Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 September 24

< September 23	September 25 >

Discussions
Centralized discussion

edit • talk • log • watch
Broad RFC on the nature and purpose of notability and the GNG Discussion on the current notability guidelines Proposal to add 'class C' to the article grading system Revisiting status of WP:Attribution Centralized discussion on terrorism related articles ArbCom proposal to create a Sourcing Adjudication Board Discussion to work out the implementation details of flagged revisions Discussion over the approval of bots Wikipedia:Plot summaries Global blocking on Wikimedia projects SSP/RFCU merger proposal Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)
Archive

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. @pple complain 14:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pine Lake Middle School

Non-notable school. Eyu100^{(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team)} 23:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - I am somewhat split on the notability of school articles, but this article does not seem to meet notability requirements, and the lack of reliable sources means that we could say little of interest about it.--Danaman5 00:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - looks like it was written by student or faculty, WP:OR and WP:N voilations. OSborn^arf 00:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

update - also probable WP:COI; I quote: "The two schools are almost always inadvertently competing with each other. There is a lot of school spirit from the students and even from the staff here." (emphasis mine) If indeed notable, article would require a complete rewrite. OSborn^arf 01:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC) See below

Delete No particular notability--but not a speedy--schools not speedy for notability, and OR not a reason for speedy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Noroton 01:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Having been recognized by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program almost exactly one year ago, one of only two middle schools in the state to be honored in 2006, the school -- and the article -- has a strong claim of notability. The potential COI text was deleted with a click of the mouse. Alansohn 03:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Alansohn's WP:HEY improvements have erased the COI, notability, and OR objections. There is no longer any policy reason to delete. Noroton 01:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Changed to Neutral Still possible WP:N issues (is that award so prestiges?) OSborn^arf 02:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Per Nom. Twenty Years 14:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Alansohn - now I'm familiar with the Blue Ribbon argument. Although expansion is definitely needed.--JForget 23:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete The award doesn't imo confer significant notability, over 80 schools in the state have received the award at some point according to the pdf referred from the article. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 14:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Massively upgraded article in addition to Alansohn's improvements, I've just made numerous additions to the page, adding many sources, including sources with significant covearage (Seattle Times profile of the school for one) which allow the article to easily meet the notability standards of WP:Notability and WP:ORG.Noroton 20:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

My additions bring the length of the article from 3.2 KB to 8.9 KB, close to triple its previous size. Noroton 20:31, 29 September 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. Bronze Star recipients are not notable on their own. He's a good guy, but it fails WP:BIO. - KrakatoaKatie 09:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yasir Bahrani

Seems like a vanity article. Eyu100^{(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team)} 23:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep Very well sourced. I don't think everyone receives the Bronze Star Medal [1]. Maybe needs to be addressed in terms of tone. Yngvarr (t) (c) 00:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - commendable individual who must have saved a lot teeth in his career, but once one has masticated one's way through the POV and hyperbole there doesn't really seem to be much of note left. ---- WebHamster 00:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - there is only one source from what appears to be a local paper. -- Whpq 18:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Reads like a "Mr Nice Guy" citation, and whilst being such is commendable, they're fortunately not so rare as to be that notable yet. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 14:53, 29 September 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 50 or so Google hits cited by Victor falk are not about this man, and many are articles written by him in his own online mangazine. No third-party sources – sources other than the publisher – were added to verify notability of the cited publications and books. Anon editors tried to edit comments other than their own in this AFD, which increases likelihood that the article is an autobiography. - KrakatoaKatie 09:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dale Sheckler

Non-notable person, poorly written, username of creator leads me to believe the page may be autobiographical. Liempt 23:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral stubby article, and needs verifiable sources, but as the author of two books and the publisher of a magazine, he MIGHT qualify as notable. However, without any outside, verifiable sources to indeed show that these in themselves are notable publications, this may be deletable. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 23:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep Quick search appears that he's well-known in diving circles. Yngvarr (t) (c) 00:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

When making a catch, it better to show the fish [2] than to stretch out your arms and say "it was this big" --Victor falk 04:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Aren't diving circles called somersaults? :p ---- WebHamster 00:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Here is some references for the info on books and magazine. [[3]] [[4]] [[5]] cdsheckler —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Probably a vanity bio, but even if it's not the article needs a lot of work to verify notability. Ward3001 03:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)*
Question does being an editor of California Diving News and is the co-author of the book Southern California's Best Beach Dives make one notable in diving circles? --Victor falk 16:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral The prestigious award doesn't seem to be announced in any mainstream news media, I think this is at best a big fish in a very small pond. Google reports about 980 hits. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 15:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete A hobbyist, does not seem notable. Does not seem significant. Maybe I'm wrong... Tiptopper 21:37, 29 September 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. DS 02:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hungarian rugby league

I was tempted to just speedy this as pure vandalism, but on the off chance that there is a Rugby League in Hungary, figured AfD was a better route. Zero non Wikipedia hits for "Hungarian Rugby League", zero non-wikipedia hits for the four players mentioned in the article that I searched. Full of nonsense. At best, seems it may be a hoax. Reso lute 23:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Speedy delete, it's a hoax. There is an article on the Hungarian Wikipedia about their rugby league (look under rugby league, then click "Magyar" on the left hand column): http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ligar%C3%B6gbi... Mandsford 23:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Hoaxalicious (I can't believe I just typed that), and not a very good one at that. Seems to be apparent confusion between rugby league and rugby union, an only tangental connection between the title and the apparent subject of the article. The final kicker is that the team is apparently coached by a former New Zealand rugby union captain, who is currently manager of a French rugby union team. Grutness...wha? 00:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, it's crap. Corvus cornix 01:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete It's surely a hoax. Probably made up in school one day. --Malcolmxl5 02:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete posthaste. We really need a WP:CSD for blatant hoaxes. shoy 02:03, 25 September 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. --Core desat 00:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of magazines

As the article states: "This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy certain standards for completeness" and "Given the enormous number of titles published weekly and monthly throughout the world it cannot hope to be comprehensive, but will attempt to list as many representative examples as possible." Who decides what is "representative"? This is an unweildy list of mainly nn magazines. There are thousands of magazines published in the UK alone yet this article attempts to be global. The article is full of redlinks and is, frankly, completely unhelpful. B1atv 23:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Although the idea isn't bad, this list is useless. This would actually work if you had a list of newsmagazines (Newsweek, Der Spiegel, The Economist) or a list of fashion magazines, but this is the textbook (or cover story) indiscriminate list Mandsford 23:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete a category would work much better. When lists cannot be completed, it means they are too broad in scope and thus fairly useless and crufty. David Fuchs ^(talk) 00:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete indiscriminate list, will never be even partway complete. We already have tons of magazine categories, this list will never work out. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep and rework Needs better definition- -the meaning seems to be list of popular general interest magazines, as distinct from scholarly or trade magazines. The many ref links should probably most of them be used for the construction of articles--at least for those which are notable; this will obviously take some time. It would certainly be possible to include a description of the topic of the magazine,and thus provide the combination of country and tpic information which could not be done easily by a category. DGG (talk) 01:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

DeletePer user Ten Pound Hammer. Tomj 01:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Categories will work much better here since they can be nested. shoy 02:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
delete for same reasoning as fictional restaurant deletion. Incompletable and arbitrary.JJJ999 02:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Categorization is a better way to deal with this info. Zaxem 09:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom., and TenPoundHammer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JayJasper (talk • contribs) 13:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, unmaintainable. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete It is way too long, unmaintainable and as stated about categories of Magazines per country should be enough.--JForget 23:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep and rework per DGG. Lists and categories serve different purposes and may co-exist; see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. The "incomplete list" language is from the {{dynamic list}} template, which is used on hundreds of lists on Wikipedia and so should not be a reason to delete lists, unless you are going to propose that very template itself for deletion. We have no policy for deleting lists simply because they are incomplete, "unmaintainable", or "better as a category". As for "who decides what is representative" that would be the editors of the list by consensus; but a better solution might be to change the criteria to something less subjective. If the redlinks are nonnotable, then delete them, not the whole list. Separating the list into lists of newsmagazines and fashion magazines and other genres would probably be a good idea, but indiscriminately deleting this list wouldn't help towards that goal. All of the issues with this list can be solved with editing; thus per deletion policy, we should not delete. DHowell 00:10, 29 September 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. Fram 14:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moderated nuclear explosion

Possibly hoax, or WP:OR as discussed on Talk. 0 google hits, and using suspicious terms. Владимир И. Сува Чего? 08:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Bad faith nomination. Part of a pattern of stalking and disruptive editing now discussed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren. -- Petri Krohn 09:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith. Your talk page happens to be in my watchlist, for whatever reasons (possibly because I had option "Add pages I edit to my watchlist" on for some time). I just happened to notice the conversation and followed the article talk page. The anonymous user who added speedy deletion template was obviously not skilled enought to start AFD procedude, so I decided to help him/her out. Владимир И. Сува Чего? 10:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete 0 Google results for the term "Moderated nuclear explosion" (well, actually, now there are 2 -- both come back to Wikipedia). Ewlyahoocom 09:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete neologism. ff m 12:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Although it may be factual, how would anyone know to look up this apparently novel term? --Mud4t 12:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Completely unused neologism that has had some serious concerns raised about its validity in its talk that have not been addressed. I suggest people take a look in the sources, the second one does not even use the word moderated anywhere, the first has "moderated neutron spectrum" in abstract witch is certainly not it... Looks like Petri has overextended himself and tried to write about something he does not really understand.--Alexia Death the Grey 12:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep though probably "Rename". Stalking. Disruptive behaviour. WP:POINT. User:Suva suddenly finds out Petri has another side, changes his signature so that people will not immediately notice he is the same editor and starts an AFD against one of the opponents and beloved targets of the usual bunch of meatpuppets (surprise, surprise, one of them is here already). There are ways of helping an anonymous contributor, of course, but this way - no way, Jose. I am not an expert, but I did find a number of times the term "moderated nuclear fission", which also sounds new to me, so perhaps this is a terminological problem. --Pan Gerwazy 12:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I checked with my friend who teaches nuclear physics in university and he says the factuality of this article seems to be incorrect as well. Chernobyl_disaster is unrelated to the topic. And although the concept has some basis, the information is seriously misinterpreted in this article. Владимир И. Сува Чего? 12:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete This just isn't an accepted term by anyone except the writer of the article and it shouldn't become one as it's entirely misleading. A nuclear reaction, as in a power station, is moderated by graphite or heavy water. A meltdown is caused by a LACK of such moderation and a meltdown isn't an explosion of any sort. There is no way a power station can explode like an atomic bomb. This is just wrong. Nick mallory 13:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete: as a WP:NN Neologism; WP:V and WP:OR violations. Reguardless of any junk going on between users, this article fails all three. The article is talking on the term "moderated nuclear explosion" and referring to an explosion or detonation. All references to "moderated nuclear fission" are defined as controlled fission in nuclear power plants so these are two seperate terms. I have access to the book mentioned in article and have reviewed the pdf used as a source. Neither are about this term as required To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term. Heck they don't even USE the term.

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and so articles simply attempting to define a neologism (as it looks like this article is doing) are inappropriate. Articles on neologisms frequently attempt to track the emergence and use of the term as observed in communities of interest or on the internet—without attributing these claims to reliable secondary sources (There are none cited in this article). If the article is not verifiable (and this one is not) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use. (which this one does not have). --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 13:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

comment Reguardless of any of the above stuff going on, I personally would have nominated this article for deletion today if it was not already. --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 14:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, as per good arguments and excellent Google searches outlined above. Digwuren 14:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep and rename. I think the term is coined in English as a "controlled nuclear explosion". It hits 83 times in Google, including Science magazine etc. --Yury Petrachenko 18:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- comment From what I see, half of the Google hits use "controlled nuclear explosion" for a planned nuclear explosion, i.e. just standard nuclear explosion, the other half are fringe teenager claims without any understanding of how nuclear reactors work. Anyway, the term has nothing to do with this article. Colchicum 18:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Here is your Science magazine citation: "as he watched the first controlled nuclear explosion at Alamogordo". Any doubts that it refers to Trinity test? Colchicum 18:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- My original suggestion for this page was to merge into the Nuclear explosion article -- until I did the Google search and figured out it wasn't a real term. Ewlyahoocom 18:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment. It is not a real term is no reason to delete an article, except if the title is also pushing a POV. I am not a nuclear expert, but as a linguist I am sure that if the combintion ABC is incorrect, but the combination ABX works and the combination YBC works, then you have got a terminological problem. --Pan Gerwazy 18:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

- Controlled nuclear explosion googling gave results totally unrelated to the concept of the article. Also feel free to rename the article if you can find a source which discusses the concept. Владимир И. Сува Чего? 19:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, this article seems to be WP:HOAX. Martintg 02:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment - no idea about the topic, but I found 0 references to the term "moderated nuclear explosion" in the Web of Science, Compendex, and Inspec databases, all of which index the nuclear science literature. So it seems clear that the term, at least, is a neologism... perhaps confused with something else? -- phoebe/(talk) 07:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I don't think that anyone is surprised by the latest chapter in the Estonia Korps! vs. Petri Krohn saga. What is indeed surprising is that the witchhunt entered a new stage, when the Korps! member nominate for deletion Petri's articles which have nothing to do with Estonia. Since no administrator has been willing to investigate the incident, I assume that WP:STALK may be thrown out the window. As for the article itself, it took me a minute to spot 450 entries on Google and 135 entries on Google Books. The phenomenon is definitely notable, and I would certainly like Wikipedia to provide some sort of definition. I don't see why the scrambles associated with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren should prevent me from finding the article in Wikipedia. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with you - Petri is definitely stalking Digwuren - you might want to notice the large number of unrelated users, who have tried to find Google matches. And may I remind you of mass cries "NEOLOGISM!!!! DELETE!!!" from Soviets-Forever! cabal in cases such as this (you may want to search for "Ghirla" there)? -- Sander Säde 10:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The only reason to delete our article about "modified/controlled/contained nuclear explosion", as far as I can see from the nomination, is that the nominator does not like the author and considers his edits "suspicious". This is not a valid criterion for deletion, sorry. --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If you had tried to read these links, you would see that the term "contained nuclear explosion" means roughly nuclear explosion for industrial/peaceful purposes, refers to explosions like the proposed Operation Plowshare and has obviously nothing to do with the things related to nuclear meltdown alleged in this article. The article is almost a hoax, people that have never encountered Petri here seem to agree. The only vote against is that of Pan Gerwazy, who has long been involved in our little Eastern European war. Colchicum 16:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a habit of browsing through Eastern Europe related AFDs. That I am one voice here and there are five of you (4 Korps Estonia and their favourite candidate for administrator) only proves that one side has mobilised and the other has not. Bad day for Russophobes as Siberian Wiki looks like being closed down. Oops, forgot: Petri is an ardent supporter of that Wiki. Note that the habitual bunch of meatpuppets is at this moemnt also trying to blank all cats Petri has created by on the sly deleting them from all sorts of articles, even the cat "Allied Occupation of Europe" from the article on the man who invented the term ([6]). As they were unable to delete those categories, trying to achieve the same aims surreptitiously is disruption and stalking.--Pan Gerwazy 18:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

He-he, what purpose does this bunch of irrelevant stuff serve? There is much more stuff you have forgotten. I haven't cast a vote and I consider Petri good contributor in general, but who cares, right? What about Ewlyahoocom, Firefoxman, Mud4t, Nick mallory, Bschott, Phoebe, Eusebeus, Lubaf, Seicer, flyguy649, PalestineRemembered, the anon on the talk page? Are they all Cryptoestonians? Nice. Compromise yourself further. What is important is that the article is a (good-faith) hoax. Colchicum 18:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Um... I had no idea, that nuclear explosions are in "Eastern Europe related AFDs". Should I start digging a bomb shelter, perhaps? BTW, I haven't cast a vote either - I am not familiar with physics more then University biophysics course (which was pretty thorough in some areas, though), so I decided not to vote on unfamiliar topic. However, please stop those personal attacks and actually *read through the comments*, Paul. Other then Petri's vote, there is one keep - yours - and yet you go on attacking all editors who disagreed?! Please, at least try to keep your eyes open at what is going on - and attempt to stay civil and avoid personal attacks. -- Sander Säde 18:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I also don't care about physics, so no vote from me. What I do see is a term mentioned in a wide range of scholarly publications. The quality of an article about a notable phenomenon is not a reason to delete it instead of improving. As for your continuous invokation of WP:CIV, this is pathetic. Petri nominated for deletion several articles by Suva and Dig, and they ended up by being deleted. Now these guys go through Petri's contributions and nominate them for deletion, seemingly on a random retaliatory basis. Is it productive or civil? I believe the answer is obvious. --Ghirla^-трёп- 22:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of what may be said about you on IRC, nor do I see any conspiracy against Petri here. The article is simply irrepairably flawed. "Contained nuclear explosion" is something entirely different to "Moderated nuclear explosion". Martintg 23:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

In fact, Ghirlandajo hasn't been seen on Wikipedia's IRC channels since a short appearance on last Sunday. I submit that he does not know what he's talking about and his conspiracy theory of an IRC gossip ring directed against him is entirely fictional.

