content. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 22:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allison incident

Allison incident (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
  • Delete as unnecessary fork from Nanking Massacre Mayalld (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    • When reading the Nanking Massacre article, we see that it is an article about a war atrocity, about rape and murder against innocent civilians. Even though the Allison incident happened at the same time in the same city, it has nothing to do with the crimes committed in the massacre because it is an incident on a diplomatic level, not a crime against humanity. The two are interesting because of completely different reasons. When looking at the Massacre article, I don't see a place where the Allison incident would fit properly. When reading about atrocities like rape and murder you don't expect to suddenly be reading about some American diplomat being punched in the face. Baskwaadgras (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • This does look like something that could be included in the main article just fine; it's short and not terribly detailed. Merge back to Nanking Massacre - perhaps it could be placed in the first few paragraphs under "Atrocities begin," with the mention of the Safety Zone, as an indication of how foreign officials were treated? Tony Fox (arf!) 21:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Would Nanking Safety Zone possibly be a better merge target? —Quasirandom (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Properly, John M. Allison would be the best merge target. He was a career diplomat and eventually US Ambassador to Japan under Eisenhower.[14] I do think this is notable enough, as it was the aspect that most affected US-Japan relations (given the perspective of the time). --Dhartung | Talk 22:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that if this is to be merged, it should be with John M. Allison: that article is short, too. Baskwaadgras (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to John M. Allison. Edward321 (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect per Edward321. --NickPenguin(contribs) 21:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete.   jj137 ♠ 02:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phil Mims

Phil Mims (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unsourced, no credible assertion of notability, tagged for cleanup since October of 2006. This article stats that Mims founded the company 'Excel Communications' but the wikilinked article on that company lists someone else as the founder, and the company Excel (now defunt) is itself of highly questionable notability. Additionaly, the tone of this article is far from being encyclopedic. All told (notability, quality of writing, lack of references) argue for its deletion, IMHO. AvruchTalk 20:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator. Although Mims has lots of Google hits, most if not all are promotional in tone, with little or no true notability underneath. --Lockley (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was keep per WP:HEY reasoning. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 08:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. Monk and the Man Who Shot Santa

Mr. Monk and the Man Who Shot Santa (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
  • Delete the series is notable, not every episode is. This isn't.` Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect to List of Monk episodes per WP:EPISODE. I checked a couple of Monk episodes, and they all suffer the same problem of non-established notability, hence a major episode merge/redirect discussion might come up soon anyway. – sgeureka t•c 20:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Much as I love Monk and the others, articles about individual episodes of a TV show are a holdover from Wikipedia's start-up days, and are available on other websites. Mandsford (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • "Don't Delete" The article has been expanded and if anyone is interested I will expand it more. However, I do see the wisdom of the other users who commented. So I am alright with deletion, but I would like to see it stay and be expanded. Rollo Bay 1758 (talk) 03:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • You just expanded the plot, which is actually working against WP:NOT#PLOT. To be kept, this article needs to establish notability, which is usually done by having a sourced production section and a reception section. – sgeureka t•c 10:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and, per sgeureka, consider a wider redirect of the other episodes since there is a general failure to assert real-world notability. Eusebeus (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This episode was reviewed by IGN[15]. I still don't understand how a show can be notable but its episodes (which comprise the show) not be notable. The show is nothing but episodes. --Pixelface (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, My Mother the Car was a highly notable TV show. Its individual episodes, not so much. Of course, that has nothing to do with Monk, whose episodes are each individually viewed by millions and reviewed by multiple critics. Personally, I don't understand how an episode watched by 4.5 million viewers on its first showing is not notable. DHowell (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unlikely search term so no redirect is needed. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per significant coverage in multiple reliable sources: Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Chicago Daily Herald, CinemaBlend, and BuddyTV. DHowell (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Even stronger keep now that I've improved the article by adding sources and sourced information. DHowell (talk) 02:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as a non notable episode. All we have is a plot summary and some cut and paste TV Guide reviews. No indication of any non trivial coverage. Nuttah (talk) 13:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems to be a notable Christmas special for this show, and there are some citations to support this. --NickPenguin(contribs) 21:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 01:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accordance

Accordance (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Notability is not asserted from reliable sources. Flex (talk/contribs) 20:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete : article about a specific product contains unverifiable information per WP:V. Further, references contained within the article are primarily to the product manufacturer's website and may be an advertisement or spam. Mh29255 (talk) 20:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep : article has been sufficiently edited to be more notable than before. Mh29255 (talk) 03:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep -- using Google News' archive search, I found several dozen relevant articles and reviews from publications that meet the reliable source requirements. --A. B. (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Question: Can you specify which ones count as reliable sources that are not more than passing references or product announcements? I read the MacWorld, Macsimum, and MacNN references listed in your search, and none that I saw provided significant coverage (cf. WP:N). They're just product announcements (the MacWorld "review" is really just stating that Accordance is now OS X native and offers some quotes from the developer). --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- A. B. (talk) 01:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. —Fayenatic (talk) 13:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I thought I had de-spammed this sufficiently after it had been expanded by a user who had a conflict of interest. The Reviews section provides links to independent sources, and I thought these were sufficiently reliable, e.g. Society of Biblical Literature. The links to Reviews on the manufacturer's site are verifiable too. Please give me guidance if it needs more. My only interest is as a user of this product. It is a market leader, see e.g. SBL link above and Christian Mac Users Group. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: The things that flagged it in my mind were the lack of references to third-party sources. All of the references and inline notes are to the Accordance website, which makes it still rather spammy. It wasn't clear to me that the list of reviews were published reliable sources rather than just some user's opinion on the net. For instance, the SBL review is in the "SBL Forum". Is that an internet forum or something more reliable (e.g., can we be reasonably sure the author is who he claims to be?)? The review in MacWorld is pretty old in computer years, not to mention brief -- they give the same amount of space to Marine Aquarium 2.0, which doesn't seem to have or deserve its own article. In other words, a brief review of features in MacWorld is certainly a reliable source, but it doesn't constitute significant coverage (cf. WP:N). --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
      Reply about SBL: The Society of Biblical Literature has its own article here. Its own home page says is the oldest and largest international scholarly membership organization in the field of biblical studies, founded in 1880. Sounds like a Reliable Source to me. I've rearranged the Reviews section to include a link to the SBL article. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
      Comment: My question wasn't about the reliability of the SBL. I am familiar with it, and it of course constitutes a reliable source in general. My concern was about the "Forum" part of their website, but I see now that it is "the online newsletter of the Society of Biblical Literature. It features essays, interviews, and up-to-date news of general and professional interest to SBL members. Its mission is to provide short, useful articles to inform, educate, and address the professional needs of biblical scholars, as well as those interested in biblical studies." Certainly that is a good source, and it would be best to have it as a reference rather than just an external link (cf. WP:EL). --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment looking a little closer at the results, here's how it looks to me:
Add it altogether with the observation made above that this is the dominant package for the Mac and I think this software is notable per the primary criterion section of the Notability Guideline for Organizations and Companies. --A. B. (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: None of the Mac magazine articles contain anything but a basic feature list. That is not significant coverage (cf. WP:N). I can't see the pay-only abstracts (which are really the first few paragraphs, not abstracts summarizing the entire content of the article). Does anyone have access? The "no bylines" are little different than the Mac magazine "articles" in content or length, and neither qualifies as significant coverage IMO. I commented above on the reviews listed in the article itself, and my concerns have not been addressed yet. The reviews listed on the Accordance website show the most promise for answering the problems here (note, however, that the links they supply go to [apparently edited] versions of the reviews hosted on their own website, which is unacceptable as a reliable source for our purposes here -- we need the originals). Is someone willing to go through them and source this article so it is clearly notable and verifiable? --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
--A. B. (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, note that the notability guidelines used to require at least one instance of in-depth coverage for a topic to be notable; that's been expanded to allow for multiple less-than-in-depth (but more than trivial) secondary sources:
    • "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability."
--A. B. (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Right. Until now, I haven't seen anything but trivial coverage (e.g. a brief feature list in the Mac mags) except in unreliable places. --Flex (talk/contribs) 22:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Those links are better. I'd still like confirmation that the "SBL Forum" is not an internet forum. Also, the CW links are from 2002, which is relatively old in computer land. --Flex (talk/contribs) 22:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
See my reply above re SBL. SBL forum is not an internet forum. - Fayenatic (talk) 11:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep sufficient reviews to show notability.DGG (talk) 08:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are enough sources to warrant retention of the article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 08:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Revised - Keep: User:Fayenatic london has done a good job of adding sources to make it verifiable and clearly notable (though certainly more work could still be done). --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 01:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] J. Alan Groves

J. Alan Groves (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No documentation of notability, and I couldn't find any by searching. Flex (talk/contribs) 20:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep - Multiple mentions when I searched for his name using Google Scholar. Less compelling are a couple of things found with Google News: a small town newspaper's profile and a 351-word obit in the Philadelphia Inquirer. Beyond that, I think the computer work he did is significant, I found hundreds of mentions using Google Scholar when I searched for Groves Wheeler Morphology. --A. B. (talk)
    • Question: What do you think of creating an article for the Hebrew Morphology he helped create? That is what seems to be notable, not the man. --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Response -- I'm open to this, however I think we need to see where this AfD goes. I don't know whether we're talking about a common article or two separate articles. Also, so much of the stuff I found with Google Scholar I either don't understand or is unaccessible to me behind paywalls, so someone more knowledgeable would need to write it up --perhaps a theologian or even a linguist. I'm thinking of seeking help with this and I am leaving you a note on your talk page about this. --A. B. (talk) 14:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions, list of Academics and educators-related deletions, and list of Social science-related deletions. A notice has also been left on the WikiProject Linguistics talk page --A. B. (talk) 14:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Full professor at a leading mainstream theological school; the extent of the citation in GS show that he is a hghly respected scholar . DGG (talk) 03:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: But the article has no independent sources vouching for the man's notability. It seems clear to me that the Groves-Wheeler Hebrew Morphology is influential and deserves coverage, but I don't see enough verifiable material to cover than man himself. The results on Google Scholar include one review by Groves of a database of Biblical texts, but, AFAICT (and I can't see the ones behind the pay wall), the rest are mainly thanks and acknowledgments in others' scholarly works or passing references to his morphology. These don't qualify him as notable, and neither does merely being a professor at a seminary. --Flex (talk/contribs) 15:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). I think in combination with DGG's comment, this pretty much cinches this one. --A. B. (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
        • PS, Having said that, I suggest keeping the AfD open for now in case there's any more discussion of Flex' idea about an article on Groves' morphology. I tried to cast a wide net via deletion sorting lists and (neutral) Wikiproject notices looking for help. --A. B. (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I think the last paragraph under WP:PROF#Criteria and the section WP:PROF#Caveats apply here (at least, I haven't seen anything to the contrary yet). Thus, I suggest we create Groves-Wheeler morphology and have a (verifiable) bit about Groves and Wheeler in there. --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the sources already in the article, while they did not establish notability, are reliable for the purposes of building an article. --A. B. (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed, and I still think my previous suggestion is the best course of action. --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:21, December 23, 2007

[edit] Joseph Imre

Joseph Imre (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete nothing notable about this individual. Fails WP:BIO. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedy delete, per criteria G4. The article is sufficiently similar to the previous version; previous AfD's concerns have not been addressed. Marasmusine (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grey School of Wizardry

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Grey School of Wizardry Articles for deletion/Grey School of Wizardry (2nd nomination)
Grey School of Wizardry (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Has no references as to notability and only has one link to a website of the same name. Should check for a violation of WP:COI and seems to be WP:SPAM. SimpleParadox 20:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. and previous AfD. Shouldn't this be a speedy G4? JohnCD (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per {{template:db-repost}}. Ra2007 (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete and so tagged. Jauerback (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep - non-admin closure - Peripitus (Talk) 12:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enterprise relationship management

Enterprise relationship management (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article appears to be little more than spam for TechnologyPartnerz.com Thalter (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep, valid term and sourcing. The spam part is the "Velox ERM" section and the external links. --Dhartung | Talk 22:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as I agree with Thalter, this is thinly dressed spam. It is also a non-notable neogolism, and should be consigned to the trash can along with Marketing relationship management, Enterprise relationship network and Enterprise management systems etc. etc. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - valid term, real phenomenon, properly sourced. If one doesn't approve of annoying business-speak, that's a gripe with society, not the wikipedia articles that describe society. Wikidemo (talk) 17:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The article is in just terrible shape, but this seems to be a real thing, with sources. The article should be cleaned up, not deleted. --NickPenguin(contribs) 23:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:21, December 23, 2007

[edit] Lexington-class fleet carrier

Lexington-class fleet carrier (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fictional starship with no out-of-universe information and no secondary sources to establish real-world notability. The article is little more than a list of statistics not suitable for merging. Pagrashtak 19:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination, and for failure to show notability per WP:N and for failure to satisfy WP:FICTION. Per the article talk page, much of the detail comes from fans and thus appears to fail WP:V as well. (edited)Edison (talk) 01:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete: In-universe article with absolutely no assertion of real life notability.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Ten "keeps" in one hour is clearly a snowball keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quackery

Quackery (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Inherently POV —Whig (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep If there are POV issues with the article, then by all means correct them, but it seems that the subject matter is notable enough and sources are plenty. Needs work, not deletion. Pharmboy (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or change to more modern name, such as Medical fraud (currently redirects to this article). But do not delete! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: If every article that had some POV issues were to be summarily deleted, there would not be much of a Wikipedia left. Correct the issue, do not delete. --SimpleParadox 19:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Srong Keep - Article has one small POV issue in that the section "Notable historical persons accused of quackery" has grown to large and bloated. Otherwise article is well written and sourced appropriately. I do not believe this article should be deleted because of an easily fixable issue. Elhector (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Easily satisfies WP:N. "Inherently POV" is not a deletion criteria, per Wikipedia:Content forking#Articles whose subject is a POV. Given the nominator's history, this is probably a WP:POINTed nomination. Fireplace (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. That such an obviously notable topic could be nominated for deletion stretches the limits of WP:AGF. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Srong Keep - This is ridiculous. Notable, interesting and useful. And I believe this violates Whig's probation terms. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as an obviously notable topic (borderline speedy or WP:SNOW). Nominating this article, with the rationale "Inherently POV", speaks to either a profound misunderstanding of WP:NPOV or bad faith. A combination of the two cannot be entirely excluded. MastCell Talk 19:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Per everyone else here. Quacks would love for people to think that quackery is a point of view issue, but it just isn't. Rray (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, per WP:SNOW, and no reasons presented considered to be reasons for deletion. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] Rushville Consolidated High School

The result was SPEEDY KEEP due to more information being added to the page. Final vote tally was 10/1/0 Thanks to everyone who participated. Dustihowe  Talk  18:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Rushville Consolidated High School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

There is simply no information in this article, this article is unimportant to Wikipedia. I thought maybe it would be useful when I created the article, but now it looks like we should just delete this article. Dustihowe  Talk  18:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment - You are the only user that has made substantial edits to the article. Unless anyone makes substantial changes to the page, you can request speedy deletion by adding {{db-author}}. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Speedy deletion seems to be being contested, and high school article deletion is controversial so I suggest you let the AFD continue. I do however disagree with the reason given for removal of the speedy tag added, as adding templates is not making substantial contributions to the page, and been put at AFD earlier by the author does not disqualify an article from this criteria. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep High Schools are given a pass for notability, while middle/primary are not. It is SOP to allow all high schools. Pharmboy (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Where have we determined that high schools are given a pass for notability? Nothing here to establish notability per WP:N other than the assumption that secondary educational facilities are inherently notable, which is a contentious issue. Eusebeus (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    • How about in the official policy where it says "High schools/secondary schools (all jurisdictions) are considered inherently notable.". This should be a SPEEDY KEEP, purely out of policy. Pharmboy (talk) 23:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment: It's not a policy and it's not even a guideline yet. It is one of two proposals under discussion for a guideline. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep seeing that over 1,000 are currently in attendance I find it rather humorous that someone finds this not passing some imaginary line for notability. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Some quick research indicates that this school used to be known simply as Rushville High School. I just thought I should leave a note for anyone who wants to look into this place. I'm poking around on Newsbank at the moment. Zagalejo^^^ 21:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I added a little bit of info. The school was associated with a high-profile court case regarding random student drug tests. Zagalejo^^^ 21:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:SCHOOL where we have indeed determined that high schools are given a pass for notability -- Masterzora (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Not really. The notability guideline proposal is only under discussion, there are at least two options under discussion of which only one suggests all high schools are notable, and there's a good chance neither option will pass. Schools fall under the same WP:NPOV, V and OR inclusion policies that all articles do. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Improvements are been made, so speedy deletion per original author request cannot apply any more. Article now contains some independent and reliable resources, and a search also suggests more can be added, combined I think this article can/does pass WP:N. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Secondary schools tend to be notable, and this one's policy of random drug testing and the related Todd v. Rush County court case generated plenty of coverage.[34] [35] • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Above and beyond the strong consensus of notability for high schools established over hundreds of AfDs demonstrating a clear consensus for retention, the reliable and verifiable sources provided here -- particularly those related to setting standards on school drug testing policies -- satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep sources have been added to establish notability more clearly. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep in light of recent sources discovered, the subject is evidently notable. RFerreira (talk) 05:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Now that there is more info on this school, I would like the article to be kept. Dustihowe  Talk  18:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Hut 8.5 18:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scotch (band)

Scotch (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, no good sources, nothing special. Delete Metal Head (talk) 18:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep I found http://swisscharts.com/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Scotch pretty quickly, which would mean they are likely notable and the article just needs a lot of work, which doesn't qualify for afd. Pharmboy (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep While not a particularly well written article, there are ample sources on the Internet referring to the band "Scotch", including commercial sites where the band's music can be purchased. Mh29255 (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notability presumed as they have charted multiple songs (well, at least 2) on a national chart per WP:MUSIC. Xymmax (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: I have compiled top-10 singles and album information from a number of related websites and table-fied them with references. This goes partway toward establishing notability. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 06:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 06:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:21, December 23, 2007