Furthermore, as I already pointed out at WP:AN/I, the story of "<evil guy> goes through <good guy>'s edits and randomly AFDs some" is not only bogus, it's also self-contradictionary, and likely its only purpose is to smear people Ghirlandajo hates. 泥紅蓮_凸凹箱 00:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

To Sander Säde: no, I know this has nothing to do with Eastern Europe (except for Chernobyl and therefore a weak connection to the father of the Tallinn guy whose article Petri wanted to delete - but I did not notice the parallel at the time), but when browsing, I could not help noticing the Cyrillic script...--Pan Gerwazy 02:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, WP:OR, WP:RS, or possibly even WP:HOAX are not valid criteria? Владимир И. Сува Чего? 11:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I find it offensive that you guys continuously accuse me of bad faith. I checked the "contained nuclear explosion" out and it is also unrelated to the term. Contained nuclear explosion refers to regular nuclear explosion done in special chamber, to capture the energy of the explosion for either special type of reactors[7] or for underground nuclear testing. Владимир И. Сува Чего? 11:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
~~Nuke from orbit~~Delete. I don't care who wrote this, original research is not encyclo pedic, and this smells like original research. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 12:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete as above. Not a recognised term. Eusebeus 13:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Neologism. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NEO, WP:OR, and a lack of WP:RS. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 15:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - this entry is nonsense, there is no such thing. PalestineRemembered 16:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete this is very simple - it is not encyclopedic, just a confused jumble of OR. MarkBul 23:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary section break

Mild keep and factual comment - This is not complete nonsense, though there are problems with the article's accuracy. On a factual basis, two moderated nuclear weapon test devices were test-fired by the US in Operation Upshot-Knothole tests Ruth and Ray (see http://www.nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Upshotk.html ), one moderated by using Uranium Hydride and one by using Uranium Deuteride fissile material, both of which yielded such low energy (200 tons TNT equivalent) that they were considered failures and the design concept dropped. That said, they took a nominally roughly 3 ton device and got 200 tons of TNT equivalent yield out, which is a heck of a large bang by any but normal nuclear weapons standards. In terms of the article, I was somewhat the source in the discussion that Petri used to start this article; I'm not comfortable with how well it's written now, but I think that it's possibly recoverable to a state that's in accord with standard nuclear physics and engineering and known weapons issues. The article suffers from conflating some different scenarios a bit and some other things. I think it's adequately and better covered in Criticality accident but this article could potentially add useful information beyond that. I understand everyone's confusion right now (the article is not what I'd call accurate right now, though Petri tried to make it so). I don't have the time to fix it right away; a delete now, and recreation later with more accurate info, might be ok. (disclaimer: about 10 years ago, I did a physics model of the Ruth and Ray devices, which remains unpublished but was peer reviewed). Georgewilliamherbert 20:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

But the point of the article in question is that a nuclear explosion can allegedly be produced with unusually small subcritical quantities of fissile materials, i.e. effectively that a subcritical chain reaction allegedly can consistently result in a nuclear explosion instead of dying out, rather than that an exceptionally low-yield supercritical nuclear device is possible. Colchicum 20:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said, there are problems with the article's accuracy. I don't intend to dispute that (and I can't promise anyone that I can work on fixing it anytime soon). However, you are at least partly misreading the article; it does not say that a subcritical chain reaction can result in an explosion. Due to fissile cross sections being higher at moderated neutron energy levels, the critical mass for a moderated material can be significantly lower (as little as less than a kilogram of HEU, less of Pu, depending on moderator and geometry and other factors). By definition, until a fissile assembly reaches critical mass, it won't react; near but below, and you get long lasting fission chains that do die out. Right at, you get a steady low reaction. Above, and the reaction increases over time. It's just that you need 50 kg of normal density HEU in a sphere to reach fast fission criticality, and about 1 kg of uranium nitrate water solution reflected by a larger tank of water to reach criticality... . The Criticality accident article is more likely a better place to discuss that though. Georgewilliamherbert 21:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I see. I've just read your discussion (Talk:Critical mass), it is much more clear. I knew that the critical mass can be lowered, but it appeared quite surprising to me that such a small amount of water-solved uranium can do that. And I can't imagine how to make it to reach criticality quickly enough. Anyway, the wording of the article is completely misleading. I doubt that it is worth keeping in its present form, though more information on this (probably under another title, maybe in Critical mass) is certainly needed in Wikipedia. BTW, as to this: they take a subcritical mass of uranium or plutonium, and compress it explosively into supercriticality, I thought that only plutonium can be compressed in this way, at least with the current level of technology. Am I wrong? Colchicum 21:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Any material can be compressed; see... Fermi gas and Nuclear Weapons FAQ section 3.2, Properties of Matter. Explosive compression works on everything. Eventually, you get a fermi gas in anything. Wikipedia coverage of condensed matter physics is spotty, I think, but the info is out there. Georgewilliamherbert 22:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Do not try this at home! Not with plutonium, that is. A 50 gram sample in heavy water may cause unexpected results.

What the article (and the sources cited) claim, is that in the presence of a neutron moderator the critical mass of of uranium or plutonium is far smaller than the bare critical mass of about 10 kg. This source speculates, that with a heavy water moderator as little as 50 grams of plutonium may cause an uncontrolled chain reaction. -- Petri Krohn 12:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral -- Well, I think that the info on lowering the critical mass by moderating neutrons should ceryainly be included within Critical mass#Changing the point of criticality, where it is most likely to be looked for, but I am not sure that a separate article is warranted, as the effect apparently has no notable applications in practice. In its present version the article is difficult to comprehend, almost to the point of being misleading. Colchicum 14:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep and improve per Georgewilliamherbert and Colchicum. No rush to delete an aticle about a minor technical question.Biophys 18:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Factual accuracy is a minor part of whats wrong with this article. Even if the content would be 100% valid, It would still be a neologism, a term NOBODY uses and searches for, and thus useless to wikipedia as an encyclopedia. This content can be merged to a more known related article that experts frequent and can correct.----Alexia Death the Grey 05:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Even though the article has basis as repeatedly said before, it still qualifies as WP:OR, as the sources touch the concept quite from other techinal angle. There is no source that says "Moderated nuclear explosion is a ..." There are only sources which let you wonder if it could be possible to make nuclear explosion with subcritical mass of fissile using moderation. WP:NOR is good enough guideline for deletion IMO. I would recommend the sensible content to be merged to critical mass article and rest deleted until it comes back matching WP:V criteria. Владимир И. Сува Чего? 08:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Update - I have expanded the stub and rewritten the article with new sources. (Now at User:Petri Krohn/moderated). I have also included material on nuclear weapon design. I will now paste the new version in article space and nominate it for WP:DYK. -- Petri Krohn 23:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Petri Krohn appears to intend to split the votestack into two based on the rewrite of the article. Accordingly, I reviewed the rewrite, and will vote again:

Delete. The title of the article is a neologism used nowhere on the Web, and the content is most likely WP:OR. As a simple example, consider the usage of moderated neutrons as though moderated would be a state of neutrons. It is not; the result of neutron moderation is conversion of fast neutrons into thermal neutrons. Furthermore, the section Nuclear reactors appears to be making a political point of inherent unstability of nuclear power generations. Given that there's no other reason why this section would be relevant in this article, I would suspect that this is the motivation of constructing an article inappropriately synthesising unrelated topics of nuclear power and nuclear explosions. 泥紅蓮_凸凹箱 04:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I see this namination as probable personal attack on Petri Korn by some of his foes. Anyway I made a research and found that there were actually two experiments (Ruth and Ray) in attempt to create a nuclear weapon based on slow neutrons (although the experiments proved the phenomenon unsuitable for this task). Here are the relevant links: [8], [9]. The article may be renamed though to somewhat like "Slow neutrons based nuclear explosion" or something.--Dojarca 17:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Carlossuarez46 23:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC) we have lots of comments, we have a rewrite, we have a few comments since the rewrite, so I'd like to see if we can generate consensus on the rewritten article. Also, please no one really cares about interpersonal drama here: focus on the article not who wrote it/nominated it for deletion. Comments about the article vis-à-vis our policies carry much more weight than personal attacks, accusations of bad faith, etc. Carlossuarez46 23:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment What is it with you guys and "relisting"? Was the previous debate not to your liking? Give it up. Mandsford 23:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Concur with Mandsford, this has gone on long enough. While there may have been tests with Moderated nuclear explosive designs the section on Nuclear reactors makes the article nonsensical. Martintg 23:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I'm a physics major. Moderated nuclear explosions should be left in the dusty physics books from which they came. Its not OR, nor a hoax, nor a neologism. Its just a badly written article about a non notable subject. Operating 01:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Cut out the parts on the hydride bomb design, put into its own article (if it isn't in one already), as it is entirely legitimate and worthy of inclusion somewhere among the many articles about nuclear weapons designs, but delete the rest esp. the neologistics aspects. Should not be confused with reactor design or reactor accidents. --24.147.86.187 01:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. All WP:STALK accusations aside, this article is a jumbled mess. There might be a grain of truth somewhere in there, but it's better discussed on the established pages on making stuff blow up really good. humblefool ® 07:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete The subject of the article does not appear to be a total hoax, but it seems to be saying that reactors can explode like fission weapons, a claim which is not well enough supported in the sources cited to gain the prominent forum such an article would provide for anti-nuclear power activists. Extreme scientific claims need multiple substantial coverage in independent and reliable sources. Claims such as this have been discredited in arguments about nuclear power for many decades. What happened at Chernobyl surely cannot be closely compared or conflated with what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This article leaves out SL-1 which was a small military reactor which "exploded" when the control rods were ejected or were removed too far and too fast. It sems to conflate such energy releases or meltdowns with atomic bomb explosions. Several cites in the article note that the fuel assembly would be dispersed very quickly in a moderated nuclear reaction. It reeks of original research , synthesis and WP:POV. Wikipedia is not a suitable forum for espousing new and controversial claims in physics, nor to promote a neologism which failed to catch on in refereed scientific journals. Here I see editors claiming they are experts on physics or nuclear science, and conducting the fundamental debate on the scientific merits of the theory which should be going on among reviewers for a scientific journal. This is not a forum for debating the basic science. We should defer to quality refereed scientific journals. Edison 14:01, 25 September 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. DS 02:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Titanic 2. Jack's Back

I'm pretty sure this is a hoax. If not, it's an unsubstantiated rumor, as admitted by the article. Deproded by author without explanation. eaolson 23:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete I haven't heard in the media of a Titanic II. Then if this article would of exist, I would have heard it lots of times and entertainment news. So without checking Google, I am definitely sure it is a hoax.--JForget 23:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh and even if it's not a hoax, it would have failed WP:CRYSTAL, based on the not sure if it will be released bit. That is crystalballing at it's best.--JForget 23:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Things like this make me wish that "Patent Nonsense" meant more than just mangling language. There really should be a speedy criteria for obvious nonsense. Reso lute 23:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete "A sequel to James Cameron’s 1997 blockbuster in which Leonardo DiCaprio’s character Jack Dawson is found frozen among the wreckage of the Titanic, where he is brought back to the surface and thawed. He then escapes and is on the run from authorities in modern day New York City." If it made anyone think twice, then it's done it's job as a hoax. Mandsford 00:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete No reputable sources to verify that there is in fact a "Titanic II" coming out. --Hdt83 ^Chat 00:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete This IS a hoax based on this (admittedly) funny video. AniMate 00:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to re-cut trailer, although that looks to be a huge honking violation of WP:NOT and WP:EL. --Dhartung | Talk 01:15, 25 September 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. DS 02:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clovis Carrive-Meyer

Supposed French national rugby player, but I get no reliable sources on Google for this person, but I do get a hit for an Australian schoolboy ... Corvus cornix 23:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

~~Comment~~ Can't find any non-mirror-of-Wiki hits. He doesn't appear on the Catalan Dragons website. (Website is in French.)FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The Catalan Dragons are a Super League rugby league team and memebers of the team do generate copious ghits. No WP:RS here; nothing to support this article.FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete This is the work of a vandal, see his contributions.[10] Another one of his inventions is up for AfD[11]. This one needs to be put up for AfD too.[12] (if the prod is contested). --Malcolmxl5 01:41, 25 September 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. DS 02:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marc Shneier

I can find no Google hits for this supposed rugby player. No sources. Article created by an editor with a penchant for creating personal attack articles and articles on nn people. Corvus cornix 23:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. The article asserts that Marc Shneier is a player for the South African international Rugby League team, nicknamed the South Africa Rhinos. If he was, then at the very least, he would be appearing on lists of players in games. No results searching for that or searching the South Africa Rugby League website. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete This is the work of a vandal, see his contributions.[13] Another one of his inventions is up for AfD[14]. This one needs to be put up for AfD too.[15] (if the prod is contested). --Malcolmxl5 01:41, 25 September 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 02:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marin Independant Journal

A extremely short stub that talks about a very non notable topic. Chris! _{my talk} 22:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