[edit] Ammon Johns

Ammon Johns (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:BIO, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created by the Subject of the article (Ammon Johns)[36], Black Knight UK (talk · contribs). Has a few links but they seem to be self published or 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. Self-promotion is not the route to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete: Per Hu12's comprehensive reasoning. --SimpleParadox 18:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unable to find unaffiliated sources to establish notability. Xymmax (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. BLACKKITE 00:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transportation on the Isle of Wight

Transportation on the Isle of Wight (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Doesn't this pretty much make the article a how to guide? Pharmboy (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • What task is it giving you step-by-step instructions in performing? Uncle G (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment How to get there and how to get around once you are there. It may be worthwhile in WikiTravel or as a subsection in an article about the Island itself, but the entire article is how to get there by sea, rail, bus, etc. Pharmboy (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
      • No it isn't. There are no step-by-step guides on how to get there in the entire article. The article contains no recipes, tutorials, manuals, walk-throughs, or other how-to information. Uncle G (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
        • WP:NOT#HOWTO doesn't use the phrase "step by step" so I guess it is a matter of interpretation, as the purpose of the article is 'how to get to and around' the place. A less confrontational tone would also be appreciated. Pharmboy (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
          • No, the purpose of the article is not "how to get around the place". It's an article about transportation on the Isle of Wight. And the policy gives you the very same list of things that I've just stated, none of which, as I have said, are in the article. This isn't a matter of interpretation. This is a matter of this article being nothing like what the policy is addressing at all. And asking a question and contradicting a statement is not confrontational. It is discussion, which is what this discussion sub-page is for. Uncle G (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
            • Comment It appears you and I define lots of things differently. So were you saying KEEP? I didn't see a vote. Pharmboy (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with main Isle of Wight article as separate "Transportation" section. Mh29255 (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Retain: this is a useful article which contains plenty of encyclopaedic information - and admittedly a bit of buscruft as well. I can see the case Pharmboy makes but I consider that the problem with the article is that it needs editing, not deleting. There is a very active community of Island Wikipedians so I suggest we give this brand-new article a little while to be edited and see how it settles in. Naturenet | Talk 19:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong Retain It was the consensus of discussion at the Isle of Wight talk page that this material should be spun out into its own subsiduary article. And so it was. It is new, and has a few rough edges still, but a lot can be done to improve this, such as discussing the history of transport on the Island (the history of the railways and ship transport etc is substantial and interesting). We are developing a family of strong articles about the Isle of Wight, and the main Isle of Wight page should be a clear and succinct summary of Island information. Other aspects of interest such as the culture, history, towns, transport, residents etc are being developed in a suite of subsiduary daughter articles. Remember, Wikipedia is not paper.--Filll (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and Cleanup - (Editor of Similar Intrest Article) These types of articles act as a starting point for research and are top Top Importance in country WikiProjects. Personally I would trim down the prose, but tastes differ. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 08:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Fairly good comprehensive article. Some more detail would probably be appropriate. DGG (talk) 08:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This article needs to be improved, perhaps starting with some historical background on transportation on the island. --NickPenguin(contribs) 23:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 18:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kenneth Pickett

My explanation for Afd was not included: I don't know why. The reason is simply that this article fails to meet notability for both WP:BIO1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. A speedy was removed and I suspect a PROD would be, too. So I took it here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Kenneth Pickett (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
  • Delete per nom. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I hate to say 'per nom' but I think he is spot on with this one. Not sure we need an article for the North Carolina Largest Bass and the thousands of similar that would be created either. Pharmboy (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep This ariticle does meet notability criteria. Article is not about something that is localized but rather something that involves one state, and also the country (USA). I fail to see how this fails under WP:NOT#NEWS considering the article is about not one, but two permenant records. Citing WP:BIO1E does not cover this situation either because this person neither was convicted of an "unimportant crime or standing election, ect". This invoves not one, but two valid standing records and I feel that this is information that will server the greater population. Censuring it out would only do a disservice to the end user. Ktwelk (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)ktwelk

WP:NOT#NEWS is really the core of my argument, so please allow me quote it in some detail:
Not Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events... Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right. While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news. Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article.
See, it's not a question of how many press stories or "permanent records" there are about this man. There is no historical notability about someone shooting the biggest turkey in Wisconsin no matter how many local or even national papers cite it. That's my position, anyway. Thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, NN state hunting "record" (which has as much to do with luck as anything else). --Dhartung | Talk 22:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - the subject is not notable, and WP:NOT#NEWS seems like a clear fit. -FrankTobia (talk) 13:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:21, December 23, 2007

[edit] Kell Hounds

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Gray Death Legion
Articles for deletion/Kell Hounds (2nd nomination)
Kell Hounds (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Relisting on AFD as outcome of a bundled nomination. Article is an in-universe treatment of a fictional group in the Battletech universe lacking citations to support verifiability or notability. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. The Cosmo piece is a valid source, but the argument that this alone is insufficient to meet the notability guidelines is strong.--Kubigula (talk) 05:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Entinghe

David Entinghe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Does not meet notability standards? AngielaJ 18:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete I still say delete. It's barely an article and does not signify notability. There are links in the article but those are not reliable sources. If you can find reliable sources like a newspaper article or a magazine that don't focus on his pecs then I can say keep.AngielaJ 22:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angielaj (talk • contribs)
    • I agree with your assessment that its barely an article and may not signify notabiltiy but (i hate to say it...) Cosmo does meet wp:rs, and the focus on "pecks" isn't a standard in wp:rs. Lets keep our policies clear and reasons legit. Pharmboy (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
      • It's only a small feature though, not even an article. Also in the guidelines for notability there must be several sources and they must be varied. I'm sorry but a quasi-feature in a fashion magazine doesn't cut it. It needs more sources to cite if you want to prove notability AngielaJ 04:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable non-encyclopedic biography. --Lockley (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:21, December 23, 2007

[edit] Northwind Highlanders

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Gray Death Legion
Articles for deletion/Northwind Highlanders (2nd nomination)
Northwind Highlanders (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Relisting on AFD as outcome of a bundled nomination. Article is an in-universe treatment of a fictional group in the Battletech universe lacking citations to support verifiability or notability. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:OR. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as nominator of original bundle. Pagrashtak 20:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Unless there is an assertion of notability through reliable sourcing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:21, December 23, 2007

[edit] Brynglas House

Brynglas House (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article lacks reliable sources to show notability, prod removed by creator, with the comment, "Which is surely why it is a good idea to start the article here, with links to the local area and where it is, so that local people can go into it and edit it?!?" FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Notability unestablished. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - no notability per WP:N or merge with main Newport, South Wales article. Mh29255 (talk) Mh29255 17:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as non notable unless someone can provide some references. Nuttah (talk) 14:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:21, December 23, 2007

[edit] Georgeann Walsh Ward

Georgeann Walsh Ward (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Her "notability" is that she sued someone famous. Perfect example of Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable only for one event. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Frankly, even the 1 event that arguably gives her notability isn't terribly notable. It certainly doesn't need to have its own article, although I suppose it merits a line in the Gene Simmons article if its not all ready there. Xymmax (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Rock City. NN he-said she-said resulting from an otherwise unnotable TV program. Wikipedia is not STAR magazine. --Dhartung | Talk 18:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or Redirect to Gene Simmons as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:21, December 23, 2007

[edit] The Adelphian Society of Fitchburg State College

The Adelphian Society of Fitchburg State College (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This organization appears to be local in scope, and lacks reliable independent sources that would verify notability. Prod removed by creator, who added sources, but not sources that, in my opinion, established notability. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - article lacks sufficient notability and independent verifiability as prescribed in WP:N & WP:V. Mh29255 (talk) Mh29255 17:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, Merge into Fitchburg State College. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:ORG. The sources provided are insufficient: two Yahoo! groups, a list with a link to one of those Yahoo! groups, an almost empty directory listing, and a college alumni publication that mentions the organization in only two sentences. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus to delete, defaulting to keep. Tyrenius (talk) 01:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gurm Sekhon

Gurm Sekhon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not notable per WP:BIO - a local councillor who has no other claim to fame or notability. Was uploaded in toto by a new user in June 2007 who has made no other edits to the encyclopaedia. Orderinchaos 17:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment the fact that a new user uploaded this in full should not influence this AfD. Making a decision on that would be making a bad faith assumption. Joshdboz (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    • The decision would not be made on that basis - it's not a deletion criterion - but having all the information available to make a decision never hurts. If the article had been significantly edited by others since I would also have noted this. Orderinchaos 03:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Agreed disclosure is good, just wanted to make sure it didn't lead to knee-jerk deletion support. Joshdboz (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete A mere member of a municipal council, this is not generally enough to guarantee notability. The cited sources, which look impressive, do not assert notability. Of the 12 sources, 5 only show electoral results. Anther two are published by his party and are therefore not independent of the subject. Other than arguably this article, none of the Age articles or the Leader article have Mr. Sekhon as the subject of the article; he is merely commenting on his parties prospects or only tangentially mentioned and this is not sufficient to assert notability. Even the linked article is more about Green policies than Mr. Sekhom. -- Mattinbgn\talk 19:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Created by a WP:SPA. —Moondyne 03:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, if he really is the longest-serving Green politician in Victoria, that's notable to my mind. Problem is that there's no sources attesting to that that I can find. Lankiveil (talk) 11:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete if he's that notable as a green candidate then I'm sure his name is all through the article on the Greens party in Victoria... cited references are about other events / his party not him, and he does not meet any of the "inherently notable" elements at WP:BIO.Garrie 23:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment BTW, the Greens website does not show that he is the longest serving elected rep - only that he was the first Green candidate elected to represent an electorate in "proportional representation" elections (vs senate-style candidates).Garrie 23:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - appears to have been the subject of coverage from reliable sources independent of him (two of said sources being cited in the article). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
This still does not address notability concerns - he is a local council representative and an organiser for a minor party, and WP:BIO clearly requires state or federal representation (else I and no doubt others would be eligible for an article). Orderinchaos 10:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
With respect, I believe you're misreading WP:BIO. It doesn't require statewide or national representation to be considered notable, it requires such representation to be considered inherently notable (i.e. automatically notable). Any subject can still be found notable by reason of the WP:N criterion of coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject. That's what applies here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
True, but it has to have a very strong claim on another ground, which it doesn't. A lot of things happen or exist which are reliably sourcable (even extensively) in popular media but don't meet Wikipedia's guidelines. For the record, I appear in 11 reliable sourcs, 4 of which have me as a subject, but nothing about me is notable and that will probably continue to be the case for some time. Orderinchaos 11:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
With all respect I only see one article significantly about Sekhon which is independent of the Greens. The Leader reference is sadly misrepresented as saying that he is professionally a project coordinator, when in fact all the article says is that (as a councillor) he is coordinating one project.Garrie 01:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Being the national and state convenor and the state election director of a significant and increasingly successful political party probably makes him notable in his own right. --Nick Dowling (talk) 06:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how a purely administrative role makes anyone notable. Orderinchaos 07:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I can see how this might be a borderline case for notability, but playing a long but minor role in government does not entail much notability. If he goes on to do more in government, then this article can be recreated. --NickPenguin(contribs) 17:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 01:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Errol Peru

Errol Peru (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Advert-like biography. No sources to confirm notability, therefore fails WP:N. Nehwyn (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Ra2007 (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I believe this page is a verbatim recreation of a previously deleted page. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:V. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Unsourced, non-notable; Google reveals very few results. — Wenli (reply here) 00:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, unsourced and arguably a WP:BLP violation under the circumstances. RFerreira (talk) 05:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 01:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Haverford Avenue

Haverford Avenue (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable street. This article has remained unreferenced for more than six months. Mikeblas (talk) 16:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. County line streets aren't often notable. Having attended Haverford and walked along said street, it's not that important. Besides, the college is more on Lancaster Avenue anyway--that's the street address. Amaryllis25 "Talk to me" 16:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete because there is nothing especially noteworthy about this particular street compared to the thousands of other streets in Philadelphia, and it fails to comply with WP:NOTE. –Dream out loud (talk) 02:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Non-notable.Mitch32contribs 00:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unreferenced and not notable. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - per above  — master sonT - C 00:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no claims to notability --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep — It exists, doesn't it? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    • The street that I live on exists. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. BLACKKITE 01:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vanessa Abrams(Gossip Girl character)

Vanessa Abrams(Gossip Girl character) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - no reliable sources attest to any real world notability of this individual character. Per WP:FICT characters should be covered in articles for the fiction unless an encyclopedic treatment requires a separate article which is clearly not the case here. Normally I'd say redirect but the parenthetical makes this an improbable search term. Otto4711 (talk) 13:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - No claim to real-word notablity given in the article. --Nehwyn (talk) 13:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect or Delete per not-established notability. I would prefer a redirect, but her appearing in the book as well as the TV series makes this hard. Possibly turn into a disambiguation page. (BTW, Vanessa Abrams redirects to Vanessa Abrams(Gossip Girl character), so not allowing a redirect because of the parenthetical is not really an objection.) – sgeureka t•c 17:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:FICT and WP:V. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to Gossip Girl. --NickPenguin(contribs) 23:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Allahabad Agricultural Institute

[edit] Allahabad Agricultural Institute- Deemed University

Allahabad Agricultural Institute- Deemed University (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete not every institute of every university is notable; this unsourced article has no demonstration that this is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Wizardman 18:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Janken Paradise

Janken Paradise (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete unsourced one-line article about a video game, no indication that this product is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep per WP:STUB. Being an an unsourced one-line article is nothing wrong. Stubs all over the place. What happened to actually improving them instead of deleting? Furthermore, this game is notable and has been covered by reliable Japanse language sources. Ask a Japanese speaker to do a search, and don't delete per WP:BIAS. User:Krator (t c) 10:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I agree with Krator. The stub hasn't even been around for a week yet. Yes Wikipedia should monitor and remove excessive content, but this stub hasn't even had the chance to expand past one line, let alone break any guidelines. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC))
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for now, per above. The article should be renominated if not expanded within a month or two. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Stub or not, it has to be sourced. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply OK, Done. -Verdatum (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:STUB. -Verdatum (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:EP. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, since being short is not a crime. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin: after being here a couple of weeks, there is still no evidence of significant coverage in reliable third party sources showing notability see WP:N, regardless of the vote outcome here as AFD is not a vote. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as it is has references in a videogame encyclopedia published in Japan. Reference added. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as above, no need to hold any kind of WP:BIAS against this stub. (jarbarf) (talk) 05:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I see a junkload of WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:JUSTAVOTE comments in this deletion discussion. It would help if Nihonjoe could come up with better sourcing than a scant mention in a crufty offline encyclopedia. As of yet, I'm not convinced it's noteworthy, so I go with delete, which could be changed to strong delete or keep, depending on what can be said about the sources. For example, does the source simply have a list of thousands upon thousands of video games? If so, it still has to pass our notability guidelines. The Evil Spartan (talk) 12:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Where do you get off calling it a "crufty" encyclopedia? Have you ever read it? It's several thousand pages long and has entries for most (if not all) video games released up until it was published. Updated versions of the encyclopedia are published every year, and it gets bigger every year. It's considered one of the top authorities for video games in Japan. Each game has an entry, varying from several hundred to many thousands of words long. The entry for this game is several hundred words long. The source does not have to be notable (though in this case it likely is), just reliable. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Google hits I found come from gamespot.com, gamefaqs.com, cheatcodesclub.com and similar - nothing I would refer to as reliable 3rd-party info. It's just a little video game, no article needed. PKT (talk) 17:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Google hits are not necessary or even acceptable as a determiner of notability. None of those sites have significant coverage of older systems like the 3DO, so using them as a measuring stick is useless. Besides, GameFAQs and CheatCodesClub are not reliable sources, and GameSpot is iffy in many cases. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was keep. Wizardman 19:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carmun.com

Carmun.com (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:WEB Has a few links but ones dead, the others seem to be self published or merely 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. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. Advert.Hu12 17:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per my nom--Hu12 (talk) 04:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Somewhat tentative keep. I have added a couple of extra references on the page. It is true that a lot of the google hits are to blogs or related non WP:RS, but there are a significant number of college and university student publications that have articles about it. Many more than the two I have included. I am inclined, in spite of my mild-deletionist tendencies, to think that if there are a significant number of secondary sources that are run by the people who are the intended users of the web site, it probably is notable, even though the secondary sources are not exactly high class. Happy to read other's opinions though. Anarchia (talk) 05:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. ghits establish notability. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, notability is established by the references provided in the article. Everyking (talk) 08:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Articles establish notability. --NickPenguin(contribs) 17:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


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


The result was Delete --JForget 01:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brandon T. Mitchell

Brandon T. Mitchell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This person does not appear to meet the notability criteria. Prod removed by creator, who added sources, but not reliable independent sources. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep I added two external sources. They are both profiles of Mitchell and company. These sources are similar to imdb profiles, which I am sure you accept. Btm1000 (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply. Have you read the reliable sources guidelines, as I suggested, yet? What is needed are articles about this person that were not written by this person or his employer; profiles that he has submitted to various web sites are not the kinds of sources that are needed. Instead, you need to add links to a few of the newspaper and magazine articles that have been written about him. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Brandon T. Mitchell (we can call him BTM for short) is an article created by User:Btm1000, who has also, in his short editing career, also helpfully added Brandon T. Mitchell to the list of Current and Former Notable students of Devon Preparatory School [37]. Amazing coincidence. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. It should be speedily deleted. No independent third-party reliable sources given. Dekisugi (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - no notability and no independent verifiability. Mh29255 (talk) Mh29255 16:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - no notability per WP:N, no independent verifiability per WP:V and admitted advertisement/spamming. Mh29255 (talk) Mh29255 16:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Acknowledgement of conflict of interest If you want to delete it, be my guest. I'm being paid by his company for it either way.Btm1000 (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above; likely the author is also the subject of the article. Website appears to be amateur, adding to the liklihood that this is self-promotion by the 17 year old subject of the article. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Promoting himself and/or his website via this article. He admits that he's at least paid by the website creator above. I think that settles it unless other notability can be established. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - admitted advertisement/spamming. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Pure advertising. ScarianTalk 17:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BIO. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete this obvious advertisement. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I did not authorize anyone to make a wikipedia page for me. I apologize for any inconvenience that this has caused. Someone who had access to my computer came on and created the account which was used to create this article. Please delete the article.

Best, Brandon Mitchell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.12.63 (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Snowball delete. The IP above resolves to Philidelphia, so it may well be the real Brandon Mitchell. Between that request, the lack of his having done anything that would let us presume notability, and the complete lack of reliable sources, I think this one is safe to delete a few days early. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirected to Deep Run High School where there is already a paragraph about the band. BLACKKITE 01:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deep Run Marching Wildcat Band

Deep Run Marching Wildcat Band (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This high school marching band does not appear to meet the notability criteria. Prod removed without comment by creator. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep This page should not be deleted because the Deep Run High School Marching Band is very important. It marched in the London New Year's parade, representing Virginia's Jamestown, Englands first permanent settlement. Also, there are many other wikipedia pages that have information on College and High School bands so there should be no reason for deleteing this page. -1337donald —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1337donald (talk • contribs) 16:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • NOTE: This opinion to keep is by the article creator. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Irrelevant that the vote to keep is by the creator. Mykej (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable; WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS not a valid argument for retention (we should be deleting it too). --Orange Mike | Talk 16:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete article that lacks sufficient notability as prescribed in WP:N. Mh29255 (talk) Mh29255 16:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongly delete - article is not notable per WP:N and WP:MUSIC. There is nothing remotely notable about this particular high school marching band as it has been doing what every other U.S. high school marching band has been doing for decades: competing & performing both domestically & abroad. Related article about this high school band's director has already been deleted. Mh29255 (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable enough Mykej (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I added more sources -1337donald —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1337donald (talk • contribs) 17:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - legitimate sources were few and far between, and all local. There is nothing unique (WP:N) about the staff or this band. The Band Director has a page, which is about to be speedily deleted. I am a former mrching band member, and this band has done nothing unique (sorry to say that ... the trip to London is cool, but not unique). LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Note The article for the band's director has been speedily deleted. Mh29255 (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

**Keep - how is it not unique? This band has represented Virginia for its 400th year. It was selected from a pool of hundreds of Virginia HIgh School Bands. That's just like saying the queen visiting Virginia wasn't important. -1337donald —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1337donald (talk • contribs) 18:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

      • NOTE: This is the second comment to keep the article by the article's creator. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
      • comment If some irrelevant foreign wearer of pointy hats visited Virginia (I'll assume she did; no reason for you to lie about it), it certainly would not be notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment There are thousands of individual high school marching bands in the U.S., many of which perform in various civic parades & professional sporting events. Hence, there is nothing notable about this particular high school marching band that is doing what thousands of other bands are doing. Mh29255 (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
      • commentThis was on an international level, not a local level. The 400th year of Virginia is important because James town was the first permanent English Setlement. It is such a huge deal that the Queen of England visited. This band was chosen to visit London to represent Virginia. It is a big deal for Virginian history. -1337donald
        • Comment And you think that this particular high school marching band is the only marching band to ever perform outside of the U.S.? Sorry, but that's been going on for decades and is not notable. Mh29255 (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment One reason that the conflict of interest guidelines ask us not to create articles about our own bands, is that we all find it difficult to accurately estimate how important our own groups are. In this case, you have overestimated the importance of your marching band, which, while no doubt very good, is less important than the bands that an encyclopedia needs articles about, bands like the Fightin' Texas Aggie Band. Notice the kinds of sources that article has. Can you add similar sources to this article? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

7. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city;

9. Has won or placed in a major music competition.

-1337donald —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1337donald (talk • contribs) 18:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

    • comment #8 is for notable styles and local music scenes; this is just another school band; #9 is for major music competitions, not the kind of school band competitions that take place by the hundreds every year (my little sister used to be in those). Face it, donald, you're too close to the subject and have lost perspective. I hope the Wildcats do well; but they're just not notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Marching in a 400th year parade is a notable accomplishment. There are some bands out there that are prominent, just like the Deep Run Band, who do not get to march in notable parades (Cavalier Marching Band) -1337donald
  • You've now fully explained why you think this band is notable, and you've added the sources that you think prove it. You don't need to add any more comments to this discussion now, unless you find a new source that you want to draw attention to. If your band truly is notable, that will be clear from your reasoning and your sources, even to someone who isn't a member. If it isn't, then further comments won't change the evidence. Thanks! -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete NN per WP:BAND Mayalld (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Smerge (selectively merge) to the article Deep Run High School which already mentions the band. The refs in this article fail to prove notability by lacking independence from the subject, by not being reliable sources, or by being mere directory listings. Sounds like a fine band, and should be appropriately mentioned in the article about the high school . School pride does not trump Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Edison (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment There is too much information to just have a small mention on the school page. It should have its own page so that much more information can presented. -1337donald —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1337donald (talk • contribs) 15:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    Comment Another viewpoint is that there is too much info in the present article, relative to the notability of the band. A few sentences in the school's article would be sufficient to tell Wikipedia readers what they should know about this fine high school band. Edison (talk) 02:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as non notable. Falls well short of WP:MUSIC. Nuttah (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as blatant advertising that would have to be rewritten from scratch to be an encyclopaedia article amongst many other failings. Given that in revision #178496882 Isa gajre (talk · contribs) signed xyr name as "Roy W. Blain" in the article, it's reasonable to conclude that this is the very Roy W. Blain who sells CDs and books about what the article discusses. That the article is full of peacock terms such as how the subject is "ideal" and "will cost a fraction", and how readers should have "little doubt" that the subject has "a major advantage" that nothing else can equal, adds to the blatant aspect. Wikipedia is not an advertising billboard for promoting products. All Wikipedia content must be written from the Neutral point of view. There are those who oppose spelling reform. Wikipedia articles must not take sides in the debate and must not be promotional of one person's idea and products. In fact, single person's ideas don't belong here until the rest of the world has acknowledge them, per our Wikipedia:No original research policy. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for standing upon. Lastly, articles in the English Wikipedia must be written in English. This isn't. It's written using the invented lexicon that it is promoting, which just adds to the fact that the article would have to be rewritten from scratch. Uncle G (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saaspel

Saaspel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Well, I tagged it as CSD and the creator removed the CSD tags. I tagged it with a number of issue tags, and the creator removed those. Someone else prod'ed it, which was also removed. I'm not in the mood to fight with the user, so I'll just send this over to AFD and let the community offer their opinions on this. Original research and no sources are amongst the more obvious issues. Yngvarr 15:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete by all means. This is an attempt to use Wikipedia to promote a new concept. I PRODded it, and before doing that I looked for sources; I found nothing except various attempts to promote the reform in various places. If all original research is removed from the article, what would remain would be "Saaspel is a proposed spelling reform of English based on pronunciation" - it's not even possible to find out which pronunciation they are basing it on. Also note that the author has added external links to the Saaspel site from a couple of other articles on spelling reform. --Bonadea (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Those who manage to persevere all the way to the end of this barely comprehensible essay (even though they don't face any distractions on the way in the form of references etc) find it helpfully signed by one Roy W. Blain. Fails as OR, among various other things. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Cool Hand Luke 23:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coolatta

Coolatta (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable product. It's mentioned at Dunkin' Donuts#Products, but why a separate article is warranted remains unclear to me. PROD was removed with comment: "Remove from proposed deletion as appears notable". I disagree. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment There is some media coverage. I haven't had a chance to look at everything yet, though. Zagalejo^^^ 22:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • DrinkDelete - As fine as an icy fruity collata is on a hot day, this product has not acheived WP:N like (for example) a Big Mac or a Whopper. LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per lifebaka . --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, this product doesn't contain enough notability to stand on its own. Alternatively, redirect to Dunkin' Donuts. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This single product isn't notable enough to have its own article. — Wenli (reply here) 00:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Lots and lots of GNews hits, over 200 giving its history, its marketing, and other information. All the requirements needed for Wikipedia, just like an other article on a product. See: [38] --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Straightforward product spam, borderline G11 speedy. DGG (talk) 05:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    • That makes no sense. Can you rephrase that in English please? Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
He means he thinks it's an advertisement. Spacepotato (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Reliable sources appear to exist, but the article needs serious cleanup to make it less ad-sounding. LaMenta3 (talk) 06:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • STRONG DELETE/CleanupNo sources are mentioned and a lot of cleanup needed such as to include sources on page.--Quek157 (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep since apparently there are ample sources available, the article is already off to a great start. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep; adequate press coverage of this product available, as a Google News search will show. Spacepotato (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't see that there's enough coverage to warrant an article independent of the manufacturer. Also, quite a few of thos Google hits seem like republished press releases to me. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment is there a frozen pureed coffee beverage article to merge/redirect this to? 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Maybe a merge to Dunkin' Donuts would fit, but I don't see why an extended "nutrition information" section or ingredients list is worth any merging. We're not a product catalog. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Some reliable sources are proving its notability.So, it's not spam at all--NAHID 17:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or possibly merge w/ Dunkin Donuts, the sources are available so as long as the information is available either one will suffice. (jarbarf) (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Article needs cleanup, that's why it is tagged. AfD is not cleanup, and other sources seem to exist. --NickPenguin(contribs) 17:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Non-admin closure. The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Salvatori

Michael Salvatori (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The article certainly gives no indication of it, but looking for this guy online I found no secondary sources to confirm his notability; he's mentioned with Marty O'Donnell or not at all. David Fuchs (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. I agree that there's probably not enough material for a standalone article. However, this is a plausible search term, since, as you said, he is mentioned as co-composer of the Myth and Halo series soundtracks. Any ideas for a suitable redirect target? — TKD::Talk 22:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Tricky one. He has done enough to be borderline notable, but the sources aren't there to back this up. I therefore suggest we keep the article for a time and see if it gets improved or if sources appear, and we revisit this question in, say, six months. A1octopus (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
It's been around for months, with next to no actual content being added since the day of creation. David Fuchs (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Co-composer of multiple notable soundtracks. Verifying that much is easy, hence notability is verified. -- Masterzora (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was keep. Suggest prod in the future if page isn't helped out within several months. Non-admin closure. The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Our Country

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Our Country Articles for deletion/Our Country (2nd nomination)
Our Country (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Dead-end disambig page, nothing on it has a link so it serves no purpose. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. The Josiah Strong book should probably have its own article, based on a quick Google Scholar search. Might as well use the page as a redirect to Josiah Strong for the time being. Eh, I'll go with Keep, per Uncle G. The song seems more notable than I intially thought it was, so this page can probably stay as it is. Zagalejo^^^ 22:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect, which is what the page originally was when I created it. I agree with Zagalejo that the book should probably have its own article. — Edward Z. Yang(Talk) 01:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not stylistically perfect for a disambiguation article, but it appears to be a perfectly normal one that is disambiguating between the aforementioned book and a song by the same name, where each, in the absence of the other, would be a redirect to another article at this title. That's exactly the function of disambiguations. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete - fails to provide any sources to substantiate notability. I suggest editors spend more time on looking for them and less time expressing their own views on the matter. Tyrenius (talk) 01:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sony Ericsson W960

Sony Ericsson W960 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable phone. This one is unreleased, and has no references to substantiate its feature claims or it's notability -- so it's just crystal balling. Wikipedia is not a Sony Ericsson catalog. Just a list of features, so it reads like an advert. {{prod}} removed without comment by User:68.60.168.2, so listing at AfD. Mikeblas (talk) 14:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep - it is actually released, and needs some cleanup/expansion rather than deletion. WATP (talk) • (contribs) 17:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a catalog of electronic gadgets, and this article lacks any references other than the manufacturer's sites to show it satisfies the Wikipedia notability requirements per WP:N. Edison (talk) 04:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Mikeblas. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Wikipedia is not a bunch of indescriminate information (on purpose). Pharmboy (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep since the phone is plenty notable (how many thousands of people own one?) and yes we are a catalogue of many different things including television shows, record albums and singles, films, and mobile phones too. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep based on similar things to what Coccyx Bloccyx said. Wikipedia seems to be a catalog of everything and just about every other phone is listed, what makes this one special? It definitely could use a nice summary and some cleanup to look more like other mobile phone articles. Megaversal (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. Please read WP:WAX. Plenty of phone articles have been deleted; why are you considering the ones that haven't yet been deleted instead of the ones that already are? -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment. I read WP:WAX and then WP:NOT and I'm trying to find a consensus on why generic reference information (camera lenses, mobile phones, whatever) should or should not be included. If you could provide one, I would appreciate being able to make a more informed vote. As it stands, it seems to me that Wikipedia is appropriate as a reference of basic information like mobile phone specifications. Megaversal (talk) 17:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Answer'. WP:NOT#DIR #2 and #3 are applicable. WP:NOT#STATS, too. WP:PRODUCT explains that commercial products should get their own pages if they are notable; WP:N explains that notability is achieved using references to substantial works. wp:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary, applies, too, and is helpful in understanding why every product that gets a 400-word capsule review on a couple of websites isn't notable. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The phone is notable, and this is not the forum for cleanup. RFerreira (talk) 05:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • comment Has anyone read wp:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary? In 20 years will this model of phone be 'notable'? Notability isn't a temporary thing, or it isn't notable at all. Pharmboy (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The notability of this phone is not temporary and I do believe that this will serve as a handy reference point in the long term. (jarbarf) (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete the article does not assert notability. The source does not assert notability. Shouting that it does, and, pointing at other stuff that exists (for now), doesen't change that. SQLQuery me! 18:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, even though this is heading hard for a no consensus. This is not notable.--CastAStone//(talk) 21:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merged to Locations in His Dark Materials. --Tone 21:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cittàgazze

Cittàgazze (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The article asserts no notability through referencing, and as such is just an in-universe plot repetition of elements of the Dark Materials books plot sections, and is thus duplicative of those sections. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 14:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per Cassandra Leo to new Locations in His Dark Materials. At present there is only Jordan College, Oxford; merging that will be a good opportunity to strip out its non-notable content. There are other locations that could be added, once the articles are converted to a single list. The list will satisfy notability, as it is sufficient that the concept i.e. "location" is notable. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to a article on the locations in general, as Faynetic suggests. The nom seems to thinks only plot significant in fiction, but I disagree--so is settings and many other things. There will be some overlap with plot elements but for some purposes an organisation this way is clearer. Personally, I think there will eventually be materials to expand it back into separate articles, but not yet. DGG (talk) 08:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Snowball Merge in the absence of new information. --Thinboy00 @329, i.e. 06:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge with Under My Skin.--Kubigula (talk) 04:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bonez Tour

Bonez_Tour (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

No sources indicating notability appear on the page, which fails WP:NOT#DIRECTORY since it is mostly a list of venues and dates. All such pages should be removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by PAnteaterNot (talk • contribs) 2007/12/09 02:39:39

Merge to Under my Skin or Avril Lavigne as Wikipedia is not the place to recap musical concert tours. --JForget 18:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Merge per above. Obviously the performer is notable, but there's been no similar showing for the tour. Xymmax (talk) 15:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Merge same as her other tours.. i'll do so if you want :) Darth NormaN (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was Merge and redirect. Tyrenius (talk) 01:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delphia Hankins

Delphia Hankins (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Another non-notable very old person. The 214-word "obituary" cited is little more than a verbose funeral notice, and a google search threw up only only two more refs in reliable sources: [39] and [40], both of which are also just slightly-expanded funeral notices. Without any substantial coverage, she fails WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete or Merge No substantial independent, reliable sources to establish meeting WP:N or WP:BIO. Nothing here that couldn't be summarized in the many supercentenarian lists. Cheers, CP 20:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • keep don't want to tag them all, but there are links to be found. Not all are NYT but good grief, this was the late 1800s when they were born. My mom doesn't have a birth certificate and she was born in the 30s, so its not that odd. Per my others, oldest is noteworthy. Pharmboy (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply the fact of someone being that old is of course noteworthy, which is why we have lists of such people. However, a standalone article requires us to establish notability per WP:BIO, for which we need not just links, but substantial coverage in reliable sources, and my checks have not found any (though there are plenty of mentions in wikipedia mirrors and other such unreliable sources). Per WP:V#Burden_of_evidence, if you believe that there is substantial coverage in reliable sources, please can you give us some links? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
      • comment bio says "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability" so "substantial coverage" is only one standard, it is not the only standard. Also, notability is not always a valid arguement to delete anyway, via wp:Notability/Historical/Arguments and because wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. I think you have to cut a little bit of slack with wp:rs when you are talking about something over 100 years old, or someone. Pharmboy (talk) 00:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Per U.S. state holder. Since this person is on tables, I could sleep fine at night knowing this person has her own article. Neal (talk) 01:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Merge and Redirect to List of American supercentenarians, where this information can be kept with other seminotable supercentarians. --NickPenguin(contribs) 17:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to List of American supercentenarians--CastAStone//(talk) 21:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

At the bottom:

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

The result was Merged and Redirected to List of American supercentenarians#Mae Harrington. BLACKKITE 12:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mae Harrington