KeepThere are articles about every newspaper, another small newspaper would be the Point Reyes Light which is much smaller than the Marin Independant Journal (MIJ). I'll try and expand it however. Newspapers are notable though, wikipedia has room for this especially if there is room for an article for every single episode of the Simpsons or a Angel or even less notable shows.Cholga^talK! 23:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: If kept, please move to the correct speeling. Corvus cornix 23:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete An obvious non notable page. Also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument. Chris! _{my talk} 23:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to ANG Newspapers if nothing turns up; it's where the correct spelling redirects and independant for independent seems a plausible enough typo. It's a real paper, so not a hoax. Unlike the Point Reyes Light above, as near as I can tell MIJ has won no Pulitzer prizes so notability is not based solely on size - like actors winning oscars for their 1 and only role are notable where the more voluminous work product of a perennial bit part player may give no notability. Carlossuarez46 23:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect: Oh, the correct spelling is actually a redirect. Thanks for pointing that out. So, my position now changed from delete to redirect.Chris! _{my talk} 00:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Seems notable enough. George Bush wrote an apology to the paper for calling John Walker Lindh a "misguided Marin county hot-tubber", and the staff has won several AP awards. Zagalejo^^^ 02:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment May I ask you how this link related to the Marin Independent Journal? Perhaps I miss that when I read the link, but pretty sure I didn't. Chris! _{my talk} 04:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  - This first link, you mean? Read on past the advertisement. A person from the newspaper even appeared on The Today Show to talk about the incident, and the transcript is available at Lexis-Nexis. ("Jackie Kerwin of the Marin County Independent Journal discusses readers' comments regarding former President Bush's remarks regarding hot tubs and John Walker Lindh". NBC News Transcripts, February 28, 2002 Thursday, 962 words).
  - Although I think the newspaper is notable even without all that, as a circulation of 35,000 is pretty respectable. Zagalejo^^^ 06:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    - I see it. Thanks. Chris! _{my talk} 00:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Meets WP criteria for notable topic, therefore let us keep it. SaltyBoatr 18:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Zagalejo's information.--SarekOfVulcan 14:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep - I have expanded the article with the above sources. Notability has been established. Fosnez 06:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. MIJ is a notable paper and it seems enough sources have been added as well. Benjiboi 10:53, 28 September 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. The song itself isn't notable enough for an article on it's own. One editors disputes this, but doesn't really give a reason as to why, and also disputes WP:MUSIC. This guideline says that "Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article". Though not a policy, it's a well known guideline that applies to this article. Overwhelming consensus is redirect and merge. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Motorbreath

Aside from being a Metallica song from "Kill 'Em All", there are no sourced claims to notability in relation to this song. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep - As there are no concrete guidelines regarding the notability of songs, I suppose we have to sort of feel our way around. In my estimation, any Metallica song is notable enough to warrant keeping. There is enough easily verifiable information in the article to qualify as a valid stub. No references? WP:SOFIXIT. AfD is not cleanup. --Bongwarrior 00:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- WP:MUSIC has guidelines. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  
  WP:MUSIC has proposed guidelines. --Bongwarrior 00:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  - They're better than nothing, though. But, if we're going to be feeling our way in the darkness, I'd make the following comments. Firstly, the song wasn't released as a single. That's a problem, since it usually means there's less coverage to start with. Secondly, I haven't found anything useful as regards non-trivial, third-party reliable coverage of the song, which is part of the major threshold criterion for anything. I'm happy to be proven wrong here, but simply saying that I'm wrong is different to demonstrating same. Thirdly, notability is not an inherited thing. The band and the album are both notable, but that doesn't mean that every single track therein is. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Kill 'Em All, the song seems to have no real independent notability. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 15:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge to album article in the absence of any coverage. Nuttah68 20:28, 1 October 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. KrakatoaKatie 10:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jae J. Jang

Delete.Not only is it mostly in Korean, but judging by the text that appears in English, it appears this person is not notable. Endless Dan 19:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - does not appear to be notable, possible vanity page. Also mostly in Korean. Weak Keep per cab. OSborn^arf 21:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC) (updated: OSborn^arf 02:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC))
Strong Delete not only it is mess, the individual fails WP:BIO.--JForget 23:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions. —PC78 23:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep. The existing text is not worth translating as it consists entirely of unsourced hagiography that smells of copyvio from some pamphlet or brochure. However, the guy has had several newspaper articles written about him since he's the former president of the Korean Association of the Philippines, produced some movies a few years back, started up a charitable foundation, etc. [16][17][18]. cab 01:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete. Possibly notable per sources supplied by cab, but I don't think there's anything salvageable in the current article. Might be best to start over if an article is desired. PC78 01:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- I restubbed/rewrote the article just now based on those sources. cab 01:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete: as per Endless Dan's analysis. Watchingthevitalsigns 02:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Change to keep following rewrite by cab. PC78 02:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Carlossuarez46 22:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Nothing asserting notability in the article, the organisations he is stated to be involved with do not appear notable enough to have articles, nor does the film director he is associated with or the films he has produced. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 15:15, 29 September 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. --Core desat 00:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Leonard

Fails WP:BIO as never having played in a fully professional league. If he does play in a professional league, the article can be recreated. Delete until then. robwingfield ^«T•C» 22:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 23:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete At the present time, he does not meet WP:BIO as he has not yet played in a professional league. However, should he do so the article can be restored. It is just a little premature, at the moment he may go on to play in the football league or he may disappear without trace. --Malcolmxl5 23:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete in agreement with Malcolm, if he plays in a professional lge, he becomes notable. King of the North East (T/C) 23:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Has not played in a fully professional league (WP:BIO). Number 5 7 08:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Per the logical WP:BIO aided reasoning made above. ♠TomasBat 23:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - has not played at the required level. Quote from Bury FC website profile: "hot prospect for the future". Not yet. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:04, 28 September 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. All images have also been deleted. --Core desat 00:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ultra Mario Bros.

Non-notable game. Georgia guy 22:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete zero notability. Also, seems to only be created to promote the author's own work. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 23:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
'Delete All the images linked to in external links are hosted on the Wikimedia servers (like this one), a very obvious violation of WP:NOTAHOST. This has no notability and the images should be speedied. Nate 23:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Possibly a speedy A7. No notability demonstrated. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Non-notable.--Danaman5 00:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - All of the above, plus that fact that it is an unauthorised fan game that is virtually unknown. -- azumanga 00:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:WEB. WP:SPAM is yummy. shoy 02:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I have put speedy tags on all the episodes uplodated to Wikimedia servers and the other article images, and also redacted the entire external links section due to NOTAHOST violations. Nate 05:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. The Evil Spartan 18:45, 26 September 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 per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of remixers

A list of prominent re-mix artists. Obviously incomplete, full of OR, and will never be completed. Jmlk 1 7 22:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete, should be a category. I created this to move it out of the remix article, when others promised they would work on it. Obviously hasn't happened. — Catherine\^talk 23:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete just a list. A category would be fine. JJL 14:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per above. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 15:16, 29 September 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. --Core desat 00:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of world calendar and gregorian calendar

Reasons it should be deleted: There is no information in this article that is not already in World Calendar or Gregorian calendar. I don’t think a redirect would be useful, and a merge would accomplish nothing, since there is no original information here. Although each of the articles being compared is notable, the comparison does not meet notability guidelines - namely, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (statistics). At best, this article only shows how many days difference (one or two) there are between the two calenders. Also, There are no references, and the only article that links here is Gregorian calendar (links).

If this AFD fails, several things need to be fixed: The article’s title has incorrect capitalization of proper names. The language (grammar) is terrible, almost nonsense-like. The colors in the grid are too loud (distracting). The grid is too big to see a useful portion on screen. The grid is also inaccurate: It fails to depict the effect of leap years on the comparison. It may not be possible to fix that using the current format. – jaksmata 22:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete More fun to write than it was to read. Author went to a lot of trouble, but this is one of these things that people can do for themselves if they're really interested in the world calendar. February 30 = March 2. I get it. Mandsford 00:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete you can say the same thing on the World Calender page in a couple of sentences - there is just no need for a separate page. MarkBul 00:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete a simple table like

       Common year  Leap year
March  2 days late  1 day late
April  1 day late   aligned
May    2 days late  1 day late
June   1 day late   aligned
July   1 day late   1 day late
August 1 day late   1 day late
All other months aligned

could be added to world calendar article giving the same information in much less space. Karl 10:03, 25 September 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. --Core desat 00:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Middle childhood

Article created by Preteen vandal who also insists that 18-20 is a child (leftover belief before the 26th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; Mr. Comedian must be from a different country where no similar amendment has been passed. Georgia guy 22:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, so why on Earth did you convert it to AfD from {{db-nonsense}}? Pyrop e 22:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to request deletion; simply a speedy delete might be objected too quickly. Georgia guy 22:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You think AfD is a swifter process than db?? Pyrop e 22:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I want to know if anyone besides Mr. Comedian votes for this page to be kept. Georgia guy 22:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

As it stands, this page is utter tripe. So you are wanting to know if anyone wants to keep the title in circulation? Pointless. In that case, if there really is any merit in the entire concept (which is seriously doubtful, but anyway), the page can easily be recreated with some meaningful content. Why preserve garbage? Pyrop e 22:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Rambles too much, doesn't give much information. =O.o= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Author has a list of links to other stages, including "teenhood". There was a daycare center in Lexington, KY, that was actually called the "Early Lifehood Center". As for teenhood, a teenhood is likely to steal your purse. Mandsford 00:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This clearly does not fall under CSD G1 (nonsense), since that criterion "does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes of any sort." It clearly fails WP:OR and WP:V, though, and a snowball delete seems a definite possibility. Deor 00:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Deor. Not technically a speedy delete candidate. Bearian 17:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - unsourced original research. Maybe taginf with PROD first might have been better but this does not meet any criteria for a WP:SPEEDY -- Whpq 18:43, 26 September 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. --Core desat 00:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Theory of Structure and Counterstructure

If the article is correct, this is a newly developed theory that has not been referenced by any secondary sources (none show up on a google search). It has been substantially edited by two people, one of whom is clearly the author of the theory. A search of "structure and counterstructure" comes up with a few more google hits. Some of which show that this phrase has been used as a background theory by other academics. For example, 1993 "The Legend of The First Pahkola: Structure and Counter-Structure in a Syncretistic Yaqui Myth" by Alfred Robinson, and, 1981, "Enoch, Levi, and Peter: Recipients of Revelation in Upper Galilee", by George W. E. Nickelsburg. These are, however, different uses of the term. I am unsure of the right attitude to take to this article. So this is a somewhat tentative AfD proposal. Is wikipedia a place for "new theories developed by academics and published in a couple of places", but not yet treated seriously by anyone else? Anarchia 21:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I am too new to Wikipedia to understand its rules - so my apologies if my intervening here is inappropriate, and my application of 'Be Bold' too .....bold. My outline of the theory of structure and counterstructure seems to pose questions. I can only say, hoping it clarifies, and helps, that this theory has already been published in reputable scholarly volumes, and so does not attempt to use Wikipedia to publish original research. That I can do elsewhere - well, I have... Yes, it's my own invention - insofar as any humanistic idea can be entirely new... I think it explains itself clearly, and is interesting, and important to a number of philosophical problems, so should be on Wikipedia. I'm not sure that it isn't possible to over-emphasize the 'don't write about your own ideas' - if applied ovevr-reductively, this could too easily be got round by networking and at the same time, lead to a failure to keep up- to- date. Most of all, I'd really like to see any intellectual contagion that might arise from putting this theory on to the Wikipedia cognitive multiverse, since it's so vast and diverse. Wikipedia is such an essential example of memetics at work (I am a member of the Societe francaise de memetique). Thanks for your attention! DrAngelaRyan 23.00, 24 September 2007 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

delete wp:coi wp:n The issue is not really that it is that it is published, it is that it is notable. in the case of literary theory, we need solid secondary sources like dictionary of literary theory, or notable author citing, etc. --Buridan 23:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete This looks like a paper that got an A minus last spring. This formula, developed by Angela Ryan, "owes obvious debts to Hume and Hegel". Oh, obviously. Mandsford 00:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The Hegel part does seem obvious enough. But not all academic theories merit an article until other people also write about them. DGG (talk) 03:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. WP:COI isn't in itself grounds for deletion. However, the so far minimal presence on the WWW and, more importantly, zero presence in Google Books and Google Scholar, suggest it falls way below the threshold of notability for academic ideas. Even if it's not original research, Wikipedia is not a publisher or venue for spreading memes. Gordonofcartoon 02:28, 25 September 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 this one line unsourced stub. GRBerry 01:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Korkaew Prakaikawin Na Chiang Mai

Unnotable descendant of Thai royalty (lack of Internet search results and no referencing to demonstrate notability) Leeannedy 21:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete, looks like this person isn't significant enough for Wikipedia except maybe as a one-sentence mention in someone else's biography. Katherine Tredwell 04:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete not notable. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 15:18, 29 September 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 23:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] St. Patrick School (Wadsworth, Illinois)

This article does not extablish why it is a notible school. Icestorm815 21:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Noroton 01:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. Katherine Tredwell 04:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
delete per nom, nower than a high school, not notable. Chris 21:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep this school has plenty of independent sources, as a Google News Archives search shows. Noroton 00:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any requirement anywhere that demands we actually insert the information into the article, just that we demonstrate notability. I think your objection has been met. Noroton 01:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing in policy says that we have to add a thing to the article. I don't think it's part of the spirit of the policy that we have to add it to the article for notability to "count". Noroton 03:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Per Nom. Twenty Years 14:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable school. (Yes, I read through the google news listing. I don't think that established notability) Bfigura ^(talk) 02:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete nn school. Eusebeus 02:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete no significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability Dlabtot 03:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Dlabtot Anynobody 04:10, 27 September 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. GRBerry 01:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Source criticism

The article is not substantial, is not referenced, and does not contain anything that is not already in other articles, such as Historical method and Bible Rick Norwood 21:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep The article has real shortcomings at this point, but the subject certainly deserves an article of its own. This gives the reader a little information at least, and hopefully will inspire other editors. Put a cleanup tag or similar on it instead. Katherine Tredwell 04:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I would be interested in what you see as the subject of this article. The phrase "source criticism" seems vague to me.Rick Norwood 13:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Source criticism is the attempt to identify the sources underlying biblical texts. It begins with the assumptions that the Bible is not a divinely revealed text, and that many (maybe all) books of the Bible were compiled from older works. For example, some New Testament scholars hypothesize that a list of sayings by Jesus (or attributed to Jesus) was circulated in the first century. A biography of Jesus without these sayings (what we know as the gospel of Mark) was also available. Then, a couple of people decided to combine the list with Mark to create expanded biographies, which we know as the gospels of Matthew and Luke. (Keep in mind that this is a hypothesis; the list, the so-called Q document has not been found, even though the Gospel of Thomas shows that such lists did circulate at some point.) Another well-known example is the Documentary Hypothesis, which identifies four main sources for the Pentateuch. Ever notice that Noah gets two lists of animals to take on the Ark, or that humans are created last in Genesis 1 and early on in Genesis 2? That's because there are probably two sources which have been edited together. Source criticism is the process of identifying these sources and trying to identify who wrote them, when they were written, and so on. You can read another explanation here which might help you. (I picked this external link out of many because it's to a university page and it has a bibliography.) "Source criticism" is not a term made up for Wikipedia; it has a long history and has been the basis of many books. It's well worth an article of its own, in my opinion, and should not be abbreviated to a paragraph in an article on the Bible or even Higher Criticism. I hope I have clarified things for you, but don't hesitate to ask more questions. Katherine Tredwell 01:18, 30 September 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 per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Miles de Courcy, 1st Baron Kingsale

Unsourced compilation of guesswork; no reason to suppose that this Miles de Courcy ever existed; the claim that he was Baron of Kingsale is unsupportable (sources disagree over whether the Barony was created a century later or two centuries later); and the assertion that the Barony descended in the male line depends on the claim that Patrick de Courcy was Miles's son, whereas the Complete Peerage says that Patrick's parentage is unknown. Taking all those out leaves nothing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Too many questions, too few facts or reliable sources. Katherine Tredwell 04:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete X is believed to have been an illegitimate son of Y who may have been an illegitimate son of Z" presented without references does not belong in Wikipedia, due to failing WP:V. This is not "Speculatepedia." Edison 14:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
'Comment His father is notable and documentable, having an entry in the DNB. It mentions Patrick de Courcy as follows: "it is possible, as peerage writers claim, that Patrick de Courcy, lord of Kinsale in the early thirteenth century, was his illegitimate son." This is not enough for an article. DGG (talk) 23:53, 25 September 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. --Core desat 00:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William G. Covington, Jr.

This article doesn't appear to establish notability. This guy may be notable, but based on the article as it stands his notability is questionable at best. I'll add that the article's been tagged for unsure notability since December. Wizardman 21:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom, then re-create if notability can be established. There's been plenty of time to do so. - superβεεcat 21:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 23:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per nom --Crusio 23:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above comments. Ward3001 03:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete He is presently"Assistant Professor at Edinboro University of Pennsylvania" Has written 4 books, two published by University Press of America. a minor academic publisher, and 2 motivational books by "Universal Publishers" This is not nearly enough. (By the way. it helps if the nom gives some idea of the field so people know whether they will have anything to contribute) DGG (talk) 23:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep- I'm voting keep for now until I hear from the creator of the page, and give him a chance to reference it. Is he about these days? The info indicates the subject could be notable, I'd just like more evidence. A Link here http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22William+G.+Covington%2C+Jr%22&meta= shows that the guy is clearly real, and if the achievements listed are real, they are of the sort which could prove notability... just want someone to prove itJJJ999 02:20, 26 September 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. --Core desat 00:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Lewis

Notability problem. A reportedly very good person, but I failed to see any reason for inclusion in an encyclopedia, being hardly notable beyond his church community. `'Míkka 20:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Keep. It's incredibly tacky to call for deletion of an article just because you've written an article about another person of the same name and want yours to come up first in the searches. That's what this looks like, after all. VivianDarkbloom 22:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Quite crazy vote, I must say. There are a dozen persons with the same name, with many referenced in wikipedia, and I am in progress of writing the corresponding article stubs, for the purpose of disambiguation: Paul Lewis (disambiguation). `'Míkka 22:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You could do with a read of the no personal attack policy, couldn't you? VivianDarkbloom 22:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you start from yourselves? `'Míkka 22:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Given his recent ludicrously overheated comments, such as this, this, this, and this, VivianDarkbloom hasn't bothered to read the policy himself -- or maybe he thinks it'S for the little people? --Calton | Talk 02:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Keep per above. User has created Paul Lewis (professor) - an article that itself could potentially be AfD'd, but I'll recuse myself since I've posted in this debate. Plus, the fact that a museum had an exhibit on him...I think that's the essence of notability.Smashville 23:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I started three Paul Lewis artickles and wasten my times disambiguating for the whole dozen of lewises. You accusations is spit in my face. `'Míkka 01:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Read both articles. Professor Lewis and Canadian Lewis appear to be equally notable. I think Vivian has a point. Most of us would have missed the connection between the article nomination and the nominator's article. Mandsford 00:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- The connection is very simple and not at all evil: I noticed that in wikipedia there is a dozen (!) different "Paul Lewises" are referenced. All I did I disambiguated them and along the way I doubted in notability of this one. What is your bloody problem with that? `'Míkka 01:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Please explain how canadian Lewis is notable at all. "Lewis arrived in London in 1914, finding work at White's Barbershop" ... "After the closure of White's Barbershop in 1948, Lewis took a variety of odd jobs," "Lewis became a trustee at Beth Emmanuel Church" ??? Like I said, a good man, so what? `'Míkka 01:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Reply Oh, I didn't say he was that notable. I said that he and the subject of your article "appear to be equally notable". There's a difference. Mandsford 16:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I don't really care about the survival of any of the Lewises; none of them is my buddy, but this surge of assuming bad faith is sickening. `'Míkka 01:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- No one is assuming bad faith. We're assuming a conflict of interest. Smashville 02:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  - Oh, really? `'Míkka 05:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    - How exactly, does "Conflict of Interest" apply here? My God, Mikkalai is actually Paul Lewis! --Calton | Talk 02:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Fer' Crying Out Loud, People, lay off Mikkalai! This article obviously needs to be deleted. He's a non-notable church-going dead black guy. Having a reading room named after you is not enough. humblefool ® 07:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:N. There are probably millions of people with such faint claims to notability as having cut a bandleader's hair or having been a trustee of a religious congregation, or having been an "endearing figure." (edited)Edison 14:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I have no intention of starting a flame war or appearing to assume bad faith, so I have struck out my vote. Nominator seemed to take my vote personally, so I'm just going to stay out of this debate. Especially after the closure was reverted and apparently a vote against is a "spit in the face". Smashville 14:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- What I took personally is disparaging comments. And the closure was reverted because it was knee-jerk out of process. `'Míkka 22:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  - Unless you are the Paul Lewis article, I made no disparaging comments. Smashville 23:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    - ROTFL `'Míkka 15:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Is either article about me? No? Forget it then. Paul Lewis, Peoria city councilman 22:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Locally famous? Maybe. Provincially, nationally, internationally, or globally famous? No. Nor am I seeing anything except minor reliable sources. --Calton | Talk 02:40, 27 September 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 per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rock Solid Music

Non-notable record label which apparently has only one artist of any consequence: its founder, T-Rock (easily spotted because an editor insists on putting a registered-trademark symbol after all instances of his name). Only a handful of relevant Google hits. Notability of the label should not be inherited from its founder. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Alternatively, merge with T-Rock. - superβεεcat 21:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I have done two Google searches and found no relevant Ghits -- only Christian rock groups and ministries. Bearian 21:22, 24 September 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 per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Connor Stanhope

Non-notable child actor. I would have listed it for speedy, but it's been here a while with several editors. Corvus cornix 20:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete unattributed non-notable biographic. Carlosguitar 16:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Fails WP:BIO for Entertainers. --Sc straker 15:37, 29 September 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. --Core desat 00:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nanik Atak

Contested speedy A7 (no assertion of notability per WP:BAND. Author left a note on my talk page claiming that this band is notable; see User talk:Shalom#Nanik Atak. Shalom ^Hello 20:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, even the creator of the article admits that they're unsigned. Corvus cornix 20:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom as obviously lack of notability.--JForget 23:20, 28 September 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 per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cory Gierman

Non-notable musician, fails WP:MUSIC. Only claim of fame is founding the MuzikMafia, which does have an article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If the group he founded was notable enough to have its own show on CMT, I think that gives him notability as well. Keep.--SarekOfVulcan 20:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment: It isn't clear if he's a musician or their business manager, but until and unless there are reliable sources to write a biography from, redirect to MuzikMafia. Corvus cornix 20:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

He's a publishing executive it seems. Still fails WP:RS either way. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Fails WP:BIO for notability. --Sc straker 15:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete NN - Stub - Tiptopper 13:25, 30 September 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. NawlinWiki 20:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quincey Tones

Unnotable artist, written in a VERY unencyclopedic style. ViperSnake151 20:05, 24 September 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. KrakatoaKatie 10:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PokerTracker

This is a two-sentence article for a nn "tool" which provides statistical analysis for people playing online poker. The article has the flavour of a spam entry, but I accept the author's assurance of no commercial interest in the software. However, even without a COI from the author, this software has no reliable sources to verify notability. B1atv 19:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete, not notable. Doesn't matter of author has a stake in the software or not. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I added a speedy tag before I noticed this was an afd instead of a prod. It's nothing but an advert so should be speedied, but absent that it's a product entry where the product itself is not notable. Online poker tracking software in general is notable, but there are many of these more or less interchangeable products and we don't need a couple sentence ad for each. 2005 21:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I really don't think this is blatant advertising - note that the tag says "which would require a complete rewrite". The advert tag is really meant for things that are full of fluffy ad-speak, not a one-line article about potentially non-notable software. I'm going to remove the tag because I really think this should just go through AfD for once. Also note that the G11 tag was already added once and removed. Natalie 22:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  - The tag actually says "blatant advertising", and it is not meant for only fluffy ad speak. It is meant for blatant advertising. The only text is the ad text, so db-corp or db-web could also be used to obviously merit speedy deletion. We can waste the time with an afd but this is about as clear as can be for a non-nonsense article. 2005 22:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
    - How is "Poker Tracker is a computer program for Windows" blatant advertising? And A7 does not apply to software. A piece of software is neither a company nor a website. Natalie 23:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
      - Two lines saying what a product is and a link to the product's webiste is an advert - and many an ad agency pay mega bucks for very similar adverts in newspapers, radio stations, television, posters, etc every day. What would you define as an advert? This article provides NO encyclopaedic information merely the briefest of descriptions and a link. Three editors have independently flagged this for CSD today. If A7 doesn't apply to software, only a company or a website, then I think some lateral thinking is called for. This "software" is available from a company via a website. At what point does online resources cease to be a website? B1atv 23:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
        
        Two lines may be an advert, but it's not that blatant. CSD is basically for articles that are so obviously inappropriate or damaging to the encyclopedia that they should be removed as soon as possible. This doesn't seem that obvious to me. And anyway, if the AfD result is delete, you can delete any further recreations of the article immediately, no questions asked. Natalie 23:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. It's extremely notable to its target audience, is a source of controversy in the multi-billion dollar internet gaming industry, and is discussed ad infinitum on internet poker forums. That being said, the article as written is terrible. Consuelo D'Guiche 23:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  - It has virtually nothing to do with that controversy since any one of several similar types of software could have been used. It's relationship to the controversy is trivial. What is notable is "online poker tracking software" (shich is covered in the encyclopedia), not this one brand of it. 2005 06:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    - Sorry for being dense, but I can't find online poker tracking software, I've searched in a few different ways and even googled it to no avail. Edgriebel 19:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  - Delete as a major contributor to the Poker project and an online poker player, I would consider myself to be a part of its target audience. I also consider 2005 to be a part of the project as he too is a major contributor to the WikiPoker project. 2005 is dead on, this piece of software is part of a larget controversy, but hasn't distinguished itself as "The" controversy or even "the main player" in the controversy.Balloonman 15:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless some evidence of notability appears in the article. I'd say this only escaped CSD A7 on a technicality. SamBC(talk) 21:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment how about a separate article on the various types of tracking software and the debate over their use? If someone wants to do this, then this would basically be a keep and expand ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 13:46, 26 September 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. --Core desat 00:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sensible Charlotte Area Transportation

This article is on a subcommittee of the Charlotte Board of Elections. That board is not notable and its subcommittee is even less notable. They recommended a referendum, but that's about the extent of their duty. This may be of local interest, possibly, but I see no notability beyond that. I originally speedy deleted this as CSD#A7 as a non-notable group. Since it was recreated, I decided to bring it here so the creator can get more views on it instead of just mine. Metros 19:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it even a subcommittee? Sounds more like a citizens' group. Delete unless lots of evidence of notability is provided, since almost every referendum is going to have at least one group like this, if not two or more.--SarekOfVulcan 19:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Clearly not notable - minor coverage in local media does not add up to notability. MarkBul 19:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Smerge a mention of the referendum activity to Charlotte Area Transit System. (BTW, I think by "established with" they mean 'registered with".) --Dhartung | Talk 19:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete As mentioned above this article is clearly not notable, if only the local media can provide any coverage and minor at that, then it's not notable and should be deleted. Xtreme racer 20:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete. Non-notable organization that will probably go away when the election is over. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete As per above votes. Liempt 21:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete as violating a core pillar - WP:POV. Not notable, and we are not a news outlet. Salt it this time. Bearian 21:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above, violates our core pillars and notability as well. Burntsauce 22:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep second time I have added my opinion, but anti-article users delete my opinion with detailed comments here, instead added several further references to article Hoopsworldscout 06:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Most of the references in question are more related to events rather than the subject of the article. The article that inroduces the subject in the opening paragraphs doesn't seems marginally related. Another one is an official website, which doesn't give notability. --Sigma 7 10:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The first time you added a comment on this page was before there was an actual AFD. Metros 10:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. And for the record, I'm not going to make a joke about the name. SCAT? Really? humblefool ® 07:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That already was brought up by The Charlotte Observer (April 7, 2007) The elevator | Up, down, or stalled? Today's topics: Ashes, worms and scat. Page 12A. (asserting that the group is seemingly innocent to "dictionary definition No. 3" meaning of SCAT being a slang term for coprophilia, a sexual fetish involving feces.) -- Jreferee T/C 15:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete I can't tell from SCAT or CATS article... is there a referendum scheduled? If so, why no mention in this article? Come back when there is. Mandsford 00:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete A POV article about a political action committee focussed on one small issue in one small town. Every town has a plethora of such petition-circulating groups opposed to or favoring some tax or bond issue. Has a couple of passing references or brief coverage in the Charlotte Observer, but is the online "Rhinotimes" which contains several of the refs a reliable source? Their motto [19] is "the Newspaper with All the Rumors Fit to Print." Seems to fail WP:N. Edison 14:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ And what about The Charlotte Observer references? And Topix.com references? I am a Charlotte resident. Charlotte has 750,000 people and 2.2 million in its metro region. 22nd largest city in America. Please name one other referendum committee in Charlotte with this much exposure. I will update the text as stated in sources to reflect the referendum per Mandsford's concern. Then everyone else decides. Hoopsworldscout 03:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have struck this !vote as Hoopsworldscout already !voted several comments up. Metros 10:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Importance/significance is a CSD A7 issue, not a notability issue. There is enough material from reliable sources that are independent of SCAT to create an attributable article such that the topic meets Wikipedia:Notability. It is surprising to see so many WP:IDONTLIKEIT !votes. -- Jreferee T/C 14:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. I would have gone with a Merge to Charlotte Board of Elections, but that article does not exist. Vegaswikian 23:13, 27 September 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. --Core desat 00:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] S4s

Delete per WP:NEO, or transwiki to wiktionary Saturn 5 18:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete unless evidence of widespread use outside MySpace is presented.--SarekOfVulcan 19:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete This page even cites UrbanDictionary; that's where it belongs. GlassCobra 19:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Unreferenced neologism. -- Kl4m ^{T C} 15:38, 25 September 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. @pple complain 14:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fran Cosgrave