Mae Harrington (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Yet another unreferenced stub on a very old person. A google search throws up no reliable sources, let alone non-trivial coverage therein, so she fails WP:BIO. She is listed in List of the oldest people, which is quite sufficient. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete or Merge No substantial independent, reliable sources to establish meeting WP:N or WP:BIO. Nothing here that couldn't be summarized in the many supercentenarian lists. Cheers, CP 20:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • keep I found http://www.grg.org/Adams/USStateOldest.htm and others pretty fast, and we do have many other articles on similar people. See Oldest people for a whole lotta wikilinks to oldest people. Needs citations, not deleting. Pharmboy (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    • The http://www.grg.org/Adams/USStateOldest.htm ref is just a list of dates, age, sex and race, which is fine for verifying the facts, but is too trivial to establish notability per WP:BIO. I know that google search throws up hits on blogs, wikipedia mirrors etc, but if there is to be a standalone article we need substantial coverage in reliable sources, and so far we haven't got it. The claim that her longevity record was only recognised after her death makes me think that any substantial coverage is unlikely, because usual news reporting of these people is either an obituary or a soft-news piece in the the last years of their life, and that doesn't seem likely to have happened in this case. "Needs citations" is true, but in this case there appear not to be any available. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I did find one newspaper article about her on Newsbank. It doesn't show up on Google News, but it does exist:
  • Well done with the search, but an obituary in a county newspaper falls well short of the "substantial" coverage required by WP:BIO. If more substantive refs are found at a later date, the article could of course be recreated, but right now there isn't enough to justify an article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I milked what I could out of that. Not sure if that's enough... Zagalejo^^^ 23:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Per country holder. I would like Wikipedia to be an archive of reliable sources anyways. Neal (talk) 01:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete The refs mentioned in the article or in this AFD are mere obituaries or directory listings and do not satisfy WP:N or WP:BIO. Getting to be really old existing in a nursing home does not justify an encyclopedia article. Inclusion in a list of old people is appropriate and sufficient. Edison (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and try and add more references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 23:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply'. There is no evidence so far that any coverage exists other than trivial, directory-style coverage and one short obit in a county newspaper, so waiting for more refs may be like waiting for Godot. If substantial coverage in reliable sources is found at a later date, a new article can of course be written. Right now, the only verifiable info in the article is what can be found in lists such as those maintained by GRG, and per WP:BIO that's not enough for a standalone article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to List of American supercentenarians. This person is no more notable than anyone else on that list. --NickPenguin(contribs) 17:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. As per users "Pharmboy", "NealIRC" and "Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )", plus she was the oldest living American and is in the top 100 all time. Extremely sexy (talk) 00:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Note User:Bart Versieck/Extremely sexy has voted either "strong keep" or "very strong keep" on every AfD on a very old person in which he has participated in the last few months: [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49]. Bart, is there any way in which this particular "very strong keep" is different from the others? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't speak for Bart, but no, there is no difference. We (him and I) value the supercentenarians by age and rank pretty equally. ;D Neal (talk) 14:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep -I think that being the oldest person in the US is reasonably notable. WP:BIO allows for exceptions and I am happy if this is one. TerriersFan (talk) 01:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to List of American supercentenarians--CastAStone//(talk) 21:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. Everything here is unreferenced and the only notable content is a sentence describing that the subject was once the 4th oldest person in the world. If someone wants to merge that elsewhere, I won't stop them. Tijuana Brass (talk) 04:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Henry Hartmann

Henry Hartmann (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Currently unreferenced article on a very old American. I have found only this one reference in a reliable source, and apart from that a google search throws up only bulletin boards etc. The lone reference is rather trivial, so the article falls well short of WP:BIO. I suggest trimming the article to remove the unreferenced material and merging what's left to List of American supercentenarians. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete or Merge No substantial independent, reliable sources to establish meeting WP:N or WP:BIO. Cheers, CP 20:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:N and WP:BIO. "Fourth oldest man" is a specious title with no import. Edison (talk) 02:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. He is notable nevertheless, even if he hadn't made it to 110, as a CEO of a corporation. Extremely sexy (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as non notable. Getting a piece in the local paper or being a CEO are not automatic notability proof. Nuttah (talk) 15:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to List of American supercentenarians per BrownHairedGirl. With all respect to the late (very late) Mr. Hartman. --Lockley (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to List of American supercentenarians --NickPenguin(contribs) 17:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to List of American supercentenarians--CastAStone//(talk) 21:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to List of American supercentenarians. My view is that that people who have been the oldest person in the world, or of a significant country, are notable enough for their own article. However, this guy has never achieved either of these distinctions. Therefore a full merge, with the addition of the sources identified by BrownHairedGirl, is a good way forward. TerriersFan (talk) 02:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Women Writers and the Female Experience during the American Industrial Revolution in Betty Smith’s A Tree Grows in Brooklyn

Women Writers and the Female Experience during the American Industrial Revolution in Betty Smith’s A Tree Grows in Brooklyn (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

OR essay. Dlohcierekim 15:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Seems to be a copy-pasted college essay. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:OR, essay, and NN —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martijn Hoekstra (talk • contribs) 16:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Inexperienced editor, who first created this article at posting an article on wikipedia. I did post a note about how to make a first article, as well as explaining the issues with the current article, also linking to the existing article A Tree Grows in Brooklyn (novel), suggesting that they work on that using material if they have sources. I also explained why the header that they turned into the title was not an appropriate article name, but I am guessing they did not take the time to read my note. While sources are given, there are no inline citations, and it would appear to be, as suggested above, a self-written essay of some kind, but does not seem to provide any real context. Ariel♥Gold 16:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as Original Research (college paper or something of the sort). --Orange Mike | Talk 17:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - WP:OR and I think based on the comments: WP:SNOW. LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as a personal essay full of OR and first person (and one heck of a long title too, but that's not really relevant). Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like a high-school essay or something of the sort. Half of it is made up of a single quote from the novel, and the other half doesn't say all that much about women writers or the female experience during the Industrial Revolution (&c). This isn't worth a standalone article (A Tree Grows in Brooklyn (novel) is rather short as it is), and I don't see anything here which could usefully be merged to the existing article. Zetawoof(ζ) 02:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Deleted per nom--Quek157 (talk) 15:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete both g11, blatant advertising. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CafeMom

CafeMom (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Were both up for speedy as spam, though notability has been asserted, by the same editor (an internet solutions company) and both articles serve the same purpose, brought here for consensus.

ClubMom (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Khukri 15:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as spam. No asserted notability, just hits. Bearian (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete both as blatant spam. Should have been left as a speedy, since claim of notability has no validity. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn per rewrite of article, nominator has changed !vote to "keep" and no "delete"s were placed. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Kazoo Funk Orchestra

The Kazoo Funk Orchestra (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article reads more like a brief promotion. They are an unsigned band with no notable musicians, tours, albums, or songs. I'm guessing one of the members wrote the articles. This fails WP:MUSIC, and I propose it be deleted. Manderson198(sprech)/(contribs) 14:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Post-expansion, the band's notability is more apparent, due to the former band member's notability, the radio play, etc... Keep Manderson198(sprech)/(contribs) 17:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Response In response to your proposal to delete The Kazoo Funk Orchestra, I beg to differ...

According to the criteria for musicians and ensembles on Wikipedia:Notability (music), this band should be considered notable.

  1. It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.
    1. Featured Article in the Evening Times (Scottish Newspaper) - Printed and Online
    2. Reviewed twice in Is This Music? (UK Music Magazine) - Printed
    3. Appeared in Art Uber Ales (Greek TV Show)
    4. Featured in the soundtrack of Trailer Trash (Skateboard Video by CREME Skateboards)
    5. Appeared on the Your Sound - Best of Term One compilation album released by King Tut's Recordings
  2. Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country, reported in reliable sources.
    1. Toured the UK earlier this year (Glasgow, Edinburgh, London, Bristol, Chepstow, Sheffield, Inveraray, Dundrennan, Leicester, Fairlie).

Does this not satisfy the criteria? (talk) 10:34, 17 December 2007 (EST)

  • I agree, that would likely satisfy the criteria. If you could include these references in the article, it would be greatly appreciated, and likely increase the chances of the article passing this Afd with a result of keep. As is, the article has no such citations. -Verdatum (talk) 16:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The added sources seem to confirm this band's notability. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 01:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beer man

Beer man (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

unreferenced, unencyclopedic, non-notable - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per above. I don't see any way in which this article could be brought up to standard. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - unless author can somehow find reliable sources about this game (i couldn't). JaakobouChalk Talk 16:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Another non-notable drinking game made up as another way to achieve inebriation. —Travistalk 16:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per my cobalt, green and grey colleagues above. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete played it this weekend and it still did not meet notability guidelines. GtstrickyTalk or C 18:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per "Wikipedia is not a directory of drinking games we made up one day". Pharmboy (talk) 19:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete : not notable per WP:N, no references provided per WP:V and may be WP:MADEUP. Mh29255 (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, fails the everything test. RFerreira (talk) 05:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Snowball delete maybe? It's still definitely WP:NFT. There have probably been several hundred drinking game AfDs in the history of Wikipedia now...-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus (keep). Keilana 20:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Team zEx

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Team zEx Articles for deletion/Team zEx (2nd nomination)
Team zEx (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Although normally I'd tag things like this A7 without hesitation, I'm not so sure about this one so bringing it over here for a full discussion, as I don't think we really have a clear policy on this sort of thing. Is this deletable as a article on a non-notable club with no raliable sources, or does the "competition at the highest level" notability criteria apply to virtual as well as real sports? I really can't make my mind up on this one, so this is a true procedural nomination and I abstain from voting either way. Note that although this has already been deleted, the deleted version is different (and the first AfD looks to me more like a "no consensus" than a "delete", anyway) so bringing it over for a fresh discussion. — iridescent 15:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - I would have tagged this as a G6, but since you want to talk about it again, I'll bite. This article fails WP:N, WP:ORG, WP:WEB, and WP:V. Jauerback (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep pending reliable sources. IMHO, "electronic" sports can be as skilful and rigorous as chess or snooker, so top players/teams/tournaments are notable. As for sources, I already found this about the retirement of the team, and presumably if they did win or come close runners up in any of the tournaments, it should be verifiable. Well written otherwise so give it a week or two for sources to appear. Moyabrit (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This team was pretty big, I remember seeing coverage of them on tourney websites back in the day, which I consider to be the electronic equivalent of traditional sports coverage. I can probably dig up coverage of their matches or an interview, if I look hard enough. --NickPenguin(contribs) 17:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
References (courtsey of csnation.net and gotfrag.net: Interview with Bigwie, one of their members at the time. Some controversy about a match they played when they had an unfair/deliberate disadvantage, looks like there was some official word from CAL about this and a rematch. Concerns that zEx wouldn't be able to make it to the CPL. Article about the teams retirement. Article about a roster change and team refocus. Interview with the team. I think these are sufficient to demonstrate notability within professional esports. --NickPenguin(contribs) 17:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Convinced of notability by the above sources. No bias against "cyberathletes". User:Krator (t c) 13:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - The article's references are all trivial; while the ones provided above by NickPenguin are better, they still don't amount to much more than blog postings. Sure, there's mention of the subject, but they don't demonstrate encyclopedic notability, and since the article itself mentions that this group no longer exists, it's unlikely that they'll be gaining in importance in the future. Tijuana Brass (talk) 04:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I would contend that the two sites I drew those articles from (csnation.net and gotfrag.net) are more than just blogs. I consider these to be reliable and longstanding (six or seven years at least) sources within the community, and over the years they have given significant coverage Counter-Strike and the involvement/development of CS and professional esports. Although I do admit this may not be widely known, especially if you don't find competitive gaming particularly interesting. --NickPenguin(contribs) 05:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Have to say I didn't expect to say so, but find myself convinced by NickPenguin's sources. Pastordavid (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete. Tyrenius (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kenneth Laisi

Kenneth Laisi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No secondary sources establishing notability. The only link leads to a site selling his art. I tried in vain to find anything that established notability but everything I could find online was either a mirror of wikipedia or the same sort of 'biographical sketch' used on a page to sell items. If someone has a big old history book on the Zimbabwe sculpture industry, prove me wrong. Epthorn (talk) 07:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. The pages "to sell items" that you mention show galleries in Africa, America and Europe offering his work, some listing his name as one of their "top" or "featured" artists. Galleries "sell items" in the same way that sports fixtures "sell tickets": they're not just businesses, they're part of deciding who counts as notable in their field. --Paularblaster (talk) 14:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I understand that but the fact that they stand to make a profit off of him means that we cannot necessarily trust that the are independent, 3rd party sources now can we? Take this sentence, for example: "Kenneth's ambition is to become one of Zimbabwe's leading and talented artists and up-lift the up-coming generation of artists." That does not inspire confidence. There are books and magazines that are independent of sales which COULD be used to decide notability.Epthorn (talk) 17:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete on current showing - notability not asserted. Johnbod (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Relisted to gain more participation. Also notifying article creator, who has so far not been told. --Tyrenius (talk) 15:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:BIO. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, no need to continue this. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group

Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article was already speedily deleted, but I restored to seek community discussion. As of now, I have no opinion on the merits. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep - Seems notable on reading article, reliable sources. Mykej (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Appropriate sources for the subject. How this could be thought an A7 escapes me entirely. DGG (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep HTML 5 and the WHATWG have received quite a bit of attention in the software industry, as one might imagine. JavaTenor (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sources appear to be good, and the topic has reasonable notability. Tim Ross·talk 23:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. The WHATWG is one of the most important behind-the-scenes players in what the web is going to look like over the next ten years. Is the deleting admin insane? --Polonius (talk) 23:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, this should have never been deleted in the first place (unless there's something I'm missing). RFerreira (talk) 05:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. James086Talk | Email 03:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dickipedia

Dickipedia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Reversed my own deletion. Although a new site of questionable notability, the Comedy Central connection may make it notable as some of their people (23/6) are editing it. Dlohcierekim 15:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC) Dlohcierekim 15:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • delete for now. Someday it might be a notable website. GtstrickyTalk or C 18:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with Gtstricky. Maybe someday, but that isn't a criteria for notability now. Pharmboy (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. As usual, someone wonders, "How am I going to get noticed?... I know... let's have an article on me in Wikipedia." And as usual, our response is, "Get noticed some other way, and then we'll give you a Wikipedia entry." Additionally, the page design of the advertized site may qualify as a copyvio, since Wikimedia is not involved. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 00:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN website. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as completely non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a case where an AFD has been set up to illustrate a WP:POINT. It was a bit pointless ironically, since whatever the outcome, deletion precedent is that each article is (and would be) assessed on its own merit and not by reference to any other article. So the first thing to say is, whatever the outcome, it is not a precedent for any other deletion. There are also comments suggesting the AFD was filed defensively against an expected deletion by users "going after fancruft". Whether or not such users exist, and whether or not the deletion was filed for that reason (it clearly was), both are irrelevant. This AFD is here now, and is decided on evidence related to policy based reasoning, without either of these stances being relevant.

Policy relevant points raised -
  1. third party references exist, including one editorial on "greatest adventures of all time" that rates it as 13th in a list of at least 30;
  2. concerns that the sources are "trivial low level coverage" and "not reliable secondary sources" by any imagination" (with a rebuttal that even if lowly rated, the coverage exists and is verifiable);
  3. similar concerns that the content is indifferent or mere product review/gamesite review (but rebuttal that reviews are still valid secondary sources); and
  4. a proposal to merge or consolidate as notability not established;
Non policy based points raised -
  1. "sources exist so it's notable" (the words presumed to be in WP:N have significance);
  2. it's important, useful or interesting (see WP:IMPORTANT, WP:USEFUL and WP:INTERESTING);
  3. Google hits (quality matters more than quantity, sometimes helpful, in this case unhelpful: hits seem to be not a tiny or a huge number, and mostly D&D booksellers and D&D fan pages/blogs/infosites/etc);
  4. WP:BK - not relevant, a module is more than just a "book", its an entire gaming system.

A person submitting their own article to AFD to make a point, needs to be very sure the subject does in fact have the standing claimed, and perhaps this one does. The problem is, the subject's coverage as evidenced is within its own genre, and not outside in any way. It's also (as described below) less than ideal in other ways too.

There are 10 cites in the article, but two just cite its first use, three evidence the usual initial reviews (that all games have, in which it got non-remarkable ratings), four relate to game creatures (etc) used in other games. Of all 10 cites in the article and AFD, just one relates in any way to a claim of notability, and that is from within the genre. In other words, not one cite is produced to show notability beyond its own limited fan circle, and only one to show standing within it.

It's a well known feature of sales and marketing and product reviews/"best of", that many products can claim one award or special mention somewhere or other. Just one product award in one rating system or review, by one magazine, is rarely good evidence by itself, unless the awarding body has some kind of reputation (see below). If a subject is genuinely notable, one would expect repeated evidence of significance, for example independent reviews giving exclusive focus, credible non-fan-circle mentions, etc. Looking at the cites in the AFD and in the article, the only evidence of notability presented at this AFD are 1/ the usual routine mentions, reviews and so on from fan magazines (including being reviewed and rated roughly "avg/avg+" on release) which do not actually evidence notability, and 2/ the single list entry in the "Dungeon" magazine review of D&D games, published as a feature by a fan magazine. That is the sum total of all evidence presented. There are no cites provided, attesting to notability from outside the narrow circle of fan publications; nothing to attest it was a notable game, or product, or module, of any kind, from outside that narrow circle of interest.

Notability criteria include significant mention in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Such sources leads to a presumption that it is notable. Despite a 7 day discussion (more than the normal 5) with many views, we still have no "multiple sources" attesting to "significant mention". We have just one sole mention within its own narrow circle, and none from outside it.

The last question is to look at that "Dungeon" magazine review, and see if that can be enough, alone. It seems from the list of judges that these were chosen for genuine D&D credibility. The panel included reputable game authors, influential reviewers and designers, and presidents and chief editors of D&D publishing companies, in the genre - it is not a trivial collection of opinion-makers, nor is it visibly likely to be partisan or "pushing certain products". So this is good evidence that the game is indeed fairly rated as #13 in its genre. The problem is, we don't know how many games of genuine credibility were rated (or exist) - if there were 30 listed but in fact only 30 credible games that could be considered seriously, then #13 would in fact not prove much. If it was in competition with (say) 200 other credible games, then #13 might be a genuine achievement. And additionally we still lack significant multiple, or non-fan, mentions either way.

So this is the problem. We have no sources evidenced at this AFD to show notability from outside the genre and fan-circles. We have almost no sources showing notability within it. We don't have multiple sources. We have one review but whilst a good one, it's still only one mention and slight, from within its own circle, and there are problems determining what weight to give a rating of #13. These can perhaps all be remedied, but at this point no evidence exists to allow AFD contributors to do so. If new evidence can be found, then there may then be a good case to keep. But at this time it seems clear the evidence provided at this time does not rebut the concerns of those who state notability is an issue.

DRV overturned the original result outright to no consensus. Xoloz (talk) 16:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dwellers of the Forbidden City

Dwellers of the Forbidden City (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Dungeons and Dragons module being claimed as non-notable. I'm bringing this here to establish a precedent that at least some of these modules are notable. Pak21 (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep: two references from unquestionably independent sources, White Dwarf and Different Worlds. The module received significant coverage in both these publications. Also rated as the 13th best adventure of all time and covered in Dungeon while this was edited and owned by Paizo Publishing, an company independent of Tactical Studies Rules and Wizards of the Coast, the original publisher and current copyright holder for this module. This would seem to me to clearly meet the standards required for verifiability and notability, thus there is no reason for deletion. --Pak21 (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    Well, you get a point for the WP:POINT violation for nominating an article that you support keeping. --Jack Merridew
  • Delete — This is a non-notable, game-guide bit of cruft and there are dozens more where it came from. --Jack Merridew 15:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Notability in a nutshell is that "a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.". The coverage in White Dwarf and Different Worlds is significant, and both White Dwarf and Different Worlds are unquestionably secondary sources independent of TSR/WotC. Why do you say this is non-notable? --Pak21 (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • This is a book, and the reviews and citations from 3 different publications covering the genre are sufficient for it to pass the notability guidelines for books. It needs cleanup of cruft contained within it (the book's TOC? Ah, no) but as the subject of an article, it itself is not cruft. Keep and slap the pointy nominator's wrist for not taking this to more appropriate venue. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: I'm not sure exactly what point I'm being accused of trying to make here. That this article contains sufficient sources to mean it is notable? This venue would seem to me to be entirely the most appropriate one for that, as it is where the most knowledgable editors on that subject contribute. --Pak21 (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
      • You brought an article to Articles For Deletion with the request that it not be deleted. If you don't want it deleted, don't ask to delete it just to prove a point. There are other, more appropriate venues for getting a discussion on the subject's notability. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The two sources in question say that the game was "a good buy" (at $4.00) and is rated "5/10". I don't think that these qualify as reliable secondary sources. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: You are failing to distinguish between what the sources say, and what is quoted in the article. --Pak21 (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Commment I can only comment on what is quoted in the article - which is trivial low-qulatity coverage and cannot be intepreted as a reliable secondary source by a long stretch of the imagination, even one as overactive as an RPG enthusiast's. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Article includes references to establish notability. White Dwarf and Different Worlds are both reliable secondary sources. Rray (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - article needs some cleaning up, but it has sources and more can be found. The module in question was voted as one of the 30 greatest adventures of the first 30 years of D&D by a third party publisher. Web Warlock (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Nominating editor has established notability of game book. Now there's an odd one, nominator votes Keep - first time I've seen that.  :) Hope this works out for you Pak, instead of backfiring... BOZ (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omgili :-) --Pak21 (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I would debate there, that the nominator didn't seem entirely sure what should happen with the article. Of course, maybe I'm wrong and this is just the latest new fun trend.  ;) BOZ (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Clear Delete as pure gamecruft, with indifferent content ("a good buy"? 5/10? C'mon.). Also fails WP:BK. Eusebeus (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    Assuming you meant WP:BK, out of curiosity, why don't you think it passes criteria 1? —Quasirandom (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    Remember "cruft" is not an arguement for deletion per WP:ITSCRUFT Web Warlock (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Webwarlock, read the guidelines next time. Please note that while declaring something to be "cruft" in itself is not a rational argument for deletion, actual cruft - vast amounts of specific information on topics of little notability - is not acceptable for Wikipedia. "Cruft" is often used as a shorthand term for failure to meet the above criteria, and should not be treated as a bad faith dismissal of the information. However, editors who declare something to be "cruft" should take care to explain in their rationale for deletion why it's cruft. - hence gamecruft with indifferent content. Eusebeus (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment: however, Dwellers of the Forbidden City has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources (White Dwarf and Different Worlds) and is thus presumed to be notable per WP:N. The fact it didn't receive stellar reviews is neither here nor there when discussing its notability. --Pak21 (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per nom.--Robbstrd (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as this game guide fails WP:BK. Only an RPG fanatic would assert that a book of game instructions are notable without reliable secondary sources as evidence of notability. Product reviews and fansites are standard fare for all games, and can't be taken as evidence of notability on their own. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment Game guide? Where's the instructions? Who is being told how to do what exactly in this article? There's no plot summary, just a quotation of the back cover text (which, perhaps, doesn't belong in the article). I look at WP:BK and find the word "reviews" in criteria 1 for notability. Neither White Dwarf nor Different Worlds were associated with TSR. I added a reference from Wizards of the Coast. Despite User:Pak21's remark, while Wizards of the Coast are the current publishers of D&D, they certainly were not at the time that this game module was published, and were not the publishers of this module in 1981 (I don't think WotC was even a glimmer in the eye of anyone in 1981). That WotC reference's mention of this game module is admittedly brief, but it does back up the claim that this module was first used in a tournament at Origins (which to some, at least, is also a claim to notability). How are any of these three references not secondary sources because of the independence of them from the publishers (TSR)? These sources aren't merely blogs or "fansites" as you mention. Could you clarify for me how this still fails WP:BK, please? Furthermore, the comment that "only an RPG fanatic..." might be bordering on breaching WP:CIVILITY by attempting to disparage others commenting in this AFD. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment can you illustrate reliable sources which should cover RPG books outside the field of RPG? That way other editors that is interested in they field can reference their work properly with those you point to. Calling people RPG fanatics does isn't really helping much. For example, I source the bio articles that I created with journals and the video game stubs I fixed with Gamespot and Ign staff reviews and news but not vice versa. Just asking. Since you know what is not a reliable source. Maybe you know what is.--Lenticel (talk) 23:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Product reviews are legitimate reliable secondary sources. I agree that Gavin's comments regarding "RPG fanatics" is a breach of WP:CIVILITY. I'm sure that it's frustrating for Gavin that the consensus doesn't usually agree with his countless tags and AfD's, but that's no reason for namecalling. Rray (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't find Gavin's comment uncivil. He may have chosen slightly better language, but I find this tendency to whine about incivility every time someone uses a colorful turn of phrase, depressing. We must aspire to more than an online community of sloughing deltas, RPG fanatics or no. Eusebeus (talk) 14:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
          • Gavin does have a history of condescending incivility to those who think differently than he does, so it's nothing new. I try to ignore it and move on. BOZ (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
          • Mr Collins has either no idea what D&D is, or he's doing it in order to sound condescending. He's about as impartial as Tomas de Torquemada when it comes to RPG articles (which he has tagged in droves). Anyhow, I'm going to !vote
    • Comment This is not a game guide. It's not even sort of a game guide. Please explain. Hobit (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete on this one, on grounds that notability cannot be established. In my opinion, the same is true for nearly all D&D supplements and nearly all in-universe D&D articles. Per Wikipedia guidelines as written the categories in question need to be decimated forthwith. --Agamemnon2 (talk) 06:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I am not in favour of a scorched earth policy involving decimation, but I agree that merger or consolidation of these modules, stock locations, deities, characters (few if any of which have any notability) into a useful list - this would be a big improvement to to RPG articles. Incidently, these modules, adventures and supplements (aka game instructions) do not require experts to divine whether they are notable or not; what they do need are reliable secondary sources to provide evidience that they are significant. This artlicle reads like a review for a favorite book. If article like this keep getting written, Wikipedia will be watered down to a blog of games played by RPG enthusiasts. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Could you please explain White Dwarf and Different Worlds are not reliable secondary sources? --Pak21 (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually, no you haven't since your statements are incorrect. Edward321 (talk) 00:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Nom. (Never thought I'd say that.) Multiple, independant sources have been provided. Edward321 (talk) 00:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Ranked #13 on by time Dungeon Magazine (not owned by the publisher of the module), cites from White Dwarf.Hobit (talk) 03:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Nom. The provided sources are both reliable and sufficient.Shemeska (talk) 07:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I do not even see why this is disputed. We all agree (per WP:N etc.) that multiple independent sources imply notability; here there are multiple independent sources, clearluy cited; ergo, the subject of the article is notable. Do I miss something? Goochelaar (talk) 08:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe it is because there are a group of editors who are going after "Fancruft". The raw number of "not notable" tags that a few editors have placed on nearly all D&D pages is amazing. Hobit (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have added 76 new references and expaned the History section (was Reception), still have a few more places to look. Web Warlock (talk) 15:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment 3,470 ghits for whatever that's worth. Hobit (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    see WP:GHITS --Jack Merridew 06:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was doing as nominator suggested, further merges are at editorial discretion. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 22:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethical anarchism

Ethical anarchism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I propose this page be deleted and replaced with a disambiguation page that links to Fred Woodworth/The Match and postmodern philosophy as I don't think either of the uses of this term qualify for their own article. The Woodworth/Match articles are rather small as is and would not be harmed by merging the two lines of info and picture here into them, while the postmodern phil section is already nothing but a disambiguation statement.

This article should be kept and expanded if non-trivial coverage of either of the uses exists in reliabel sources so that we can make a proper full-length article about it. Skomorokh incite 15:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 18:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neopets Items

Neopets Items (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The article is essentially a catalog of items for Neopets in violation of WP:NOT. A merge to the parent article is not appropriate as this is simply a detailed list of items. The parent article already discusses the concept of Neopet items without a need for an exhaustive list Whpq (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. I put prod on it for pretty much the same reasons. The author took it off and I was going to give him a few days to see if he could make the article any better before listing it here. It seems you got there first. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT#GUIDE WP:NOT#CATALOG, appears to be a stand-alone list, but no explicit selection criteria per WP:SAL. -Verdatum (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. What's the encyclopedic value of this list? andy (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Arbitrary - "Many of these items are listed here, yet not all of them will be" - and useless: there's no explanation of what these items are or what role they play in the game, rendering it of extremely limited value to readers who aren't already familiar with the subject. Zetawoof(ζ) 02:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Perhaps one can ask for more information. It seems someone has gone through a lot of trouble to gain this list and it could prove useful. Although I agree that wikipedia is not an indiscriminate amount of information, the list certainly has some value to it. Perhaps the person can be reminded of other fictional item lists that have been considered helpful for wikipedia users such as list of pokemon (which has been changed from a list to a detailed list) and List of Yu-Gi-Oh! cards in order to have the article rewritten to fit the encyclopedia more.Monkeytheboy (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete useless, unending, and Wikipedia is not a directory. There are almost 26,000 Neopets items, with more added regularly, so yes, this list is beyond arbitrary. Collectonian (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - indiscriminate collection of items that happens to be nothing more than game guide information. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. Someone another (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


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

{{subst:Afd top}} {{subst:#if: | {{subst:#switch: {{{1}}} | d = delete. | k = keep. | nc = no consensus to delete, default to keep. | m = merge. | r = redirect. | {{{1}}} }}}} {{subst:#if: | {{{2}}} }} speedy delete per CSD G3. Article is a hoax. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 19:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Kinchen

Kevin Kinchen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This was originally speedy deleted under CSD A7. DRV overturned, finding that an assertion of notability was present. Still, delete, given concerns over a lack of reliable sources and notability. Xoloz (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong delete; this is absolute vanispamcruftizement. If WP:BIO cast a shadow, it would not fall upon the article. — Coren (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep; I don't see this as a vanity piece or an advertisement but a statement of historical note. Notoriety is prevalent here and while many non information systems people may find it useless to note. I.S. people find this a worthy piece of information especially when you consider the potential for future development by this persons research. This person's writing or this person's discoveries or this persons accomplishments are all part of the social time period and are noteworthy in thier weight. It seems to often that people here immediately attempt to strike down any page they see pass before thier eyes in a review. Rather then Witch hunt an article and play high inquisitor in the inquisition. Lets all try to look at the article as a simple article of minor merit. It does have merit and while the merit does not appear great to some, it is at the very least notable and should remain. So I vote it gets kept. — Castawayred (talk) 10:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    Not even taking into account the obvious problems with notability, the article reads like an attempt at promotion, or self-promotion. It is entirely unsourced, and some of the assertions are completely false. It just so happens that I am very much involved in postgres development, and I've never heard or seen a reference to "The Farmer", which does not make that monicker "widely known" by any stretch of the imagination.

    Indeed, a quick google search returns no results of associations online between "The Farmer" and postgres (beyond this very article and a number of farmers that use postgres). Association between the two names ["Kevin Kinchen" "The Farmer"] returns no relevant link beyond, again, this article. Hardly "widely known". — Coren (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

    ... and "Kinchen has published more than 300,000 works of poetry and prose"? That would mean he would have had to publish over 25 works per day since the day he was born. Surely thou jest! — Coren (talk) 18:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    ... "Kinchen was quoted", with unspecified source, and again only googlable instance of that quote is this article.

    ... "Craven Writers Art of the Century Award" doesn't seem to exist outside the article either. — Coren (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep; I don't know, I kind of like the piece. I vote it gets kept. As for proof, I suppose you could read one of my white papers. You could test it out and try it for yourself which is absolutely provable.You could contact a reference, IE call Postgresql and ask them of the possibility. Perhaps you might even google Kevin Kinchen or yahoo my name. At the very least I have accomplished the super-database. And all of the poetic works. So in keeping with the trend and since I do get a vote, I vote for myself. 1 vote for me. and also, it seems Coren is dead set against this article, take a breath man, relax, it's all good. You seem to be lashing out. As to the farmer, my #1 fan it seems used my blog name. As to associating them your an odd one aren't you. Why not just Kevin Kinchen with nothing else. But then again I tried kevin kinchen and farmer and of the 1,567,876 results that returned, I didn't honestly look, wow that's a lot to look through to lash out at an article. Try Kevin Kinchen and poetry, or use my pen name, K. Kelly. Look in the library of congress, check out my web page, or just visit some of the links that come up. Call any place I have worked before and you will find out I rarely sleep, keeping with that I get bored easy and have been known to write a few hundred at a time. I really have a natural talent for it. Yes, 300,126. In what way is that assertations false? Please prove that because I can prove the poetry and I can prove the abilities of postgres. If you have to try it, try it, remember when you make your partitions to use multiple schemas so that they don't overload your structure and make as a simple test a table creation script in a function that builds tables till your system crashes. Even on a workstation you should arrive into the millions. Also, please don't take it personal, it looks like you are. Craven Creative Writers, that brings back memories though I live in washington state now and that is in NC. You could always email them and ask, did you think to before making your comment? Please stop just accusing before you follow through with your research, this really is like an inquisition and you are dead set on following it through, let it go man. Personally I dont think anyone who has posted so far should post again based on the fact it seems more of an argument of a personal nature than a review of the page. Can't we all just get along? Anyone who would like to comment on the impossibility of postgres partitioning and growing into the millions. Just because you haven't done it yet, doesn't mean it isnt true... look up benchmarks or ask me on "my" discussion page and I will give you step by step instruction to reproduce... because after all, thats where "this" discussion belongs. Well now you have "My" 2 cents. Have fun.. — Kevin.Kinchen (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Non-admin closure NAHID 18:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Automatic (Gary Numan album)

Automatic (Gary Numan album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This may not meet wikipedia's notability criteria Quanticle (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. Notable album by a notable artist(s). Would have been reviewed a lot when it came out, which was too early for these reviews to be easily found on the web.--Michig (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: The artist is notable according to WP:NMG as has had a hit on a national music chart (taking the artist as either Gary Numan or Sharpe and Numan) and been the subject of non-trivial published works. This means studio albums by the artist are also notable. -- JD554 (talk) 09:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as per above. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Clearly notable as per WP:NMG. Bad faith nom? Lugnuts (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. —JD554 (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per precedent that albums by notable artists are inherently notable enough for their own articles. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or delete wikipedia into irrelevance. Mykej (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep notable album by notable musical artist. Mh29255 (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as per above. From the description, it sounds like a terrible record though. sparkl!sm hey! 21:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Callie Cardamon

Callie Cardamon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

PROD was removed by anon IP without explanation. I believe she fails to meet notability for WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete - per nom, fails to meet notability standards. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep - After "Time and the Weather" was released, the album received significant airtime on South Dakota Public Broadcasting's Jazz Nightly. --FidusAchates (talk) 02:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
That's nice, but I don't believe that meets any key criteria. See WP:NMG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe that she meets the 11th requirement for notability, having been in rotation on a major radio station. Dugong9 (talk) 03:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering about that myself. The guideline actually states major radio network and I don't believe that means a night-time jazz show on South Dakota Public Broadcasting. But hey, if I'm wrong, so be it. Best of luck, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as non notable. No indication of how the subject meets WP:MUSIC. Nuttah (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JodyB (talk • contribs) 01:22, 25 December 2007

[edit] Homeworld Universe

Homeworld Universe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Cruft. Not sourcable. No secondary sources dedicated to the topic. SharkD (talk) 05:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. SharkD (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep (note: already here on the homeworld wiki) - this is not cruft, it is just old. In 2006, no one really cared about sources in such articles, and we should improve it, instead of deleting old material. There are certainly sources about this: it's the universe of a popular series that has had a major impact on a genre. User:Krator (t c) 19:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Unless someone can establish notability through reliable sourcing, its probably not notable. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - If I may go through the article section by section; "Games", an overview of the series, for which we already have specific articles for. "Motifs and Common Threads" should be deleted as original research. "Overview" contains some out-of-universe material which, if sourced, would be suitable for the specific game articles, but again is largely OR. "Fan Media" is of no real interest to this encyclopedia. "Infulence of Homeworld" is entirely OR. "Characters" - the single character mentioned has her own article, although looking at it I dare say it will be up for AfD itself soon. Marasmusine (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete.   jj137 ♠ 03:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kombat Breakers

Kombat_Breakers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

The Kombat Breakers were just runners up, so an article like this isn't really needed i think it should be deleted. (Gotiger13 (talk) 09:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC))

  • Delete unless someone can provide evidence that the world has taken any interest since the TV show. Nuttah (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was no consensus. Tijuana Brass (talk) 04:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uberman's sleep schedule