Delete: Non-notable individual. Watchingthevitalsigns 18:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep: notable for winning first season of Celebrity Love Island.--SarekOfVulcan 19:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I hate him. But unfortunately he is notable as a minor tv celeb. Operating 19:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep per WP:OUTCOMES, winners of reality shows are generally notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I disagree that he's notable because of winning a reality series, but he was the subject of a reality show which followed him and other people around. And if he was on a celebrity reality TV show, wasn't he a celebrity before that? Corvus cornix 20:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Reluctant Keep I suppose he passes notability, even though if our society was right he wouldn't. :P Liempt 21:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I would say delete per nom, but the nominator has made no case for deletion. However, I see nothing notable about this individual, and please god let us not say that being "the subject of a reality show" makes one notable. In future, we will have pages about thousands of people who've made no contribution other than getting their face on television. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. NN, P Liempt -our society isn't that far gone. • Tiptopper —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 12:50, 29 September 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 wasspeedily deleted as an attack page, redirected, redirect protected. Natalie 22:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rumsfeldian

Definition only, and dubious at that. Delete per WP:NEO, or reditect to Donald Rumsfeld, as this article originally was. Saturn 5 18:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete and redirect per nom. I like the "all-around meanie" reference.--Chaser - T 18:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, no redirect -- nothing in articlespace links here.--SarekOfVulcan 19:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete dictionary. --Victor falk 19:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, WP:CSD#G10 The article, as it's written, is just a page of original research used to disparage the subject, Donald Rumsfeld. Phrases like "Rumsfeldian, Derived from Donald Rumsfeld, erstwhile SECDEF and all-around meanie,..." make it a clear case, IMO. The term is definitely a neologism, with few or no reliable sources found. But, since it's gaining popularity, especially in the web, suggest redirecting to Donald Rumsfeld per above. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 20:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete, attack article. I call it "lib-cruft." - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete and redirect per nom. Violates NEO, POV. Bearian 21:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete G10 as attack page, no salvageable content, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:24, 24 September 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. GRBerry 01:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Locked Away

Non-notable independent film. The article has been orphaned since last year with no references. IrishGuy ^talk 18:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

All cast and crew are redlinked, and no entry on IMDB as further evidence of non-notability. Delete--SarekOfVulcan 19:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete. Looks like a non-notable minor indie film. The poster shows a ticket price, something a notable film would never do. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:58, 24 September 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 02:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] StepMania

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/StepMania

Articles for deletion/StepMania (2nd nomination)

Non-notable video game. Use of source code to create a display in a non-notable museum exhibit does not establish notability. No external sources to produce verifiability. Chardish 18:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep this game popular and well known. -Icewedge 18:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
What about the sources brought up in the first AFD?--Chaser - T 18:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Not trying to be dismissive, but those aren't in the article (with the exception of the museum one.) I would add them myself, but I don't really see how they establish notability: one is a short review in a local paper, another is a passing reference in an article about a piece in a museum exhibit, the third reference is merely a summary of the second, and the others are merely articles about the museum exhibit that don't even mention StepMania. Unless there is something inherently notable about the museum exhibit (and there's not), I don't see how those are enough to justify notability. - Chardish 19:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep. Museum is notable enough for an article, and it was the engine behind In the Groove (video game). Article was speedy-kept 9 months ago. --SarekOfVulcan 19:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep This game is popular and lots of people play it, not to mention it being a source engine for several other DDR type games. Liempt 21:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep it is the game engine for two notable commercial video games; In The Groove (video game) and Pump It Up Pro. That alone establishes notability. --w^L^{<speak·check>}
- Notability is not inherited - the subject of the article must be notable independently of all other subjects. - Chardish 02:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Fairly notable free PC game that's appeared in a number of reliable sources. Moogy ^(talk) 14:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- What reliable sources? - Chardish 15:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep, obviously notable and already kept from previous AfD. Second paragraph establishes notability. Or am I that biased because I play this game a lot? -- Kl4m ^{T C} 17:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep, It's well known and popular. I don't see how it doesn't meet the notability. Cocoma 21:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
IMPORTANT: Everyone simply saying "it's well known and popular" - that doesn't cut it on Wikipedia. You have to prove objectively that it is well known and popular. That means finding reliable sources that establish the game's notability. Of course a game is going to be considered "well known and popular" by its subculture; we need specific proof of that. - Chardish 21:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, shouldn't you be making it as a comment instead of bolding or enlarging all your text? And by the way, your user page states that you are a site administrator at Flash Flash Revolution. Your afd is a WP:COI. Cocoma 13:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't see how this AfD relates at all to FFR. It's not like I have anything to hide. - Chardish 20:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

"A conflict of interest is a situation in which someone in a position of trust, such as [an administrator], has competing professional or personal interests." Wikipedia's own definition of the subject. You have something to gain by this page being deleted (namely, less "word" about the competition), since you are an administrator of a rival program. In any case, there's no reason to delete this page whatsoever. There are many, MANY pages on far less notable software; are you saying we should delete every one of them? This page is informational and encyclopedic, and therefore should stay. Keep. HoCkEy PUCK 21:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

1) Perhaps you missed the giant section of our website devoted to StepMania files, or the section of our website where we encourage discussion of StepMania (which has well over 50,000 posts on it). You are being a conspiracy theorist; FFR has nothing against StepMania. As a Wikipedia user with many contributions to a wide range of topics, I have enough experience to recognize that StepMania is non-notable software, and if you could set aside your paranoia and look at this situation objectively you would understand it. Besides, would you care to explain how StepMania is more notable than FFR, which was recently deleted for lack of notability? 2) Yes, I do think that similar pages about less notable software should be deleted. All of them. - Chardish 23:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Debating this is probably counterproductive when the discussion is heavily trending keep. In narrow cases, I probably wouldn't close a deletion discussion on the numbers including blatant COI !voters (and I don't know that that's the case here), but everyone, including IPs and the article subject's mother, is welcome to contribute persuasive arguments based on Wikipedia policy.--Chaser - T 00:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to stick with Keep here, since although notability can't be inherited (both ways), and the article could definitely use cleanup, that doesn't dismiss the fact that the game is notable. If you need some facts, the Sourceforge [20] project page gives download statistics--well over 500 daily downloads. It's a rough metric, but it does at least give an idea of the activity of the project (not something where there's any established guideline for notability, though). Anyway, the discussion related to the deletion of the FFR article is irrelevant to this AfD. dougk (Talk ˑ Contribs) 06:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Neutral. I'm inclined to lean towards a keep, but some of you keep voters need to step up and prove your claims by adding the sources. I know it, you know it, but it needs to be V'd and S'd anyways. --UsaSatsui 17:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I can't vote on this because I'm involved in the development of the software in question. I did want to bring up this video, however, which shows StepMania as the main focus in a segment on Call for Help (With Leo Laporte). I do not know notability guidelines, so I do not know if this passes muster. Someone with more intimate knowledge of Wikipedia's plethora of guidelines can surely help determine this! Thanks.Plaguefox 13:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's not a vote, so you can certainly express your opinions here (thanks for disclosing the conflict, though). Anyways, that appearance may fit the guidelines (check WP:V. --UsaSatsui 14:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Stepmania Rocks!!! it has many sites devoted to songs for the game, it is notable as it has a large amount of fetaures not avilable with the regular counsle games I.e. ability to create songs\add songs, more game play settings, adapatable G.U.I. and multiple modes of play —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.39.78.33 (talk) 17:42, 28 September 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. --Core desat 00:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DDR Freak

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/DDR Freak

Articles for deletion/DDR Freak (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/DDR Freak (3rd nomination)

Non-notable website, using entirely self-published sources, thus making it unverifiable. Chardish 18:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep -- Alexa rank of 95K, putting it just above the 100K non-reliable threshold. Primary "Link in"s from Alexa are Google and WP. On the other hand, this Salon article links to it as a definition for "Dance Dance Revolution".--SarekOfVulcan 19:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, it is not entirely self-sourced - three of those sources are external to DDRFreak, but mirrored on their site for convenience.--SarekOfVulcan 19:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Wasn't aware that there was some sort of non-reliability threshold for Alexa. Could you point me to the guideline that specifies that? - Chardish 20:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I found it at Wikipedia:Search engine test#Alexa_ratings.--SarekOfVulcan 20:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you might have misread that. It is saying that Alexa ratings below a certain rank are not reliable, not that the websites themselves are not reliable. In other words, it's saying that there's no guarantee that a website with rank 125,000 is really more popular than a website with rank 130,000. In fact, the sentence immediately above that statement says that Alexa ratings are not reliable barometers of notability. - Chardish 20:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no, I didn't misread reliability for notability -- I was just pointing out that it was quite low, but not actually into the we-have-no-idea zone.--SarekOfVulcan 21:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, no reliable sources, not notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom unless reliable sources can be found. Moogy ^(talk) 14:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete & redirect to Dance_Dance_Revolution#Internet_fandom. This article lacks sources and looks like the site map. -- Kl4m ^{T C} 17:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Weak Delete per nom; while article is not entirely self-sourced, permission to reproduce the copyrighted articles mirrored on the article's site is not clearly defined. They should link to the original source (or, at the very least, an appropriate bibliographic entry); as I recall, there may be potential issues with linking to copyrighted media such as this (see WP:C). At the very least, those links should probably go. dougk (Talk ˑ Contribs) 06:29, 27 September 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. KrakatoaKatie 10:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coffee World

insufficient notability established, as the only sources are the company website and a listing service. - CobaltBlueTony 18:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete a non notable company, No reliable sources. -Icewedge 18:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete ~~lack of notability and poorly sourced.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 19:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)~~ changed to Keep
Strong keep -- poor sources, but apparently notable in its area. [21] mentions it before Starbucks. [22] says that they'll open the second largest number of stores in Thailand (I think) that year. [23] lists it beside Starbucks as an established competitor to a new chain. [24] mentions it as one of several companies coming into the coffee market in India.--SarekOfVulcan 20:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Notable enough. [25] Ichormosquito 04:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep - I have a number of credible sources that I have just been directed to, so I will get to working on this article to improve it later tonight (EST) after I get home. This franchise is part of a much larger firm that manages seven subsidiaries which I will work on as well. I think the tag should be removed to give me a couple days to work on the article.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 16:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep per above, particularly SarekOfVulcan. This appears to be a large chain that is as much as a player as Starbucks in very large markets with sources verifying content. --Oakshade 01:32, 29 September 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 there were many arguments advanced in the course of this discussion, the general opinion appears to be that they lack any independent sources which establish the notability of the subject. The concerns over the bulk nomination are valid, but I do not believe that they're serious enough to invalidate the discussion. I would remark that many editors arguments here were of little import due to a lack of rationale behind them — this is not a vote.

Since there is a legitimate merge opportunity here, I've redirected all the articles in question to preserve the history for merger. However, they should not be recreated. --Haemo 19:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RuneScape combat

ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Also nominating the following:

In short: Non-notable gamecruft. In long:

It has been about three months since these were last brought to AfD. In that period little if anything has been done to address these problems:

WP:N - Here we have the main reason why these articles should be deleted (hence why I'm listing them all together); the subjects are simply not notable. These articles lack independent reliable sources, the vast majority of their references being from Jagex, the creator of Runescape. Multiple independent reliable sources are required to establish notability. As the template at the top of Gielinor confirms, these articles rely "largely or entirely upon a single source", which is simply not good enough. Currently, of 36 references on that page, all but one are from Runescape's official website.
Runescape combat, Runescape skills and Runescape gods are gameguides despite protestations to the contrary in the last AfD, which is something that Wikipedia is not. These are of use only to people who play the game, and those people are not who an encyclopedia article is written for. See WP:CVG/GL#Scope of information.
Also, the reason for many "keep" !votes in previous AfDs has been that the main article is too big (WP:SIZE). The answer to this is simply that the main article needs cleaning up. ANY article can become too big if it goes into unnecessary levels of detail. This means that it needs to have extraneous information removed, NOT used as an excuse to make more articles. Again, EVERY article on Wikipedia needs to prove that it is notable in its own right - notability is not inherited. That Runescape is notable, and therefore can have as many sub-articles as its editors want, is simply not true and therefore not an argument. Runescape itself is notable, and that is why is has its own article: Runescape. Its individual elements however are NOT notable (as demonstrated by the complete lack of sources), so there is no justification for them having articles of their own. Miremare 17:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Miremare 18:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
~~Speedy~~ Keep~~, request nominator withdraws. This blanket nomination is never going to pass per WP:SNOW. I request an AfD on RuneScape gods only, as a kind of test case.~~ Very well. Keep per too large a difference between nominated articles to be able to present clear argumentation valid to all of them. They may, or may not, all fail the policies cited, but do so for different reasons, making a proper deletion discussion impossible. User:Krator (t c) 18:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Response like I said in the first paragraph, they are nominated together because they all fail notability requirements first and foremost. Miremare 20:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge - If it's anyway possible to merge the key facts of these articles into the main article itself, then these articles are not needed, because of the lack of WP:N. However, right now it would be a waste to delete the information found from these articles, so I propose keep until merge. Runescape as the main article needs improving at the moment, and if we are to push the article up to WP:FA, having bits from these articles included in is not going to be too bad. Plus, the amount of limited use fair-use images used on these articles is going to be massive - we don't need in-game specification of every aspect in Runescape with fair-use images, as the main identification should only be done, what is the game, and not what's in the game. ~Iceshark7 18:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy keep Gods per WP:SNOW - the last umpteen AfDs for that had the same or better deletion arguments and still ended in overwhelming keep. Until articles on characters are declared unencyclopedic by major policy changes and Gods is thrown in a mass nom, it's staying. Speedy keep Gielinor - no reason given for deletion. For the record, I'll say what I said last time: articles on fictional universes are encyclopedic. As for the rest: keep - these are not game guides, no matter how many times someone keeps saying they are. These are no use to someone looking for a walkthrough to the game. Sometimes some slips past the local editors, it's easy enough to fix. Notability not being inherited doesn't apply, it refers to related but separate topics (like a player or developer, in this context). Notability doesn't apply, RuneScape easily demonstrates notability, and that it's components are notable as a result is a valid argument. If that wasn't a valid argument, there would be rampant holes in Wikipedia's coverage; Bill Gates' article would be forbidden from mentioning his upbringing and education. Notability not being inherited would apply to Gates' family, they aren't notable just because he is. WP:SIZE is a very real, valid concern. We are not talking about some little Flash game here, this is a full-fledged MMO with probably more history and at least as much content as the other major MMOs. If the main article needs cleaning up, please explain why it is GA rated. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 18:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Response In the absense of anything to prove notability you're resorting to claiming that notability requirements don't apply to Runescape? Why, exactly, does Runescape gods, an article on fictional characters with absolutely no sources to prove notability somehow not not need to prove notability? These are not even a particularly notable part of the game! They don't require any more than a paragraph in the main article, and certainly don't need to be individually listed in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia article! And From WP:NOTINHERITED: "If it really is independently notable, provide the evidence to show that", "if there is not enough independently verifiable information to support a stand-alone article, merge the content into the parent article and create a redirect". The Bill Gates article talks about his early life in the Bill Gates article, it doesn't put it in a separate article, and even if it did, there would undoubtedly be sources to justify its notability. This is a classic case of Wikipedia editors deciding what's notable and simply dismissing anyone who doesn't agree. Gielinor: I have given a deletion reason for all four artilces; please read the first paragraph. The contents of other articles has nothing to do with the main article being rated GA either. Miremare 20:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand WP:N. It applies to whole topics, not individual articles. NOTINHERITED is irrelevant, as these are not separate entities from RS, they are part of it. If they were articles about a player or a developer, they would have to prove notability separately, because players and developers are not lines of RS's source code. Do you see what I mean? It's best to think of these articles as sections of the main article. Please think about the Bill Gates example. If his early life were a lengthy enough subject to justify a separate article, deleting that article under WP:N would be like hacking a huge section of good information out of the Bill Gates topic. Regarding the main article/GA thing, you stated in your nomination that RuneScape (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) needs cleanup to accomodate the subpage content. That article's status as a GA implies that it is cleaned up, it would have failed or been delisted if it needed cleaning. No amount of cleaning the main article will free enough space to incorporate the content in the subpages. Subpages are not forbidden; WP:FICT actually encourages splitting into subpages when articles get unwieldy. There is a limit to the effectiveness of cutting back (we've already done a load) - take it too far, and you start damaging good content. I'll reiterate: RuneScape is not some rubbish Flash side-scroller made in 5 minutes for posting to some forum. Just because it is a Javascript browser game doesn't stop it from being at least as big as World of Warcraft et al. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 22:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