Uberman's sleep schedule (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable sleep schedule. Appears to be an Everything2 article that became a Kuro5hin article that became a personal weblog, only claiming a "mention as such" in an academic text. (From an Amazon.com search, the Neil Strauss book does not appear to include the word 'Uberman'.) Flagged since July 2007. Looking at the history, it has been prodded before for being an "uninformed clone of Da Vinci sleep". McGeddon (talk) 10:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep I heard about the Uberman sleep schedule by word of mouth and of course went to look it up on Wikipedia - in addition there are around 6,000 Google hits for it! Both of these points demonstrate how the USS concept has gained a foothold in the public imagination. The effectiveness of the technique is arguable and perhaps it is just an uninformed clone of Da Vinci Sleep - but those are points to raise in its Wikipedia entry, which I think should remain. --AbePralle 05:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Word of mouth and Google results are, by themselves, insufficient for WP:N. --McGeddon (talk) 13:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Could this article (as well as everyman sleep schedule) be incorporated as sections in polyphasic sleep? And could the reference to Sara Mednick's published research be featured more prominently? In those cases, I would vote keep. Mark.Howison (talk) 10:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as non notable. There is no coverage in reliable souces to make keeping any of what is here. Nuttah (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as the subject will undoubtedly appear and reappear otherwise. It would be best to have this all in one place. I think the most of the present article Polyphasic sleep should be moved here, with a very short note at the beginning of Polyphasic sleep sending interested readers here. I think the Everyman sleep schedule article should be deleted and that article should become a section of Uberman, as a variant. --Hordaland (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: I have read of this concept before, outside of Wikipedia. Regardless of whether the topic is noteworthy in a clinical or medical context, it should be documented in Wikipedia simply because it exists. A person who reads or hears of this idea from other sources will surely want to learn more about it, and Wikipedia must satisfy that desire. If this sleep strategy is indeed ineffective (and I have no doubt that this is the case), the correct response is to document that fact in the WP entry, not delete the article entirely.
(Sneaking in line here.) The argument immediately above is a very good one for Keep. I hope it will be counted, even though the author has forgotten to sign it. --Hordaland (talk) 11:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete lacks reputable sources. --RaiderAspect (talk) 04:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Question. Would anyone really mind if I moved the bulk of Polyphasic sleep to the Uberman article and removed the OR flag from Polyphasic sleep? I've been considering doing so for some time. I think I'll just do it to make the Polyphasic article acceptable. Then most of the Uberman stuff will be in one place, to be discussed further. --Hordaland (talk) 12:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd have thought that a merge in the other direction would have made more sense - the wider subject of polyphasic sleep seems to be more strongly sourced than the Uberman system specifically, and I don't see that the original research in polyphasic sleep is confined to Uberman. --McGeddon (talk) 13:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Umm. Well, I just did it. I see your point, but I think the (now) short Polyphasic sleep should be about what lies in the name. The "new" Uberman article does include many variants and should perhaps be renamed. Intentional polyphasic sleep? Uberman and other sleep schedules? Or it could be called Naps, which already has a disambiguation page. --Hordaland (talk) 14:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
P.S. There wasn't much point discussing deleting the Uberman article, if the reason was to get rid of doubtful information and claims, as long as virtually identical information and claims also appeared on Polyphasic sleep. --Hordaland (talk) 15:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:34, December 23, 2007

[edit] Persuasion/Influence in OE/EE

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Persuasion/Influence in OE/EE
Persuasion/Influence in OE/EE (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Nothing notable that can't be found on Robert_Cialdini#Influence Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - non-notable and it looks like plagiarism too.--Svetovid (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - possible plagiarism and otherwise serves no useful purpose - Dumelow (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. BLACKKITE 01:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Folka Albark

Folka Albark (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable fictional game character Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep: How non notable it is when he is the protagonist of Super Robot Wars Compact 3, and will play a very prominent role in the upcoming Super Robot Wars Original Generation Gaiden, which is considered a prominent entry to the Super Robot Wars saga? Please research further about the Super Robot Wars saga, before deciding this is a prominent or non prominent character to the saga. Hell, if you think the whole SRW original characters are not prominent enough, why aren't you nominating other characters' pages for deletion and makes it an exception for Folka only? N J B (talk) 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    Because I didn't find any independent reliable sources on the subject. For as far as the other charactes go, because I didn't notice them, but if you think they fail to meet the criteria for inclusion, feel free to bring them to AfD aswell. See also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Well.... if you wish for an independent, reliable source... here's one of the Famitsu Scans featuring Super Robot Wars Original Generation Gaiden, and look who's prominently featured: http://img444.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1184729951223qo6.jpg. Yes, Folka. The man in red hair. You know Famitsu is known to be quite a reliable source, the ones featured there will usually play a prominent role in the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by N J B (talk • contribs) 01:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable video game character. No real world context and I doubt that secondary sources can be found to establish real world context. Ridernyc (talk) 16:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Again, please elaborate what you mean non-notable. Are you saying that every SRW Original Characters non-notable? N J B (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non notable character, 40 or so unique GHits none of which offer significant coverage and/or come from anything close to a reliable source. Nuttah (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Please define why isn't Famitsu a reliable source. --Cassarenas (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Focused Evidence: Hey listen, Super Robot Wars Original Generation Gaiden is out. if you dont believe that famitsu scans are not reliable resource, then get the game itself and judge on it. There are about 400,000 players that can prove that Folka is the main protagonist of the Super Robot Wars Original Generation Gaiden. Now if you tell me you won't even believe that when YOU don't have the game, then GET it so it will stick through your brain that the character IS there as a protagonist. User: Oratorio (talk) 27 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:34, December 23, 2007

[edit] Wylie Chen

Wylie Chen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Subject is "the Senior Manager for Operations and Accountability in the CDF Freedom Schools Division at the Children's Defense Fund". While the organisation may be notable, he, personally, is not. Article seems to be a twin of Taj Brown, nominated for deletion 16 December 2007 [50] AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 13:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete without prejudice to re-creation should she gain future notability (or good referencing that she already is becomes available) Not notable purely for her TV appearance. Re-created as protected redirect to Australian Idol for time being.BLACKKITE 01:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Natalie Zahra

Natalie Zahra (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No notability beyond being placed 11th in Australian Idol. No substantial change to the article since December 2005 when she was apparently recording with a producer [51], so two years have passed, no record deal and nothing to indicate that her notability will increase. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 12:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep - She may have lost, but given the absurd number of entrants in Australian Idol, 11th is a position that gained quite a degree of publicity. She may be forgotten in years to come, but for the time being she is certainly notable. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 13:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is long established that losing a reality show is not evidence of notability. As the article offers nothing else apart from winning an award only available to unsigned artists she fails WP:BIO. Nuttah (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination as non-notable biography. --Lockley (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Not a plausible spelling for a redirect. Tijuana Brass (talk) 04:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nikon Coolpix SYSTEM ERROR

Nikon Coolpix SYSTEM ERROR (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, reads like How-to, could be merged. Created Oct 2006, tagged since Oct 2007 with no changes. ViperSnake151 12:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - I don't doubt that the article was written in good faith, but there's nothing salvagable here to be merged with Nikon Coolpix. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 13:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete WP is not a service manual. -Verdatum (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • merge with E18 error, not notable, but maybe useful as context Steve Sanbeg (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with E18 error. I must agree with Steve Sanbeg. I'd thought that Nikon Coolpix would be the place for this, but that article is really just a listing of models, and not much else. The Nikon and Canon errors are really quite similar, and a merge could probably be done fairly smoothly by someone moderately knowledgeable about the topic. Tim Ross·talk 19:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - all pieces of equipment and systems have system errors and there is nothing particularly notable about this one. I get a system error on my Satnav but don't feel the urge to write a Wikipedia article on it! A merge to E18 is not viable since that is an unconnected error on an unconnected camera make. TerriersFan (talk) 01:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:NOT & WP:RS. I would assent to a merge to Nikon Coolpix, but not to E18 error. Caknuck (talk) 21:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was Redirect and protect. Hut 8.5 18:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aroha Robinson

Aroha Robinson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Sole claim to notability was coming third in NZ Idol one year. The article has three times been redirected to NZ Idol, and three times set back up again. Subject "is working on a diploma for fashion design". AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 12:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:33, December 23, 2007

[edit] Matt Palmer

Matt Palmer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I can't find anything to substantiate the claim that this person is a notable poker player. The only page that shows up in a Google search that appears to be the same person mentioned in this article appears to be self-created. ([52]). Dougie WII (talk) 11:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:32, December 23, 2007

[edit] Throw and throws in Java exceptions

Throw and throws in Java exceptions (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article appears to be exceedingly Java-specific (and reads as a how-to guide rather than an article). I don't see much here worth salvaging that isn't better said in exception handling. JavaTenor (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

*Copyvio from http://jlanguage.blogspot.com/2007/08/throw-and-throws-in-java-exceptions.html So tagged. Tonywalton Talk 10:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Not a copyvio, it was created here first (April 2007). Delete per nom anyway. Tonywalton Talk 11:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Sufficiently covered elsewhere. More appropriate to wikibooks anyway. -Verdatum (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete if already covered in Exception handling. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 15:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete under CSD G11. Speedy Deletion - SPAM. Wikipedia is definitely not the right place for such an "article"

[edit] Ps3 for free

Ps3 for free (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Speedy Deletion - SPAM. Loukinho (talk) 10:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:32, December 23, 2007

[edit] Jade Michael LaFont

Jade Michael LaFont (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This actor fails WP:BIO; he appeared only in some minor screen roles. Also, this seems a blatant case of autobiography: The only contributor is Collegebound8605 (talk · contribs), and the actor's myspace link is http://www.myspace.com/collegebound8605. The same user also contested the proposed deletion. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding (talk) 09:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - Yes, agree that article fails WP:BIO. Also fails to assert strong notability. ScarianTalk 13:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:32, December 23, 2007

[edit] The Effect of the Internet on Language and Communication

The Effect of the Internet on Language and Communication (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

As the introduction says, this is a paper for a college class. Though well-written and interesting, it's unfortunately not an encyclopedia article. It's peppered with original research and some POV, as personal essays tend to be. szyslak 09:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Not a bad article and should have a home somewhere on the interweb, but, for the reasons given above, not here. Alberon (talk) 09:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT#PUBLISHER. –Pomte 10:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete too much WP:OR and per Pomte - Dumelow (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:32, December 23, 2007

[edit] Gorilla Pictures

Gorilla Pictures (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a vanity/ advertising page about a production company that may or may not pass WP:CORP. No sources other than their offical website, possible conflict of interest. Mr Senseless (talk) 09:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete -- WP:NOTE and probable WP:COI -₪-Hemidemisemiquaver (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, doesn't satisfy WP:CORP, lack of secondary sources - Dumelow (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only one notable movie came out of that production house, and that is not enough to make its producer notable. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 22:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

{{subst:Afd top}} {{subst:#if: | {{subst:#switch: {{{1}}} | d = delete. | k = keep. | nc = no consensus to delete, default to keep. | m = merge. | r = redirect. | {{{1}}} }}}} {{subst:#if: | {{{2}}} }}: Deleted per consensus - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bears-Vikings rivalry

Bears-Vikings rivalry (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The article does not use any references to support how this is a notable rivalry, outside of the fact it is a divisional rivalry. A Google search came up with almost nothing. See WP:Cite, WP:OR, and WP:A. ShadowJester07 ► Talk 06:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination, as well as failure to meet Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability standards. Mh29255 (talk) Mh29255 06:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've actually seen books about some rivalries, such as Dallas Cowboys/Washington Redskins. There may be similar ones out there for this, but I could not locate any in Google. Xymmax (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - and I had better vote now, because after tonight's game my vote might be WP:COI. This article violates WP:N, and I suspect that almost any attempt to verify it may violate WP:OR. LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I grew up in both Wisconsin and Illinois and this is as nothing compared to Bears-Packers rivalry. --Dhartung | Talk 18:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete since this fails everything that is WP:V. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite This is an important rivalry in the NFL and it features two major media markets in the United States, however, this, like many other sports articles, needs to be rewritten and cleaned up.ColdRedRain (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and here's a link that notes the rivalry.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/bears/2007/12/les_frazier_prepares_to_face_t.html

ColdRedRain (talk) 05:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment: There's no doubt there is a rivalry, as both teams are members of the same division. However, the rivalry itself possess no notability outside of that. Bears fans only care about their North rivalry between the Packers , relatively similar to how Detroit Redwings fans only care about their rivalry with the Colorado Avalanche. SI sis not even rank the Bears-Vikings Rivalries in their top ten NFL Rivalries list. --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 05:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Since we're using anectodal opinion to determine something that's well noted in the league (The players of both sides outright dislike each other) I can include my experience as an usher for the team. The mood between both teams fans are less than amicable, and this was just a *gimmie* game where the Bears had nothing to play for.
But since Wikipedia isn't a soapbox or a mood barometer, the best thing to do in the determining of what makes a "rivalry" a "rivalry" is to talk to read press releases, the news media and the messageboards and blogs from the fans and the markets of the two teams themselves. Here, you can see on Vikings and Bears messageboards that the two teams dislike each other greatly, and here you can see on a Bears message board that the feelings are reciprocated to the point where the Vikings are the second most hated rival in their sphere and likewise for the Vikes.
http://www.dabears.com/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t201.html
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/san-leandro-ca/TE4K02FMEK30N35EQ/p2
http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=63#s=63&f=1554&t=1680771
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.channel&ChannelID=141912480
SI did not record a lot of fierce rivalries, like Falcons vs Buccaneers and Bengals vs Steelers, both of which are very fierce.
And also, did you actually *watch* the game last night? If a punch thrown by a Bears offensive lineman to a Vikings defensive lineman isn't a sign of a fierce rivalry, then nothing is. Also, for the very simple fact that the game was on Monday Night Football itself and all night long, the game was touted as a major rivalry by the announcers themselves kind of drills a hole in your theory. Watch more teams in NFL than the Patriots, Cowboys and Colts and you'd figure what rivalries are what in the NFL.

ColdRedRain (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

And to add too, the two areas major sports teams have *ALWAYS* had a rivalry with each other when it came to sports. White Sox vs Twins and Blackhawks vs North Stars have always been big rivalries in their respective leagues. In fact, BECAUSE of the rivalry between the two areas, the NHL wants to realign the divisions because they can sense the money that would come from a Minnesota-Chicago rivalry. And actually, for a while, there was a debate in the sporting world if the Vikings and the Bears were each other's biggest rivals back when they were both playing for the same division crown 20 years ago and the Packers were putrid. You're either under 18 or you probably don't watch a lot of sports other than the "popular" teams. If you're under 18 and you watched your first Viking-Bear tilt, welcome to pure black and blue division hatred. ColdRedRain (talk) 06:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I believe this is opinion. I am a White Sox and Bears fan well over 18, and I say with equal fervor to your statement that while these rivalries may occasionally be compelling, they are not big in the grand scheme of their respective sports. As a Bears fan, the only true rivalry with the Bears is with the Packers. As far as the White Sox, the only team we are routinely comparing ourselves to are the Cubs. To be fair, Cleveland has been a bigger rival in the last ten years than Minnesota. To the point: this is all opinion. The article exists based on nothing more than a few sports writers looking for something to write about. Perhaps this rivalry is bigger in Minnesota than in Chicago, but that would just go to show that it is not a real rivalry in the sense that would achieve the level of notability to write an article about it. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
The rivalry isn't something that's new, it's been a strong rivalry for at least 30 years (Which is why I assume you're a new fan) I actually watched the tilts in the early 90's between these two teams, you probably didn't. Oh, and BTW, The players themselves consider it a rivalry. (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-140226550.html) Not as strong as Bears-Packers but it's a rivalry none of the less. Enough that a Bears fan wrote an article about it on Wikipedia and named it "Bears-Vikings" not "Vikings-Bears".

ColdRedRain (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

With due respect, I think you are making my point for me. I have been watching this game since the 1970s. It is true that in more recent times the Vikings have gotten good again (compared to being good in the 70's and the late 80s/early 90s), and that there have been brief windows in that time when the Vikings and Bears were relatively equal in strength for brief moments. I will go one step further: there is a Bears and Vikings rivalry -- I don't think anyone is doubting that here. The problem is: I don't see how it meets notability. When I say "new", I meant that it is only about 40 years old ..... which do not compare to Bears-Packers, Bears-Lions, Bears-Cardinals, Bears-Giants, even Bears- Redskins, all of which go back much longer than the Vikings have existed. Even if the Bears & Vikings players today consider it a rivalry, that is not a guarantee that they will feel the same next year. When it comes to notability, it has to be documented from a dispassionate view. The Packers-Bears rivalry is among the oldest in the NFL. That can be documented without any opinion. The existence of a Vikings-Bears rivalry, being notable enough to warrant an article here, from what I read of WP:N is an opinion .... held by me, held by you, apparently held by some local sportswriters, but nothing beyond that. From where I am reading, it takes more than an opinion, even a widely held opinion, to warrant notability. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Nothing about this subject that can't be better covered in the individual articles on the two teams. The rivalry itself doesn't rate its own article. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep and rewrite. This is a noteable rivalry in the NFL and instead of ruining the page it should be fixed. Libertyville | Talk 14:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was move. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 13:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic Academy

Islamic Academy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article has been a stub without any reference for more than a year. Somewhat reads like an attack page to begin with. The notability of the organization is doubtful. The most problematic aspect of the article is - the name of the discussed organization is so generic that it can easily be confused with a lot of other organizations with similar name. Arman (Talk) 06:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete wp:v. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to Islamic Foundation Bangladesh, its successor organization.[53]. There is not no attack here. The government accused a the charity, shut it down, and reopened it in a new form.[54] They appear to be prominent and they are behind the Banglapedia project. • Gene93k (talk) 11:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Good idea I'll second that moving thing. Improving the Foundation article should be easy. But, they have never had anything to do with Banglapedia. Islamic Foundation has it's own Islamic Encyclopedia. Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Move as suggested by Gene93k but do not delete. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I, the nominator, also agree to the move proposal now. Islamic Foundation Bangladesh is a notable organization and I can try to expand that article. I request admins to move Islamic Academy. Arman (Talk) 01:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was Speedy deleted as copyvio. Capitalistroadster (talk) 06:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Superabortion

Superabortion (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is a highly POV essay with very little encyclopedic merit. It includes several quotations from authorities that may or may not be reliable, but they appear to be for the purpose of original synthesis. deranged bulbasaur 05:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. While as well-written as an article on a news ticker can be, no references have been provided to demonstrate either notability or accuracy in this article, nor was there any reference to supporting policy by the editors moving to keep. If they can be provided (or if someone wants to merge this to a related article), there's always WP:DRV. Tijuana Brass (talk) 04:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ESPN BottomLine

ESPN BottomLine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced article about a sports ticker. I can't see the notability. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom Doc Strange (talk) 13:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Whatever next? An article on the fact that there's always a clock in the corner of the screen on CNN? Or a whole new Category: News Stations that Have Screen-Bottom Tickers (CNN, Al Jazeera, Fox News, Sky News, and so on, and so on, ad infinitum). AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • This pains me. On one hand, I agree that there is no logical reason that the ESPN BottomLine should have its own page. On the other hand, this ticker is more complex than those that AlasdairGreen mentioned. It has many categories and usage rules as explained. The CNN, Fox News, BBC World, Al-Jazeera, and other tickers mentioned come in only one flavor, as it were.

    As for the page being "unreferenced," another valid point is made here. However, I imagine that somewhere on ESPN.com is the reference that is needed. Either I or someone else can find it.

    I concede that it may be hard for me to keep this page up. But I feel that I must do everything to save it before it goes away. I have already seen the Steve Beverly and Boni Blackstone pages get the boot, and I hate for it every time it happens. (For the removal of the Beverly page, I blame Union University for not putting up a bio online, but that's their problem.) - Desmond Hobson (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

    • Can't find it on ESPN.com. I invite others to try to find it through another source, and if it's not anywhere else, please remove it. I have placed all the contents in my sandbox, so that at least it's saved somewhere. - Desmond Hobson (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I can see the notability of a news ticker, sports ticker, etc. It's the written companion to the spoken words on a news channel, and as the article demonstrates, it can be tailored to fit the network's needs. Mandsford (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. My initial reaction was to delete, but upon reading the article I do see information that evolves and fluctuates from the actual network broadcast. It does provide info and I even googled and saw some instances where it is being used as a source... Ie: "According to ESPN's Bottom Line..." Frog47 (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - well, it's notable. I guess this is one of those few times when I believe that WP:NOT#PAPER (does that section still exist) applies to an AFD. The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Move relevant content into ESPN related articles (if it's not there already). RobJ1981 (talk) 01:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm with Spartan here - This fits our criteria well enough to live here, but I wouldn't put it in WP 1.0 --CastAStone//(talk) 21:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - not a source in sight and WP:OR. TerriersFan (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was:Delete. Long discussion, lots of strong emotions on both sides, but the consensus appears clear. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Katherine L. Albiani Middle School

Katherine L. Albiani Middle School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable school with no claims of notability. My speedy tag was removed, so here we are. Corvus cornixtalk 04:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, non-notable. Mh29255 (talk) Mh29255 05:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all schools are notable. JERRY talk contribs 05:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect to Elk Grove Unified School District. I have changed my !vote on this, because I was convinced that it is in the long-term best interest of the project to have consistency and precedent for school articles to prevent the drama of an entrenched AFD with no concensus outcome everytime, as this one would likely come to. See my talk page for details. I will not strikethrough all of my other comments on this page, but I hope that my change of position up here will get higher weighting than the arguments I made below. JERRY talk contribs 15:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
BOYS! Keep it above he belt and WP:CIVIL LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Unless we're running low on bits. Mykej (talk) 09:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    • No, there's plenty of bits. So should WP:AFD be closed down until we start running low on bits? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a real school for goodness sake. It might not be important to you but what about to the community that the school serves? Encik Nikk (talk) 09:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.208.43.121 (talk)
  • Delete' All schools are NOT notable. WP:SCHOOLS was not approve as official Wikipedia policy. School does not meet notability requirements. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Those who claim that all schools are notable have obviously not read WP:OUTCOMES. Most elementary and middle schools that don't claim notability are now getting deleted in AfD. Corvus cornixtalk 17:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

If it is obvious, then you really don't need to state it. If it really does need to be stated, how about include it in your own comment section up there (^) instead of making an attention-geting and vote-swaying banner down here? JERRY talk contribs 17:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for assuming good faith, Jerry. I had thought we had a civil discussion going on, but apparently I was wrong. This is a continuation of a discussion, I have new comments to make based upon other people's comments, and I added my new comments chronologically. This isn't my first AfD, you know. How are these comments any more offensive than your nasty comments to Brewcrewer above? Corvus cornixtalk 18:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
WP:AGF? Give me a break! ..."have obviously not read"... Don't make comments about users in AFD... discuss the merits of the article, not the users!! I don't care if it's your first AfD or not... I'll bet plenty of users can contribute quite nicely to their first AfD. This venue is about discussing articles, so keep your comments on target, please. JERRY talk contribs 20:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I can see that there will be no reciprocity of civility here, so I see no need to further discuss this with you. Corvus cornixtalk 22:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Outcomes is irrelevant. Past wrong decisions don't require future wrong decisions. Mykej (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment. All of the schools within a particular school district must meet specific educational guidelines peculiar to that school district, as well as any state-mandated requirements and federal guidelines. If a particular middle or elementary school is following the curriculum requirements as mandated by the school district, state & federal government that are common to all middle & elementary schools within the district, what makes this particular middle school so notable that it should have an independent article? Unless there is something so unique & special about a particular middle or elementary school that makes it notable, it isn't notable; and, hence, should not have an article independent from its main school district article. Mh29255 18:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mh29255 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Delete - Violates WP:N. LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep since there is ample sourcing to meet WP:V and the claim that this doesn't meet the imaginary lines of WP:N is quite laughable. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment Can you please explain how this particular school is notable per Wikipedia:Notability (schools)? Mh29255 (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Notability (schools) is a proposed guideline that has not received concensus by the community.JERRY talk contribs 00:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment There is clearly no consensus from community members regarding what is notable and what is not when it comes to public school articles. What is interesting here is that one member who voted to merge two other middle school listings back into their local school district pages decided to vote to keep this particular listing independent when there is absolutely nothing unique about this listing compared with the other two. To date, absolutely nothing unique or special has been demonstrated about this particular middle school to justify an independent listing. It, along with the other middle schools in its district, are required to follow all of the same curriculum & guidelines as set forth by the district, state & federal government. Hence, the school district's article is a sufficient listing for this non-notable school. If there was something truly special & unique about this school that made it sufficiently notable to justify an independent listing, I would support it having an independent listing; but seeing that doesn't, there is nothing notable per WP:N justifying an independent article for this particular middle school. Mh29255 (talk) 01:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Please keep reading the article frequently, it is changing faster than this Afd, (under the concept of m:sofixit). There is information in the article now that makes it standout as the top 20% of Category:Middle schools in California. This category itself also stands as a good argument against what you are saying, methinks. JERRY talk contribs 01:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the desperate attempts to keep this non-notable article alive. Mh29255 (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Another reminder: (I think there is a template for this somewhere.. I'll go look) please talk about the article, not the editors. Editing an article to improve it while at AfD is encouraged. Read WP:AfD.JERRY talk contribs 01:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I just took a look about 12 different CA middle schools listed in the same list as this particular middle school and here's what I found: 10 non-notable articles, some with current vandalism (as I have seen on other middle school articles for schools in other cities & states) and most with no references per WP:V. Shocking? No. The best source of information for the middle schools will come from the school district's website; not a listing here that mentions (at best) school colors & the school mascot. As for what determines whether a middle school is sufficiently notable for a listing here, education professionals cannot even agree on a common criteria for ranking the quality of schools: unified tests are often disputed, and the amount of financing that a school receives is not necessarily a factor. The question then becomes: are several hundred (or several thousand) Wikipedia articles about middle schools that mostly have no notable information in them but are often targeted by teenage vandalism worth being on Wikipedia? In my opinion, no. They're nothing more than uninformative clutter. While it is not uncommon to see where some notable person graduated from high school, it is not common to list what middle school the person attended. I also have yet to see a resume in which someone listed what middle school they attended because is it not relevant. Mh29255 (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Not referenced, WP:SOFIXIT;, not notable... of course that's arguable; vandalism, WP:SOFIXIT. Education professionals disagree about what criteria to use to rank schools? Well, we can't fix that, but the rankings do exist and are multi-sourced... find a contrary ranking? add it to the article... anyone can edit it you know. The rest of your criteria sounds well-reasoned, but is not community concensus, as evidenced by the very long talk page for WP:SCHOOL (read archives 1-4, too). JERRY talk contribs 01:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Here's what would be an interesting & very notable article about middle schools in a particular district or state: a single article with a table that sorts the middle schools using different criteria (average GPA, dollars spent student, etc.). Not only would be very easy to read, it would convey far more information to a reader than having to search for hundreds of separate middle school articles (that don't necessarily exist) that list such non-notable information as school colors, the principle's name or how many students are in attendance. What else would be an interesting & notable article? A description of the curriculum that all middle school students must meet in a particular school district regardless of what middle school they attend; but an endless heap of individual middle school articles in various stages of repair or disrepair is utterly useless information. It's like doing a search on Google and getting thousands of irrelevant hits when all you need is a single bit of information. Should Wikipedia be a storehouse of useless information or relevant information? That's what is at issue here. Mh29255 (talk) 02:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, well-reasoned and intelligent ideas for a guideline for notability. Unfortunately, such a guideline has not received concensus. Many people have objected to various school notability guidelines because if a bar was set, what do you do with a school that is one under the bar? If a school had to have 1000 students, what do you do with the school with 999, or the school with 1001 if two students leave? The notion many have voiced is that schools are a a locally very important part of the communities in which they exist, and hence inherit notability as any inhabited place. And what would you say about a woman who was president of a bank, president of the California College Commission, and had a public school named after her? Would SHE be notable? If so, would the school named after her be? Inherited notability is a tricky thing to put into a policy, obviously. There is no urgent appeal so save server space for the wiki, so why be in a mad rush to delete? JERRY talk contribs 02:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The basis for your argument is that because there may be one or two little bits of information about a particular middle school that that is sufficient for it to regarded as being notable. One of these bits of information is a rating for the quality of the education at the school. However, that single bit of interesting information is buried beneath a bunch of other non-notable information, such as school colors, who the current principle is, etc. Now, let's say that you are a parent and want to send your child to a highly-rated middle school and (for this example) there are 200 middle schools to choose from. What you're saying is that you would prefer to have 200 individual, non-uniform articles, one per middle school, that requires anyone looking for that single bit of information to read through all of the non-notable information in all 200 articles to find it. Would you want to do that? Or, would you prefer, instead, to look at a single page with a table that has the 200 middle schools sorted based upon that single bit of relevant information? As for a school being named after a notable individual, is the school notable because it has a particular name or is only the individual notable? If, for example, there was a museum featuring an exhibit about the notable individual, what would be more interesting to visit: the museum, or the one (or more) middle schools that were named after the notable individual to honor the individual, but have nothing else in common with the notable individual? Again, as far as the AfD for this particular middle school is concerned, there is nothing sufficiently notable to justify a separate page for the school. Is it a school (for example) with a highly specialized program for children with Down Syndrome or for deaf children that no other middle school in that district provides? No. It's simply one of several middle schools in CA in a particular school district that is no different from several hundred other middle schools in CA. A difference that makes no difference is no difference. Mh29255 (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
At this point I believe we have established our points of view (and dominated this page with our lengthy posts). I for one would like to see a broader input from others, so perhaps if you and I want to continue to discuss proposed guidelines for notability (which seems to be going off-topic from this AfD), we can take it to our talk pages or Wikipedia talk:Notability (schools). JERRY talk contribs 03:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment - a review of the references in this articles makes me support deletion more than ever. Most of the sites are "rankings" supported by local real estates businesses, and appear to be either subjective, or listing factual information that support the school being good, but hardly unique or otherwise notable. The only site that appeared to be legit was the brief biography of Katherine L. Albiani. Despite claims that this article is growing, I am not seeing a single piece of information in the article that supports notability. LonelyBeacon (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment It's good to know that I'm not the only person who sees that this article is not notable. Mh29255 (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Is that a typo, or did you just change your !vote? JERRY talk contribs 03:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it was a typo on my part, which I have now corrected. Thank you for catching it. BTW, the article is just as non-notable now as before. Mh29255 (talk) 03:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
As the editor who added the references, I would appreciate it if you could let me know specifically what references are not valid. I am unaware of any that are biased toward bragging about specific schools. The sites I used have ratings on all schools, and show the same objective criteria of all schools, and do in-fact have negative ratings about some. The rating criteria used for the statements I included in the article were based on the State of California's school rating system. While one could say that the State of California has a reason to believe that their schools are superior, or has a motivation to make it appear so, this would not make sense for a method of comparing the schools within the state. There is a school at the top and one at the bottom of their list, and everywhere in between. I am unaware of any references I added to the article that are sponsored by a real estate concern primarily doing business in the vicinity of this school. Please verify the veracity of your statements about these references and let me know which ones concern you, as I would earnestly like to remove any references that are as you described. JERRY talk contribs 13:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I did not get back soon .... very long day at work (thankfully productive!)
The first reference (EGUSD) is fine ..... basic information from the District webiste
The second reference (city-data.com) ... cites a lot of info, but no source. It includes its own city-data.com rating of 79/100. I don't think that makes a strong case for being a source
The third reference, even thought it is from the district website, is the report card. It is wholly legit, but shows nothing distinguishing about the school.
As I mentioned earlier, the fourth reference (Capitol corp) is for a bio of Katehrine Albiani. It does nothing to establish the notability of the school, but is helpful in explaining the derivation of the name.
school ratings.com is a recapitulation of the report card, with less data, and broken down onto a simpler scale. It ranks the school 8/10. That is a great score, but does not establish the notability of the school.
School Digger is about the same as School ratings.com, but seems to emphasize race and the number of kids on discounted lunch. This site also ranks the school 223rd/1095, which does not help establish special notability.
The Great Schools, aside from more of the basic data from the School Report Card, includes a subjective parent rating. It is a high rating, but again, an 8 out of 10 tells me that this is a good school, but not an encyclopedic noteworthy school.
And for the record, I never did actually say these references were valid. I'm just saying that none of them are helping me to see why this school meets with WP:N. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, but one point: you said "city-data.com cites a lot of info, but no source". Sources do not have to cite their sources, and rarely do. Otherwise, when could you accept a source, and not say according to whom? to them, too? And then to their source, and so on... JERRY talk contribs 03:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you ... however, without original source material, I think that leaves open a question the validity of the source. In general, for example, we accept a major newspaper as valid, because we hope the journalists are following hte basic tennants of good journalism, and not making up what they are writing (not always the case). We accept ertain scholarly journals on the same basis: they are peer reviewed, and we hope this process weeds out false information. Just because information appears on a website does not mean that it has to be accepted as a valid source (I'm sure you realize this ... I don't want to come across as preachy or something). The City source site is a commercial site, and might have a vested interest in presenting data the way they do (not necessarily false data .... but perhaps very selective. I think that on a case-by-case basis, editors here have to evaluate the source, the content, and potential issues of validity. The fact is: I don't know how valid that information is on that site. IMO, based on WP:V, there exists enough doubt in my mind as to whether or not it supports a contention of notability. LonelyBeacon (talk) 14:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect to district. References are an attempt to keep school instead of to build article by establishing independent notability. There is no such thing as 'inherent notability' as that violates the very idea of an encyclopedia. Epthorn (talk) 16:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
In case you were referring to my post above, for the record, I did not say "inherent" I said "inherited". JERRY talk contribs 23:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to district Most middle schools will not be notable--thee is simply not enough information available. This is not one of the rare exceptions. I accept all high schools as notable as a matter of convenience, because 90% of them actually are, but that's not true for middle schools. I'm not aware of any significant support for the idea that all schools or notable. DGG (talk) 09:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Verifiable, NPOV, and sources have been added to demonstrate it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as per DoubleBlue's improvements to the article and rationale here. The article obviously meets WP:N standards.Noroton (talk) 03:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment - With respect, I'm still not buying notability. Two of those references were to a high school that had a tangential, at best, reference to this school (one was a map that says "the school is located across the street ...I'm not even sure I saw this school on that map). The Sac Bee articles all cover a single event; the purchase of land and construction of the school. It got caught up in legal wrangling which is not unusual for any major public land purchase and construction. I will not question WP:V. However, I am still not convinced that WP:N is being met. I am sure that I could go into the Sac Bee and find numerous articles over the years that cover the Sacramento Police, the Sacramento Publi Works, each member of the Sacramento City Council, and the Sacramento Public Transportation System ..... but I'm not sure those would meet notability either. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment: The map reference was an early addition attempting a quick and easy reference to show they share a campus but, though it does mention the proximity of KAMS, you are correct that it doesn't really show the middle school. I've removed that ref since the SacBee ref better documents the shared campus. On WP:N: It meets the criteria. That criteria is used to counter-act the BIAS inherent in going by editors' impressions of "importance". What's needed is to have NPOV, V, and NOR. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment: The SacBee article I read through had quite a bit of significant information on the school, including school colors, number of students the school was projected to have (indicating what it was built to hold), school colors, a background paragraph or two on the struggle with the community group over whether to build the schools complex, etc. Even if the articles were solely about the controversy surrounding construction of the school, notability does not expire. And the article goes well beyond just the construction of the school, so WP:N criteria are met. I don't think middle schools are inherently notable, so I wouldn't support keeping this article without WP:N being met. Noroton (talk) 00:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and save some bits. CRGreathouse (t | c) 12:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as rewritten, the article sufficiently meets our consensus-based standards for notability. (jarbarf) (talk) 05:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment: there is no consensus about this article and it remains as non-notable as ever. Mh29255 (talk) 07:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:31, December 23, 2007

[edit] Kunami

Kunami (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article about a fictional fruit that appeared as a one-off part of a TV comedy skit has no indication of real world notability and no reliable sources. I tagged it for notability in October, but none has been forthcoming. deranged bulbasaur 04:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Probably speedy eligible. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, doesn't seem notable, only sources are youtube - Dumelow (talk) 22:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete A7 by Turnstep (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights). Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 04:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PRZ Destiny

PRZ Destiny (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Album from unnoted artist. Contested Speedy deletion. No news articles on the album, just some links saying that there has been some airtime. Lacks any of the independant reviews/awards etc.. required for Music notability. Peripitus (Talk) 04:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Withdrawn, sources have been added to the article and a clear consensus for keeping was made. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regency Mall (Racine)

Regency Mall (Racine) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

sub-stub-class page on a mall that seems to fail WP:RS, seeing as I could find no reliable sources on it. Page has stayed mostly the same since January. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC) Withdrawn per sources added. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 18:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coral Ridge Mall (FL)