As regards "whole topics" - by splitting gods et al off from Runescape you're making them seperate topics in their own right. I'm sorry to have to disagree with you again, but every article must justify itself. How many "xxxx in popular culture" articles have split off from parents and been subsequently deleted? I could use your logic on this to start an article about Margaret Thatcher's collection of ornamental spoons, and claim immunity from deletion because the parent subject is notable. Would that be acceptable? Of course not. I'm sorry, but this is what WP:NOTINHERITED is about, that's why it's there. You may still see them as sections of the main article but since they've been split they aren't any more. If they were, they would need to be severely cut down as overly detailed game-guide material anyway, and being in a separate article doesn't excuse this. There's also a severe case of WP:WEIGHT here; and the lack of sources should probably suggest that we don't need all these articles anyway. Also the Bill Gates analogy doesn't work because Bill Gates is notable enough to justify multiple articles, were that needed. Being one of the most famous men in the world there are undoubtedly reliable sources such as biographies that talk about his childhood. There are no reliable sources that discuss the subjects of the articles nominated here, which is exactly the problem. Miremare 22:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There are few sources in these articles because most of the information is subject-specific common knowledge, as it is with most fictional creations. No one is questioning the statement that Gielinor is divided into this section and that section, there is no reason to seek secondary sources, anyone who has "visited" Gielinor knows this to be true. There is also little reason to cite location names, or geographic details, remarks about population and resources, it is all easily verifiable. (You will, in fact, find plenty of secondary sources in the form of game guides. Some game guides would even be considered reliable, in that they can be regarded as "trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.") As for WP:NOTINHERITED, Gielinor (or Runescape Gods or whatever) is more than a subordinate topic, it is a facet of the whole subject. "Runescape bloggers" would be a subordinate topic. Shoehorn 06:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The Jagex sources are fine and completely reliable for getting information on the game. They are not however independent of the subject, and therefore provide no proof of notability. Miremare 19:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Independent sources aren't needed because this is subject-specific common knowledge. (See the "When to cite" essay.) Sources in and of themselves do not prove notability -- this article has few citations. The notability of these subarticles has been argued many times before, and even though there is not a snowball's chance in hell this proposal will succeed, you keep repeating your position that they aren't notable. We are well aware of your position. You wouldn't have posted this tired AfD if you didn't have that position. But how can I trust your judgement on notability, when you simply lump five subarticles into one AfD, again and again and again, and then as your argument you dismiss the arguments of the previous AfDs because you disagree? Shoehorn 23:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Independent sources aren't required to reference facts, but they are required to establish notability. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "sources don't prove notability", but if that's what you really think I suggest you take it up on the relevant policy talk page, rather than with me. To answer your other points, Multiplication, a start-class article, not being very well sourced has no bearing on these articles; there are quite a lot of articles on Wikipedia with inadequate sourcing. That doesn't mean it's OK to have inadequate sourcing when there's opposition to the article on notability grounds. And I haven't lumped the articles together "again and again and again"; but just once, because they are all related and have the same major failing. Of course I'm dismissing the previous AfDs, that's why I've brought this one! Should we always abide by each article's first AfD even if we don't agree with it? Concensus can and does change. Also I'm amused that you seem to think I should assume a more neutral stance in this debate, rather than defend my own reasoning. :) But like I said below, I'm only going to repeat myself (I'm not the only one, and it takes two or more to argue :)) so I'm going to bow out for now. Miremare 00:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Use common sense. That is not what NOTINHERITED is about. By that logic, you could delete every subpage on Wikipedia, which is obviously unacceptable. You might as well say "subpages are forbidden", when in fact WP:FICT says the exact opposite. 'X in popular culture' articles are being deleted on the grounds of being trivia, not non-notability, as would be the Thatcher's spoons article (WP:NONSENSE thrown in for that one too). NOTINHERITED does not demand that each tiny little part of a single topic proves notability by itself; it demands that Steve Ballmer proves his own notability, he doesn't inherit any from Bill. The last mass AfD of these pages had almost exactly the same argument (WP:N). The result? A pretty resounding keep. Why? Notability guidelines, including WP:N and WP:NOTINHERITED apply to whole topics, not individual pages and (sub)pages. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 18:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete every subpage on Wikipedia: No, not at all. No one would say that any page that asserts its notability with multiple independent reliable sources should be deleted, at least not on WP:N grounds. I would say that "common sense" is highly subjective in this case; it's pretty likely that we have quite different opinions of what a common sense outcome would be here. :) Of course, subpages aren't forbidden, but they have to be on a notable topic, otherwise what's the point in having notability requirements? You could justify the existence of ANY article that has a connection to any other article. At the risk of repeating myself, individual articles (which is what we're talking about here whether you refer to them as "subpages" or not) need to prove their own notability. This is what stops subjects that have a lot of fans and editors but not enough real-world notability from having endless subarticles on everything to do with the game, whether notable or not. Note that Runescape used to be a prime example of this. Anyway, your argument seems to be that these articles are all basically on exactly the same subject, but this is not the case. Look at the article names for their subjects. These are four individual subjects related to, but quite apart from, Runescape. If these were all contained within a Runescape (continued) article I would have absolutely no problem with it notability-wise (though I'm not at all sure what the policy is regarding something like that and my other main argument would still apply). Simply put, when in the Runescape article, they are part of that subject, but when moved to their own page, they are being presented as separate subjects in their own rights, worthy of their own articles. The bottom line is notability of the subject. If these subjects are notable, please demonstrate it with the requisite multiple reliable sources. But you don't even appear to be claiming that these subjects are independently notable... or are you? Miremare 19:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

They don't need to be "independently notable" because they are not independent! They are not a separate topic and they are not being presented as a separate topic! They are presented on separate pages simply because we don't want people to get bored waiting for the page to load. That's why the titles contain the word "RuneScape". They are all part of the same topic. There are 66 sources in the main article alone (admittedly, a couple of these are from Jagex and fansites) that say "RuneScape is a notable topic". Saying that because they are on separate pages due to size reasons, they are automatically separate, unrelated topics just doesn't make any sense at all. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 21:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You're basically admitting they're not notable but insisting they still deserve their own pages. These are seperate subjects. They are articles in their own right and do not cover Runescape but a narrow non-notable element of it. You have MADE them separate subjects by deciding that they're notable enough to deserve their own pages with no justification (i.e., Wikipedia editors deciding themselves what's notable!), rather than, for example, giving them short sections in the main article, as their lack of real-world notability justifies. What makes these subjects notable other than the fact that you've decided they should be? The answer, apparently, is nothing. There is no justification in saying that because Runescape is notable everything about it must be notable too - that's just not how it works and is not true. This is a quite bizarre argument, and I think I've said all I can on it without repeating myself again. The reasons for deletion are clear, simple, and valid. Miremare 22:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

So Criticism of Windows Vista has no relation, nothing whatsoever to do with Windows Vista. Right. Please revise WP:N and WP:FICT. You'll notice that they permit and encourage splitting into subpages, rather than forbidding them. The exact same argument, almost word-for-word, was used in one of the other AfD keeps, the closing admin remarking that "the argument that this stands alone as a subject I (User:Herostratus) find unconvincing". Read: "this is not a separate topic from RuneScape". Therefore, as RuneScape is a notable topic, WP:N is not a valid argument. These are not separate topics, no matter how many times you say they are. Our justification for splitting was WP:SIZE alone. WP:SIZE is a valid reason for splitting, these are pretty useless as walkthroughs, and "gamecruft" is basically saying "I don't like it". CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 13:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Windows Vista has real-world relevance, especially since people are upgrading to Vista and all, and is very notable as witnessed by repeated media reports on Vista's faults, not just within computer news, but even general news. RuneScape the game is notable. RuneScape the battle system is not. Doom the game is notable. Doom gameplay is not. The fact the gameplay of Doom was addictive for its time is notable, but not enough to include as a separate article. How the game plays is not, beyond the brief description given there. Likewise, the way RuneScape plays is notable enough to mention in the main article. But the in-depth analysis is not notable enough to be put in a separate article. Now, even if the detail may not actually be useful as a gameguide, it's still pretty useless for the general reader. Ong elvin 14:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not the point I'm making. I'm saying that just because Criticism of Vista is a separate article, it doesn't make it a separate subject, completely unrelated to the main article, which this logic is implying. Criticism is part of the Windows Vista topic. It too is there because it outgrew the main article's capacity. You would't go into a one-page game article and wipe out the gameplay section on the grounds of being non-notable, would you? If a page seems excessively in-depth, it should be cut down, not deleted. You don't demolish your house when it is in need of redecorating, do you? There isn't a snowball's chance in hell of sufficiently describing the gameplay on the main article without being GA-delisted due to length and having people complaining about the loading time on the talk page. To fix those problems, we'd have to split content out again per WP:FICT, which is exactly what has happened here. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 16:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

They are related subjects, they are not the same subject. One is about Windows Vista, the other is about criticism of Windows Vista. Miremare 16:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You haven't addressed any of my points, you're just repeating the same arguments, again and again, even after I presented precedents and policies against them! I'm starting to lose my cool a little now, so I'm going to leave it for a bit. I sincerely apologise if I have caused any offence. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 01:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This is silly. Criticism of Windows Vista is clearly a subsection/subtopic of Windows Vista. If a coworker and I were having a conversation about the problems with Windows Vista, and someone asked: "What are you talking about?" I would say: Windows Vista. I wouldn't say: Criticism of Windows Vista. I would make the same argument for Runescape Combat: "What are you talking about?" Me: Runescape. Shoehorn 01:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You have to prove that Criticism of Windows Vista is notable to justify dedicating an encyclopedia article to it. Look at that article's extensive references section and compare it to any of these nominated Runescape articles - THAT is the difference. All articles need to prove their own notability, and if they can't do that they don't deserve a dedicated article, it's as simple as that. I'm sorry, but this is not difficult to understand, and situations like this are what the notability requirements are for. Miremare 16:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You did not address my point. It is quite clear you hold the position that the notability guidelines apply to every article. Others have argued that notability applies to subjects, and subjects can span more than one article. You maintain your position in defiance of common reasoning, and since you continue to be obstinate on this point I see no point in discussing it further with you. Shoehorn 17:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I not only hold that every article must assert the significance and notability of the subject, but that each article is inherently a different subject. Runescape is a subject, Runescape gods is a subject, Runescape combat is a subject, etc. They all cover their own subjects which, incidentally, is entirely the point of encyclopedia articles. If the notability of these subjects can't be proved, they shouldn't have articles in an encyclopedia. Miremare 18:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You might hold that, but WP:N, WP:FICT and that other AfD I mentioned don't. I also see little further need to argue, for the same reason as Shoehorn. You are just repeating the same argument, even after it has been pointed out as flawed. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 02:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It hasn't been "pointed out" that my argument is "flawed" because it isn't. Your skewed interpretation of what makes something notable is the only argument you have. Notability requirements are clear if you're not looking for ways to muddy the waters. And, if I'm repeating myself (I might point out the you're doing rather the same thing) it's because the argument for deletion is, essentially, so mind-numbingly simple and easy to understand. Miremare 10:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It has been pointed out! Have you read that AfD I linked? Where the exact same argument was used and failed? Obviously not, since you've not addressed it or defended your argument. Simply saying "this argument is not flawed" isn't good enough. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 14:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Previous AfD's don't matter. This AfD is where the debate is taking place. Whatever conclusions, rightly or wrongly, that people have come to in the past on this matter is irrelevant. AfD rulings and consensus are not permanent. If anyone's argument is flawed, it's yours as you are unable to quote policy or guidelines to support your argument, which is that Runescape has an umbrella of notability for as many other articles as it wants. Miremare 23:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't defended your argument. I can only conclude that you can't. Previous AfD's do matter. Precedents are used all the time, not only in AfDs, but with things like old ARBCOM decisions being used to deal with new miscreants. If precedents didn't matter, then what was the point in building lists like these? Don't try the 'only essays' line, you've invoked one of them in this debate, and besides, they're only lists of precedents, not someone's opinion or interpretation of policy (the reason why essays are so controversial). And kindly refrain from accusing me of ignoring policy, I've backed up everything I've said with it, quotes and all. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 23:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You state that WP:FICT supports you. I say that it doesn't. Let's look at the first section, defining notability. It states there, quite clearly, that you must provide real world context. Sales figures, critical acceptance, development, cultural impact, and using primary and secondary sources. Runescape combat et al does none of that. Now the second section, dealing with fiction. The first subsection, notable material, does state that you can split topics off its parent article, I'm not arguing that. What it also states, however, is that topics must provide real-world significance before they can be split, and this information must be added before it is split. You didn't do that when you split the article. As for non-notable topics, that is therefore where these articles all stand. Does the potential exist for it to show its real-world notability? No. So don't keep it. Can you merge it to provide better context? Yes, that's an option. Can it be transwikied? Yes, that's also an option. Also notice that last sentence in the section. Articles that are too small or narrow in scope — even if they are notable — should be merged into a larger article to avoid disorganization and a potential overload of plot summary. So we also have that quote to show that even sub-topics must be notable. Ong elvin 00:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) You can only conclude I can't? Perhaps you should read this page again; I've done nothing but defend my argument... And please show me again which policy says you can have as many articles as you like without proving notability, as I - and most other Wikipedians - must have missed it. All I've noticed you mention is WP:SIZE and WP:FICT, as justification for large articles to be split. This is countered by the fact that neither of them encourage non-notable elements of articles to be split into an article of their own. But then they don't need to, because of WP:N. Also, this is the current AfD, this is the one that's directly affecting the articles at this time, not previous AfDs. If you want to argue a point, do it again, don't just say "I argued it before and won", that doesn't wash at all. Miremare 04:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