Coral Ridge Mall (FL) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable mall in Florida, sources don't seem to be all that good. A search for other sources found none. Furthermore, the page is written in a rather promotional tone. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 22:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC) - the problem was that it WAS a mishmash of 3 different malls (in Florida, Iowa and Missouri). Now that that is corrected, the Florida mall is a super regional mall (mabey not by industry 'standards', but they are only shy by 55,000sqft and consider themselves that way). It seems impossible to me that you are unable to find any sources, not even the simple portfolio website produced by the owner. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 09:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The sources added aren't reliable (e.g. the blog, even though it's run by a friend of mine). Also, the Simon link provided was to Coral Square, not Coral Ridge (the Coral Ridge Mall in Florida is much smaller and not even close to super-regional). Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Grrrrr too many with that name ... lets rename thm A, B, C, D, & E. Think the owners would mind ? Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 22:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep it is common knowledge that a super regional mall is of notable importance. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The 900,000+ square foot figure that used to be in the article's infobox was for Coral Square Mall, not Coral Ridge Mall. According to this, Coral Ridge is only 412,000 square feet, which would make it much less than super regional. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • So you were able to find a source after all ? Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, but just one source, and I really don't think it's that good of one (I've found that Loopnet listings sometimes have a tendency to disappear). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 06:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Apparently just another small mall from one of the sources listed. If kept it needs a rename. 06:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegaswikian (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. east.718 at 00:31, December 23, 2007

[edit] Crossings at Fox Run

Crossings at Fox Run (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable strip mall in New Hampshire. No sources could be found for its current or former identities (it used to be Newington Mall). Usually for properties that have been "de-malled" I can find at least a reliable source on the "de-malling", but no such luck here. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Academic Middle School

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Academic Middle School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability J-ſtanTalkContribs 03:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I nominated it for deletion because I couldn't find the school district. Now that we've found it, I would be in favor of a merge. J-ſtanTalkContribs 03:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete middle school. Mh29255 (talk) Mh29255 03:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Billscottbob (talk) 03:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into its respective school district. If none can be found, delete. Billscottbob (talk) 03:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was Withdrawn, sources have been added and consensus was for keeping. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wilton Mall at Saratoga

Wilton Mall at Saratoga (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Put up for AfD back at the beginning of 2006, result was keep. No improvements have been made since. On top of that, this page fails WP:RS, as it's unsourced and no good sources were found in a search. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC) Withdrawn, see below. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a very large regional mall that has multiple sources to establish notability. No difficulty encountered in finding sources. There does not seem to be any requirement to continuously improve articles, particularly those where a precedent for retention has been set a previous AfD. Alansohn (talk) 07:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I wasn't implying that there was a requirement, I was just pointing out that nobody had improved the page. But either way, it doesn't matter since I'm withdrawing. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'm going to create Morehead Middle School as a redirect though. Wizardman 00:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Morehead Middle School (EPISD)

Morehead Middle School (EPISD) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article contains no notable information. Mh29255 02:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was withdrawn. —Animum (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conchita Espinosa

Conchita Espinosa (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable musician. As an aside, a Google search returns no hits. —Animum (talk) 01:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • The editor who started the article blanked it and said in the edit summary that they requested it be deleted. I have placed the correct speedy delete tag since the editor has made 3 of the 6 edits to the page (7 if you count me adding the tag). TJ Spyke 03:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I've done a fairly substantial rewrite of the article. I removed the speedy tag on that basis, as the original editor is no longer the only substantial contributor. More editing is needed. --Ssbohio (talk) 03:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ssbohio. Maxamegalon2000 06:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep - now excellently rewritten, the subject is both noteable and interesting and the AfD should probably never have been made. --Arcanios (talk) 09:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep the substantial rewrite speaks for itself. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Y'all are going to make me blush, seriously... :-) However, much more needs to be done to improve this article, which essentially relies on a single source plus some common knowledge. The Google results should provide a starting point. Lately, I've tried to pick an XfD at random and participate, seeing if the article was salvageable; I had no idea who Conchita Espinosa was before I dug in here. It just goes to show what can be done if we stop the drumbeat for deletion long enough to listen for anything worth saving. Merry Christmas! --Ssbohio (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was Deleted + Salted --JForget 01:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WebRidesTV

WebRidesTV (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:WEB. Article was created multiple times by several WP:SPA accounts[56], with no other edits other than related to "WebRidesTV" . Was speedied four times as Webridestv under WP:CSD#A7 and once under its current incarnation per WP:CSD#G11. Has a few links but they seem to be merely self published or trivial coverage and 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. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. Google doesnt turn up much either[57]. Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - obvious WP:SPAM. It appeared that the most significant coverage according to the article was "An article was written about the site on the UnitedSteelFactory website [8]...", when really it was about a 1932 Ford Roadster. Salt may be an option. I forsee the recreation of this article again if this gets deleted. Jauerback (talk) 02:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as spam, no reliable sources to be seen. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:N and WP:SPAM. Billscottbob (talk) 03:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete -- press mentions found with Google News' archive search: just one 61-word blurb in the Atlanta newspaper. "Tread Hunter Magazine" reference cited in article is inadequate. Zero press = zero notability = no reliability = no article. Extra points off for spamming. --A. B. (talk) 04:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt Spam, fails WP:WEB, no serious press coverage, Wikipedia is not a web directory. szyslak 09:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Pass the WP:SALT please. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt. per my nom. On a side note, it appears a newlly created account, Cal40, is canvassing the participants in this AFD.--Hu12 (talk) 04:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted by NawlinWiki per A7. J-ſtanTalkContribs 03:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Critty Bo

Critty Bo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability and no reliable sources to be found on the web. —Travistalk 01:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn with consensus to keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 06:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oakdale Mall

Oakdale Mall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I stubbed this article a while back to remove a highly promotional tone, but on second thought, this mall seems to have nothing going for it. The only sources I could find were very trivial mentions if at all, so this mall fails WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC) Withdrawn, even though the article still hasn't improved much, I'm withdrawing because the precedent is against me. One halfway-decent source has been provided to establish that the mall meets super-regional classification, which is rapidly becoming a criterion for inclusion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 06:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

  • And by continuously refering to one, your leading others to believe that a precedent exists and has consensus, when you know that none does. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - 1 million sqft makes it notable. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 09:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. super-regional malls are notable. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep what gives with the bias against malls? How silly can you get. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Perhaps it is time to revive WP:MALL? In any case, this one would fit the bill. RFerreira (talk) 05:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:31, December 23, 2007

[edit] Berlin Mall

Berlin Mall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Claims to be largest mall in Central Vermont, which isn't really much of a claim at all, especially that it's unsourced. No online sources can be found to verify any of the information here. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:30, December 23, 2007

[edit] TEE Classic

TEE Classic (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Intramural collegiate sporting event with no external notability. The event is not even mentioned on either of the two references cited. Toddst1 (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - Good faith article, however it fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:V. Jauerback (talk) 02:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Fails WP:N per nom and no ghits. Billscottbob (talk) 03:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Article contains no notable or verifiable information. A search on the pages "usma.edu" and "goarmysports.com" that are mentioned in the article's References section failed to produce any relevant links or information about a "TEE Classic" football game. Mh29255 (talk) Mh29255 04:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Unnotable on its own. Merge into United States Military Academy#Sports. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:30, December 23, 2007

[edit] AnimeNfo.com

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Animenfo.com
Articles for deletion/AnimeNfo.com (2nd nomination)
AnimeNfo.com (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Complete lack of reliable sources necessary to verify notability. It was previously nominated for deletion in April 2006, and has had no verifiable sources added since that time. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Utterly fails general notability test in WP:N. Springnuts (talk) 00:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, while I like the site alright and support its use in links on anime articles, it is not particularly notable. It may be a "fan favorite," but it doesn't have any industry support and I've never seen any reliable sources discussing it. Fails WP:WEB. Collectonian (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, all the tags on the article are justified, and even the external links in the article don't seem appropriate to establish notability. Cirt (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete - per nom, fails WP:WEB. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RS. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It is one of the most well known anime databases. This article lacks references, but the site is notable. Just searching Wikipedia shows over a hundred articles referring to Animenfo. I added two sources to the article now, but I'm not really sure if they are reliable enough. Also, the actual article text still lacks citations. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. It's a useful site (I've used it in the past), but even if it's linked to a lot, that doesn't show that it meets WP:WEB or anything. --Gwern (contribs) 04:45 22 December 2007 (GMT)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. east.718 at 00:29, December 23, 2007

[edit] Walnut Square Mall

Walnut Square Mall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Seems to be a non-notable mall in Georgia. Only sources found online were unsubstantial (e.g. for charity events or whatever, nothing non-trivial). Therefore, this mall seems to fail WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - as non-notable (it is also one of hte dullest articles I have seen for a while, but that is not a reason for my delete view). Springnuts (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, one-sentence, unsourced, no notability established. Cirt (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete - as non-notable. Mh29255 (talk) Mh29255 04:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:V and WP:NOTE. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as not notable. A Google search on this mall doesn't turn up much, and it's fairly small at just over 400,000 sq. ft. On a personal note, I've lived in Georgia for nearly 14 years, and I'd never even heard of this mall until now. Georgia (particularly north Georgia and the Atlanta metro area) has a LOT of malls, and I could probably sit here and rattle off the names of over a dozen, most of which are still probably not notable enough for Wikipedia. LaMenta3 (talk) 07:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Speedily deleted under WP:CSD A1. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moreno Valley Mall

Moreno Valley Mall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Very short, barely even stub article on a mall in California. A search online turned up no reliable soures, which actually seems unusual for a center of its size. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article has been a stub since February 2005. If there were indeed anything notable about the the mall, then it ought to have been added by now. And as it's only a very short stub anyway, it can very easily be rewritten and expanded on by any editor with the inclination to make a case for the notability of this mall. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Yep, this mall exists (I live in Moreno Valley). But how would you make an article out of a mall? I'd like to know this. Right now, my vote's a "weak delete" mainly because there are other malls with articles and I guess that's why this one got made, but I'm not sure how any mall merits an article. JuJube (talk) 07:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete But JuJube, I have to say -- there's a science behind malls, with a lot of money at stake, and some properties like Westfield Horton Plaza are important from that standpoint, not to mention the value of Mall of America just as obscene spectacle. --Lockley (talk) 10:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:V and WP:NOTE. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Super regional (>1M sq.ft) with the unusual fact that on duty police officers provide security services, not a 'for hire' service, which is the norm. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 05:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Exit2DOS, I see no harm in the retention of this article. RFerreira (talk) 05:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep notable as a super-regional mall with an unusual backstory. (jarbarf) (talk) 05:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Delete - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lena Hyena

Lena Hyena (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(View AfD)
  • Nomination - non-notable character that only appeared in one scene of a film. The character has to date appeared in no other mediums, and, unlike other characters from Roger Rabbit, has no established history on film either. The characters use was strictly referential. The character satifies none of the standards for Wikipedia:Fiction. Delete it or dunk it in "the Dip" (Roger Rabbit in-joke). -66.109.248.114 (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete. What little information is here, if it is indeed notable, ought to be in the Roger Rabbit article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable cameo character undeserving of her own article. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: Fixed improper AfD creation, moved discussion to correct location. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree with Malleus Fatuarum (talk · contribs), any relevant info can be moved to the movie article, but as it is this is unsourced WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete highly nn. JJL (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment the page as written still is about a nn charcter; if it was about the BasilWolverton version [58] it would be notable. As written, I still feel deletion is appropriate. JJL (talk) 03:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:V and WP:NOTE. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Lena isn't a character made up for the film! She's the creation of cartoonist Basil Wolverton, and was featured in Al Capp's strip Li'l Abner. Supposedly the ugliest woman in the world, Lena had her portrait chosen by a jury including Salvador Dali and Frank Sinatra. The "draw Lena" contest made national headlines. The article should be rewritten to incorporate this information, but delete? No way. Rhinoracer (talk) 14:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    Incorporate that information -- with citations, especially for the headlines -- and you'll establish notability enough that it should save the article. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems notable, but we need to include more about Al Capp's charachter and Basil Wolverton's drawing, not just the Roger Rabbit cameo. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • This article is written the wrong way around: the last section should be first, with her presence in Who Framed Roger Rabbit? mentioned as more or less an afterthought. Given the hills o' books written about Li'l Abner, I'm finding difficult to believe that there isn't quite a lot about this character. I note as well that Lena is discussed in Basil Wolverton, and the sources there are probably also usable. Keep, notify the comics Wikiproject this is in desperate need of help, and bring this back to AfD in a while if nothing has happened. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep in accordance with policy, style and guidance for the reason outlined by Rhinoracer, and please don't bring it back to afd again because it hasn't been cleaned up. Instead {{bebold}}. Hiding T 16:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Character seems to have been used in more than just what the submitter suggested (the film). Although article needs improvement, it should not be deleted.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 01:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Omgili

Omgili (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(View AfD)

I originally deleted this article in April 2007 because it met WP:CSD#A7. Upon review, I restored the article, because I believed the subject was notable and I thought the author of the article would expand the article to more adequately demonstrate the subject's notability. Recently, another administrator (Hmwith) deleted the article under the same speedy deletion rationale. To me, this article meets WP:WEB, because Omgili has been the subject of a number of independent non-trivial published works. I would like to get the community's opinion on the notability of this subject. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Doesn't meet any of the WP:WEB criteria. J-ſtanTalkContribs 03:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Note: If multiple independent reliable sources can be provided, than it will meet these criteria. J-ſtanTalkContribs 03:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Due to the unearthing of some reliable sources, this would seem to be notable. Change to keep. J-ſtanTalkContribs 04:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Here are a few I pulled up: [59], [60], [61] (most likely not a RS). Nishkid64 (talk) 03:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This site wasn't notable when the article was first deleted, but people are now taking note of its existence. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 03:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep -- found several reliable sources with Google News.[62][63] --A. B. (talk) 03:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems notable enough; has won a (potentially dubious) award and pulls 300,000 google hits. -₪-Hemidemisemiquaver (talk) 09:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • 'Keep there are plenty of reliable sources as pointed out more than once Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Wizardman 03:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Abrahams (Labour party donor)

David Abrahams (Labour party donor) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

What is notable about this person? Wikipedia is not the on line version of the national Enquirer. This is at best a coatrack, and at worst a BLP smear job. Avi (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Clearly meets notability requirements as there are lots and lots of newspaper stories. I can't see any merit in this nomination. JASpencer (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - article appear to fail WP:NPOV guidelines and the individual lacks sufficient notability per WP:N. Mh29255 (talk) Mh29255 17:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per JASpencer. Sufficiently notable - though I think it needs cleaning up, and additional references, but, hell, it's not alone in those shortcomings. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - subject is now known to everyone in the UK and there is a serious ongoing police investigation. This is front page news in the UK in the "broadsheets". This isn't a National Enquirer type story. Citizensmith (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into Donorgate per WP:BLP1E. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep seeing as we are citing two dozen different sources about the subject one should expect to find him on Wikipedia as well. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Obvious Keep Colonel Warden (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Citizensmith, clearly meets WP:BIO and similar inclusionary guidelines. RFerreira (talk) 05:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable as evidenced by references supplied. Any deficiences in the text can be seen to by normal editing. Deletion not necessary or desirable. Thincat (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge current news item into Donorgate per Brewcrewer. Donorgate is what is notable, not this person regardless of how notable they consider themselves. MLA (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - to delete such a very well known and copiously referenced individual who remains in the public eye could only be a political act. Graemedavis (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Gimme and N! Gimme an O! Gimme a T! Gimme an A! Gimme a B! Gimme an L! Gimme an E! NOTABLE!! Lobojo (talk) 04:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep John254 01:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


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

{{subst:Afd top}} {{subst:#if: | {{subst:#switch: {{{1}}} | d = delete. | k = keep. | nc = no consensus to delete, default to keep. | m = merge. | r = redirect. | {{{1}}} }}}} {{subst:#if: | {{{2}}} }}: No consensus, even the keeps seem uncertain. Default to keep for now.

[edit] Anna Slotky

Anna Slotky (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

How does this pass WP:NOTE, especially with the lack of credible sources. Avi (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. imbd is a legit source. Wikipedia:Notability (films)#Resources. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability unestablished. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Per WP:Notability. --SimpleParadox 19:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Google shows 2890 article's with the name "Anna Slotly", most or all relating to TV shows and movies. Clearly, she is a notable movie and TV star. She appears in IMBD and had numerous web pages written about her. Bstone (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. I think any actor with a few minor credits will churn up the same amount of ghits. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment. Her roles have hardly been minor in every case. On TV she has had main supporting roles or even lead roles. Bstone (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
        • No way was she in a "lead role," and I think that it's a stretch to define any of her roles as "main supporting roles." Additionly, she hasn't been acting for seven years. That might imply that her acting wasn't that great (i.e. unnotable). --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
          • I assume you have expert credentials as a reviewer of movies and TV shows? Sans that, I am confused how you can offer expert opinion as to the notability of her action based on absence. She went to college and is soon to graduate from law school. She, gasp, didn't become a huge movie star. But she did have a notable movie and TV career. Bstone (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't see any reliable secondary sources about Anna. Are there any newspaper articles about her? I'm on the fence on this one. She does have some minor notability, but I'd realy rather see some secondary sources to build an article from. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. I contest her roles were not minor. She played a lead supporting role in "The Torkelsons" for 17 episodes as Ruth Ann. Bstone (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Less then a single season on failed TV show? Yes, her role looks to be more important in this show, but the show itself wasn't that well known. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. But I too am on the fence about this. The IMDB information is more directory information, accurate, but does not establish noteability. She has had significant credits but I can't find any discussion, commentary, or reviews from some reliable source "noting" her, thus the limited notability. It doesn't need to be web accessible. Just citeable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NrDg (talk • contribs) 05:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.120.179.204 (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Although it appears that she hasn't had any recent roles, her IMDB Pro score is well below 20,000, which makes her highly notable in the entertainment industry. But, the article needs to be expanded and cite references. TGreenburgPR (talk) 05:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per TGreenburgPR and others above. Seems notable enough. --Lockley (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep significant credits ≈Alessandro ♫ T • C 22:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jake Cherry

Jake Cherry (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Does this person satisfy WP:NOTE, especially in light of the complete lack of credible sources? Avi (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


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