If you'd read WP:N, WP:FICT and WP:SIZE, because it's obvious that you haven't (skim reading the first paragraph isn't sufficient), you'd know that SIZE provides one of the best possible reasons for splitting long articles (technical and ease of access): "if an article is significantly longer than that [32k], it may benefit the reader to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries", "current mobile browsers and some older PC web browsers cannot correctly edit long pages because they crop the source text to 32 KB". FICT, the appropriate version of N, endorses this: "topics within a fictional work (characters, places, items, concepts, etc.) are covered in the article on that work of fiction, with two exceptions: [...] to a limited extent, sub-articles are sometimes born for technical reasons of length or style. Even these articles need real-world information to prove their notability, but might not include that information in the same article (due to said technical reasons). In these situations, the sub-article should be viewed as still being a part of the parent article, and judged as if it were still a section of that article." As I have stated before, the only reason these articles were split from RuneScape was because the parent article was about 200k in size and was repeatedly failing GA/FA noms as a result, so they should be treated as sections of the main article; this is why your separate article = separate topic argument is nonsensical. N talks about the notability of topics, not articles, and we know from the separate existence of Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Featured topics that articles != topics. 66 references prove that RuneScape is notable, no matter how many times someone says otherwise. Flatly denying that precedents matter doesn't change the fact that they do, and are used every day on Wikipedia. Just because you don't like the game and these articles doesn't justify excluding this series from the right to have subpages where necessary that is available to every other fiction topic on Wikipedia. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 15:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The salient part of the above quote being "even these articles need real-world information to prove their notability", so where is it? Also please note that WP:FICT#Non-notable topics says that articles that "do not show notability can be kept for a short time, merged, moved elsewhere, or deleted". WP:FICT also says that "If the article becomes too long and a split would create a sub-article that does not establish its own notability, then the content should be trimmed" rather than split. Does that sound familiar? Regarding topics/articles: I'm sorry, but this is just wrong! You can NOT justify the existence of any number of articles on non-notable parts of a notable topic like this (where have all the other Runescape articles gone, eh?), it's plainly ridiculous! And, please don't play the victim on behalf of Runescape - I have not said that these should be deleted because I don't like Runescape. I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this "precedents" thing either, it does not matter here, unless you're saying most of the other extraneous Runescape articles have been deleted, so these should be too, but I've a feeling you're not saying that... Miremare 16:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's try to be civil here. We can hurl accusations at each other all day about who hasn't read what policy. Miremare has made a point that shows that he may have read the policy more thoroughly than you - but we're here to discuss the policy, not each others' reading skills. Notability is not inherited, even by branch-off articles. Does that leave you in a pickle, between WP:N and WP:SIZE? Perhaps. But this article fails notability requirements, even those specific to video game articles. --Cheeser1 16:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I see you've omitted "[they] might not include that information in the same article (due to said technical reasons). In these situations, the sub-article should be viewed as still being a part of the parent article, and judged as if it were still a section of that article". You might as well have gone into the main article and deleted a huge section of text making a vague reference to notability. Have you tried reading some of the game reviews recently? Some of the references in the main article? There lies your proof of the RuneScape topic's notability. Please do not try to deny their existence, and please stop saying these are separate topics; they are not and you know it - simply saying "these are separate topics", no matter how forceful your words are, doesn't override the evidence. Please stop saying RuneScape is non-notable (for that is what you are doing), when it clearly passes notability requirements by a mile; by invoking FICT#Non-notable topics you are claiming the RuneScape topic is non-notable. This is wrong in so many ways. Please stop trying to deny this topic the subpages it - along with every other topic on Wikipedia - is entitled to and needs. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell of giving RS a sufficient, encyclopedic coverage on one page, and there is no reason to try to, when subpages are the sensible option permitted by every relevant policy, and allowed for every other fictional topic that needs them. Please stop accusing me of trying to justify an indefinite number of subpages. We (that is, the RuneScape editors) were responsible for removing the articles redirected or deleted in the last couple of years, because we felt they were unnecessary. Not once was notability mentioned. Why? Because it is not relevant or a concern. Once again, against the evidence, you flatly deny that precedents matter, even though you've used them in this debate. They work both ways, you know; to say that precedents only apply for delete arguments is the very definition of 'unfair'. Yes, consensus can change, but it doesn't always do so and depends on depends on things like precedents. Splitting this content was entirely justified and appropriate - it was recommended by our ease of access policies and suggested by other editors - what would you do in the same situation? Delete it and forever be failing GA/FA on comprehensiveness grounds? CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 21:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I would trim them down to what needs to be said. Runescape does not have such a notable combat system, skills system, list of gods, or world, that such detail needs to be gone into. Aside from the facts that I've already cited as to why these are totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia, it lends these things an undue weight that they simply do not deserve. You can continue insisting that these should stay, but WP:N, WP:FICT, WP:SIZE and WP:CVG/GL say otherwise.

I see you've omitted "[they] might not include that information in the same article (due to said technical reasons). In these situations, the sub-article should be viewed as still being a part of the parent article, and judged as if it were still a section of that article": Yes, but you still have to prove notability to show it deserves its own article - see the bolded quotes in my last post. There is just no getting away from this basic fact. Miremare 22:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Same question, same answer: read some of the game reviews and references in the main article. I'll give you a head start; this BBC News article is an interesting read. Hell, this page gives a citation to an actual journal article about the subject (I'll see if I can get hold of that). Regarding the example article; what would you do if you already had trimmed down the content as much as possible, and it was still far too long? And sections about gameplay, the plot, major characters are quite appropriate; otherwise you'd have an article saying "X is a computer game. Generic gaming magazine quite likes it. Generic console magazine didn't so much because of control issues. Genericgamingwebsite.com thought 'meh'. It has the musics. It wants a BBC Micro to run on. {{vg-stub}}", which would defy the point of being an encyclopedia. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 17:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Those BBC sources, reliable as they are, don't provide notability to anything other than Runescape as a whole - they're not about the combat system, the gods etc. - they're just about Runescape. You need sources providing significant coverage to the subject in question to legitimise a sub-article. And as for length, look at how Maple Story does it as another user suggested; an overview of the game as a whole, with links to more detailed StrategyWiki articles heading various sections. There is no reason why Runescape cannot do the same and progress to FA - you do not need to go into such detail to achieve FA status. I accept that when Runescape was split up into various articles it was done in good faith and at the suggestion of a reviewer, but the editors should have made sure that what they split was suitable. Miremare 18:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I found a copy of the journal article, and it goes into a surprising level of detail describing the setting and the gameplay - a section of a couple of paragraphs each for settings, combat and skills (skills as 'work'). It's there to provide context for the article (on behaviour in virtual worlds; whereabouts people hang about and why, and what they do, be it fighting monsters or eachother, or mining and smithing for profit, to name a couple of the examples the researchers studied), but it's certainly not trivial, and passes WP:RS and WP:N reliability requirements easily; it is an academic research report, after all. I still maintain that these are perfectly legitimate, valid subpages, equivalent to the subpages permitted for every other fiction series. I still maintain that it is innappropriate and ridiculous to force notability guidelines on subpages of clearly notable topics just because of technicalities, in violation of the spirit of Wikipedia and the rules. That is the definition of wikilawyering. The MapleStory solution shouldn't be a compulsory measure for every other article because the editors there found it works for that topic; if they needed to split content into subpages, they would be allowed to. There are many more subpages of many different topics that are very much like these, so there is no reason whatsoever for this topic to be banned from having them. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 01:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires more than just one independant, non-trivial source. And those articles you mentioned don't even link to any article dedicated to RuneScape's gameplay. About the only way those articles you link provide Gameplay information is to set the context of why they pick RuneScape over any other RPG. All other information is to explain what they are researching specifically, not about the Gameplay itself. Ong elvin 01:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course the Maple Story solution isn't and shouldn't be a compulsory measure, it's just a good way of doing it, and there's no reason it shouldn't work for Runescape considering the lack of alternatives. Anyway, what exactly is this source then? Let's not get too excited about it yet as not all academic research papers are reliable. But as Ong elvin points out, you need multiple reliable independent sources to establish notability anyway. Furthermore, your assertion that every article is somehow "entitled" to sub-articles is not true, as has already been covered above about the need to prove notability for sub-articles. And requiring notability is in no way "going against the spirit of Wikipedia"; Wikipedia is not here to include all information, and no encyclopedia would include an article on a non-notable subject, that's just not what encyclopedias do. And also claiming that requiring notability is in violation of the rules is quite the most ridiculous thing I've yet heard in this AfD. Notability is not a "technicality" to be overcome by, ahem, wikilawering; it is a hard and fast cornerstone of the encyclopedic process that can not be brushed under the carpet simply because you don't think it should apply to your articles. Miremare 17:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Remember your and Ong elvin's proposal for an all-out ban on subpages of any kind, at WT:VG#Request For New Guideline? The one that you apparently abandoned after several people came along and called it things like ridiculous instruction creep? That was called 'wikilawyering to remove content' too, and it had effectively the same basis. Regarding "not all academic research papers are reliable" - true, but these tend to be rejected by the journal's review panel, if they even get that far. In fact, an unreliable paper slipping through the net is so rare that Private Eye reports on such an incident in the current issue (Eye 1194, 'Corn Fakes', page 26). If it were common, they wouldn't see fit to report on it, see? I'm not saying the spirit of Wikipedia is to include anything and everything. I'm saying that it isn't to exclude certain content based on technicalities. There is only one rule: ignore all rules. Use common sense, common sense always trumps convoluted process here. The notability guidelines are really there to stop people from creating articles about their newly-formed band, home made computer game, freewebs site, or dog, not to go round deleting subpages of notable topics. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 19:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, not true - notability requirements are to prevent articles on non-notable subjects, whatever the subject - there is nothing to exclude certain subjects, it covers all. I don't know whether you can't be bothered to read what I write in response to you, or are just ignoring it or taking me for an idiot, but again asserting that a total lack of notability is a "technicality" is complete and utter rubbish. It is the definitive reason for inclusion or exclusion of an article from Wikipedia and it is 100% required of an article in this and any other (proper) encyclopedia. Also, as the last refuge of the argument-less, you're doing yourself no favours invoking WP:IGNORE. As for my comments at WT:VG#Request For New Guideline - read them again. I did not "abandon it after several people" had called it anything. What I said, in my very first post on the matter, was that I agreed in principle with the suggestion, because in theory it would prevent pages such as these, but that sub-articles "are covered by WP:N anyway", and that such a new guideline would be "unlikely to have much effect". If you think it needed abandoning after saying that, well... can't help you there. But that discussion isn't really relevant to this one anyway, so let's not get sidetracked. Miremare 19:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ooops, I added this last comment after the AfD had closed, though there was no edit conflict. Someone remove it and this if they object to the archive being modified... Miremare 19:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

sigh* Another blow for common sense on Wikipedia. Please don't 'play the victim' as you would say (you haven't had any of your arguments conveniently ignored or dismissed with a more forceful repetition) and please don't dismiss one of Wikipedia's two golden rules as 'the last refuge of the argument-less', (especially when it was a suggestion that you read it so you may understand the ridiculousness of nuking chunks of notable subjects because of clever reinterpretations and a failure/refusal to distinguish between articles and topics). Don't go declaring any great victories, legitimate subpages like these don't stay deleted for long. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 00:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Runescape Gods as unsourced and not notable even within the game. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Runescape does not have such a unique combat system that it merits its own article. David Fuchs ^(talk) 23:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
keep as before, since these are valid sub-articles and Runescape is certainly notable. — brighterorange (talk) 23:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note deletion reasons 1 and 3; The notability of Runescape itself is irrelevant to this discussion. Miremare 23:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I read them and disagree with you; these are subpages of Runescape and do not need to establish notability independently. — brighterorange (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Which policy says this? Miremare 21:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:N, oddly enough. It refers to the notability of topics, not articles. And topics do not equal articles, hence we have Featured Articles and Featured Topics. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 21:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The topic, Runescape, is notable and has an article on it. However, not everything to do with a notable topic is itself notable - this is a self-evident fact. Articles have to justify themselves with reliable sources or they are liable to get deleted. They cannot just say "part of a notable topic!" and get to ignore the basic requirements for any encyclopedia article. Would the article Use of the word "the" in Runescape be suitable for inclusion? By your logic yes, because Runescape is a notable topic. I thought you were urging common sense? Miremare 22:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, an article like that falls under TRIVIA, not N. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 13:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

ALL articles are subject to WP:N. Miremare 16:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. I meant to say "an article like that would be deleted under TRIVIA, not N". A simple typo. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 01:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - No assertion of real world notability. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. shoy 02:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete or Move to relevant Gaming Wiki for all four articles - Fuchs put it there nicely with the Combat system specifically - that Runescape's combat system is not unique. Even if it were unique, only the unique parts of the system should be mentioned. A very important note is that information that is only relevant to the player does not belong on a main Wiki, it belongs on a Gaming Wiki. (Scope Guidelines) Ong elvin 02:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

At the very least, I would vote for Combat and Skills to be merged, and Gods merged with Gielinor, and then both resulting articles shortened drastically. Ong elvin 14:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep - This argument has never worked. Shoehorn 02:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Whether or not the articles are game guide material is irrelevant, in the sense that fanboys always argue over this in any game article. What is relevant is that they all clearly fall outside the scope of Wikipedia. You cannot argue this for these articles proposed for deletion. (Except the Gielinor article.) Your mum is a neophyte, a newb, and whatever else you want to call her. You want to get her into RuneScape. Now, if some information is irrelevant to your non-gaming mum, it shouldn't be there. That's an example of the scope guidelines. Your mum isn't interested in the minutiae of how combat works. She's only interested in the truly important stuff, because games are a waste of time, right? So, if there's any information you wouldn't want to show your mum straight away, chances are it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. That sort of information you would like to show your mum, but if you show her too much, that just intimidates her and makes her think the game is too complex for her to possibly understand. So you move it to a separate place for later viewing: a Gaming Wiki. Ong elvin 03:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Per Krator's ed comments. — $PЯINGεrαgђ 05:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Reads like a game guide, which is what Wikipedia is not.--SeizureDog 05:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I just scrolled through them, and my only thought was "these would be really useful if I was just learning how to play." Obvious Game Guides. humblefool ® 07:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

A gentle reminder for rest of the "this looks like a game guide" crowd: this is a debate, not a vote. Also, this nomination is not for one specific article, but for several, each of which should satisfy the arguments given for deletion (and of course they don't). Shoehorn 07:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Shoehorn, this is a discussion. And several have said that it looks like a game guide, with various reasons why it classifies as such. Whether you like it or not, a game guide does not fall within Wikipedia's scope, and an article being of such a nature is more or less valid grounds to delete said article. "Game Guide" is a perfectly valid reason to give in support of a gaming article's deletion, and if you would actually read the scope guidelines and try to comprehend, and then review the articles in a neutral light, you would see that they truly do not belong on the main Wikipedia. Now, really, the articles belong on a Gaming Wiki, and if you really wanted to "keep" them, do what MapleStory did: leave a link to the Gaming Wikis on the game's main Wiki. Ong elvin 10:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, it should be noted that although the Final Fantasy series is a very high profile game, easily more so than Runescape, the editors of the articles are smart enough to keep the information on the combat systems concise, without bogging it down with minutiae. And policy dictates not to go into minutiae unless it has sufficient context. Now, even if we agree that the article is not a gaming guide, the excessive listing of attributes and classes still falls prey to WP:NOT#STATS and this rule of thumb straight from WP:CVG/GL.

A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it is unsuitable. Keep in mind that video game articles should be readable and interesting to non-gamers; remember the bigger picture.

Using the mum example from a bit earlier, your mum would be the non-gamer. If it has absolutely no value to her at this point, it does not belong here. Ong elvin 10:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You keep spinning out this tale about someone's mum not being interested in the article, but this is a very weak argument. You have simply declared that there is no general audience for these articles, with no evidence whatsoever. I can make the same argument about the Economy of Guinea-Bissau. My mum quickly becomes bored by this article, it is not interesting to her, it has no value to her. Shoehorn 18:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I was actually trying to give an example of why the article is not a general article. And I know it was a lousy example. Ong elvin 14:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete, delete, delete and delete - completely inappropriate for a general encyclopedia. We should not have articles on in-depth game analysis (WP:NOT); WP:WAF also applies. Marasmusine 12:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Transwiki all that is warranted, then Chainsaw Merge Combat and skills together and Chainsaw merge gods into Glienor - the three major gods only. Bear with me a sec, OK? Skills and Combat both contain excessive detail and images, both could fit in the main article in the fullness of time. They can certainly fit together right now with some pruning. A quick merge now then contributors could take their time refining the info, citing and merging it into the main article. IE it's a beginning to satisfying WP:N.

'Gods' is not about the RS gods, it's about a glut of NPCs, the vast majority of which are minor in the extreme. It gives undue weight to extremely unimportant NPCs that the average player couldn't give a monkey's about, let alone an outside observer. All of these characters could be discussed in as much detail as contributors could possibly want on either the RS wiki or one of many RS fansites which would probably jump at the chance to host as much detail as they can get. There's naff-all reason to keep such a shoddy article when the relevant material could be merged.

The first three gods are heavily involved in the creation and shaping of the fantasy world which RuneScape is wrapped around. They are relevant and can be discussed (without going into excessive detail) within the Glienor article, improving it. It would then stop the in-out of irrelevant cruft and present the genuinely important 'gods' without the numerous also-rans getting a free ride.

In the fullness of time the Glienor article could be cut down then built up with other details like the history of Glienor, the God Wars etc. - by which point it would be one of only one or two RS sub-articles. Again, there's no ass-afire rush, but at least getting rid of 'gods' would result in one broader article.

Even if this does trainwreck, could the closing admin. state whether or not they believe Gods could be listed separately for closer scrutiny (and if all that is the case, could someone kindly do so!). It's about time that one got its marching orders. 86.138.199.119 13:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

And before someone says "merging will lose info", I could collapse combat into less than half of its current size whilst retaining the relevant information, the talk page of skills shows at least one contributor arguing that the information there is excessive. They could be folded together to produce excellent material for future merging and refinement and everybody wins.86.138.199.119 13:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. There is no evidence of notability. --68.163.65.119 15:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep' - simply because they are useful. West Coast Ryda 20:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Usefull is not a criterion for inclusion. OSborn^arf 20:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is...85.166.230.3 21:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't - see WP:USEFUL. Miremare 22:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep -- 85.166.230.3 21:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Gleinor: keep - does not appear to meet any criterion for deletion

RuneScape skills: keep - subpage due to WP:SIZE - information on skills may need to be cut down, however.

RuneScape combat: simplify and merge to skills - merge to skills, combat in RuneScape is not that interesting.

Runescape gods: delete RuneScape's storyline and major characters due not seem to be notable, much less warrant inclusion.

OSborn^arf 20:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki and Delete -- Ooh, look like the Runescapers have already begun throwing out anonymous Keeps. Anyway, throw it all on StrategyWiki or whatever and do what you wish with the resulting husks here. Or, it could go on Wikia somewhere. At any rate, there are many viable alternatives, so it's not like something's being lost. Nomination is valid. 75.25.69.216 04:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

pot, kettle, black. anonymous keeps are verboten, in your mind, yet anonymous deletes are perfectly acceptable? there's a word for that. hypocracy. 209.209.214.5 21:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You mean hypocrisy. And now that I'm logged in, Delete. Zeality 18:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

keep There are ove 1 million paying member files, meaning jagex makes 5 million dollars MONTHLY, without counting advertisement profits. Any information on something this big is good. Of course most of the information on the game will come from the game website itself- That is the ONLY COMPLETELY reliable source on actual game facts. Zantaggerung 16:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:BIGNUMBER, and WP:N for why independent sources are required as well as ones from the official website. Miremare 16:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:JUSTAPOLICY. 209.209.214.5 22:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete all. This is an Encyclopedia, not Runescapeopedia. --Agamemnon2 16:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

because, out of wikipedia's million+ articles, four are dedicated to runescape, you think wikipedia is now, automatically, "runescapeopedia"? riiiiiight. i suppose you also think everyone in the world is a citizen of vatican city. after all, vatican city has 783 residents, so obviously the 6.5 billion who don't live there are residents, as well. gotta love that agamemnon2 logic (tm) 209.209.214.5 21:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep - These are valid RuneScape subarticles. RuneScape is one of the most popular MMOs around, it has a rich pantheon and storyline which these article support. It may be in universe information, but necessary as support articles for the main subject, in the vain of Characters of Final Fantasy IV and Pantheons of Tamriel. - hahnch e n 17:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete/merge - this is not a how-to site, this is an encyclopedia. WP:N and related polices make it clear that notability is not inherited. Just because RuneScape is notable does not mean everything related to RuneScape is. Please note that this is not a vote, and the "keep" comments need to be justified by policy, not by simply saying "keep" or "keep because [insert your favorite non-policy reason]. "It's popular" or "runescape is important" do not satisfy WP:N. --Cheeser1 20:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

strong keep this is stupid. WP:N depends on the context. for current real life events, a source from cnn.com or bbc.co.uk is reasonable, but for this? within the context of runescape, this is notable. expecting everything to have sources of the same kind that the iraq war has is just asinine.

since you people like throwing around WP:NOT, check out WP:PAPER.

also, the whole WP is not a game guide or a how to manual or whatever is stupid. wikipedia has "how to"'s on calculating the greatest common divisor and proving the euclidean algorithm but i don't see you proposing those for deletion. and don't defend yourself with WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. by condemning the runescape articles for violating alleged wikipedia rules that other wikipedia articles violate is to pick on runescape, exclusively. all you do is alienate the editors who contributed to this editor - you make them resentful - you make them more likely to become vandals. but that's ok, i suppose, so long as you people get your little hard-ons for deleting such articles, isn't it?

incidently, if you think only articles that can cite site like cnn.com and bbc.co.uk should be included on wikipedia, here's an idea for you. redirect wikipedia to news.google.com.

but whatever. debating with miremare is clearly pointless per the "miremare is always right" rule. <sarcasm>and why wouldn't miremare always be right? if he didn't think it was the right position, he wouldn't have adopted it.</sarcasm> 209.209.214.5 21:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - There needs to be a refresher course on what these deletion debates are decided by. It is not a vote count, it is who has a better and more valid argument. An article that asserts no notablity, and whose defenders can demonstrate none, have lost the debate, and they can marshall as many keep votes if they wish, it is still not notable, has no referencing or out of universe perspective, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 20:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:SNOW sure does make it sound like AfD's are decided by vote counts and not "whom-so-ever has a more valid argument". and besides, the admin who takes the action will likely have their own opinions. deciding which argument is more valid by someone whose opinions are already biased is like asking a creationist to decide whether creationism or evolutionism has more valid arguments. both of them have made up their minds before they ever start reading the arguments. 209.209.214.5 18:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Gielinor, at minimum, needs to be kept. here are two reliable sources:

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=Gielinor 209.209.214.5 15:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Both those sources appear to be the same article and mention Gielinor in passing. There needs to be "significant coverage" in a source to satisfy WP:N. Not to mention that there needs to be multiple sources too. Miremare 16:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

i see. interesting. i suppose you also oppose Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Bonds 714th home run because that has hundreds of reliable sources? 209.209.214.5 17:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No, he said they are necessary, not sufficient. You need significant coverage. That's not even enough, but you don't even have that yet. Also, you have already made your case. You need not respond repeatedly to other people or repeat the same arguments - the number of times you repeat yourself does not affect the outcome of this AfD. --Cheeser1 18:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

please do tell me where i've repeated the same argument. please. can you back up your statements or are you just talking out of your ass?

and what happens if i, for example, come up with new arguments? i suppose those arguments are, in your mind, no longer fair game, because i already cast my vote? maybe i should create multiple wikipedia accounts, so that i can present new arguments whenever i come up with them! or maybe i should just wait until this AfD is over before casting my vote. that way, by the time i actually do cast it, it won't be possible for me to come up with new arguments after i've voted. oh - oh - and those mediawiki developers are idiots, too. they thought they could update mediawiki after their first release. fags. they should have gotten it right the first time. if they were unable to do so, tough. that's their problem. making new releases is woefully irresponsible of them. at least according to cheeser1 logic (tm) 209.209.214.5 18:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The least you could do is make an attempt to be [[WP:CIVIL|civil]. Until you do so, I'm not going to bother responding to you. Especially since the necessity (but not sufficiency) of significant media coverage still shows that these articles explicitly fail WP:N (not to mention the specific sub-policy on video games). --Cheeser1 19:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

whether or not you believe my points are valid is moot. you violated WP:AGF and misrepresented my points by saying that all i've been doing is quoting myself over and over again 209.209.214.5 20:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge all to RuneScape - they are fairly main aspects of the game, and provided they can be backed up, could form a nice little section on their own. They don't require individual articles - that level of attention is really unnescescary. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The result of such a merge would be complaints of long waits and timeouts on the talkpage, GA-delisting due to length and, ironically, content being split out again to solve the problem. This is exactly how these subpages came into being. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 02:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It must be possible to trim the whole lot down to something short and concise, and dump all the rest. 4-5 paragraphs at most would suffice. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No. Not by a long shot. We've tried. We've already cut a skipload in the last year-and-a-half. The current arrangement is about right. They were split in the first place at the suggestion of FA/GA/PR reviewers because the main article was too long. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 23:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, lord. What a mess. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Wikipedia is not a game guide or lists of endless information. For Gielinor, delete due to WP:FICT Will ^(talk) 23:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
One of the posts from up a bit:

strong keep this is stupid. WP:N depends on the context. for current real life events, a source from cnn.com or bbc.co.uk is reasonable, but for this?within the context of runescape, this is notable. expecting everything to have sources of the same kind that the iraq war has is just asinine.

The notability when you consider that context? Perfectly valid. The form of notability used? Not so much. The article's notability should be in the context of gaming as a whole, not in the context of RuneScape alone. Now, that might seem like it sucks for those who want to keep the article, but face it, there has to be a line somewhere. Those who said that five articles does not constitute "RuneScapePedia" are right on that point. But that does not mean you should justify articles in the context of RuneScape. Articles that fall under WP:CVG/GL should be justified in the context of the entire gaming world when it comes to notability. If you want to justify articles in the context of such a narrow topic as RuneScape, this isn't the place to do it. A dedicated gaming wiki would be the place to do it. Ong elvin 00:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me add that that's the sort of reason one can justify the existence of Criticism of Windows Vista as a separate article - it has notability within the context of computing; hell even outside of computing it has notability. The characters of FFseries have notability outside the context of Final Fantasy; and within gaming at large. Even now some gaming news articles mention those characters from any random FF game on occasion. Ong elvin 00:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:CVG/GL contains just one instance of the word 'notability' (using page search, Ctrl-F in Windows), which is used in a passage talking about the notability of entire games (ie, why reception sections are so important), not individual aspects of it. The very guideline you cite disagrees with you. There are featured articles which are equivalent to the RS subpages, and I don't see anyone AfDing them. This notability argument is completely baseless, and contrary to the very policies it cites. The gameguide argument is unsubstantiated and empty. The gamecruft argument is not even policy based, and might as well be phrased "delete because I don't like it". The only response to reasoned debunking is repetition. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 02:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I did not cite that guideline, I was using common sense. That should be obvious. The point is that if you justify notability in the context of the topic itself, that would mean a complete game guide, cruft and whatnot on RuneScape would be perfectly valid in an encyclopaedia that should be about general things. Regardless, Wikipedia should provide information at a somewhat general level. Those articles are in-depth analyses of one aspect of the game. All the Final Fantasies and Wolfenstein 3Ds of the world don't even have an article dedicated to their gameplay, just a section in their main article. Why should a far more notable game with a more complex and innovative and notable battle system have less coverage? Ong elvin 03:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Well let's take a look, just picking a title at random I find there are some 70 kilobytes dedicated to the Characters of Final Fantasy VIII. Now that is just one game out of a series of 12+, most of which have subarticles about characters, music, the game world. Now do you want to come up with some kind of notability calculus which determines how much space and how many articles WP should dedicate for each game in a series, like 200k of text (3-4 articles) for every 100,000 units sold, or 100k (1-2 article) for every 100,000 subscribers? Are you going to be able to justify that, when few people are still playing FF8, but 76,000 people are playing Runescape right now? Aren't we giving undue weight to the diminishing notability of a game from 1999, when in fact, despised as it may be, Runescape is steadily increasing in cultural significance? Wouldn't it be nice if in a few years when all those teenage Runescape players become adults, they will still be able to find a decent WP article about the world of Gelinor, written with authority? I thought that was how encyclopedias were supposed to function. Shoehorn 06:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, as far as gameplay and combat systems go, these things impact far more deeply in online multiplayer games than they do in single player console games. In console games you are competing with a fixed construct which you must master in order to "win". In an online game, the relationship between how different players operate the game determines the game experience. The encyclopedic coverage of any online game would be made more complete by including an examination of such gameplay issues. In other words, since Runescape is about player combat (and world exploration, and collecting resources), combat (...) is an important subject for the article(s). Shoehorn 07:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Shoehorn: We aren't meant to be providing complete coverage, that isn't what an encyclopedia's for. That's what gaming wikis are for. And there's no reason you can't have adequate, and indeed FA, coverage of Runescape without spreading it out over a series of articles, making undue claims of notability for certain apparently random aspects of the game. I notice nobody has answered the WP:WEIGHT issue... And Characters of Final Fantasy VIII? This isn't an argument - OTHERSTUFFEXISTS aside, these articles demonstrate their own real world notability, and those that don't, just like any other article, should be AfD'd. Finally, Runescape being "despised" by whoever has nothing to do with this nomination, in case that's what you mean. Games like Runescape aren't really my cup of tea, but I have no reason to dislike it and even less inclination to nominate articles for deletion on grounds of personal taste.

CaptainVindaloo: please do show us a Featured Article comparable to these. Miremare 10:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin. There are FAs Characters of Final Fantasy VIII and List of Metal Gear Solid characters, as well as the GA rated Characters in Castlevania: Sorrow series, Characters in Devil May Cry, Characters of StarCraft and Characters of Final Fantasy XII which are equivalent to Gods (Gods being a somewhat mistitled characters article, the Gods being pretty much the only recurring characters in RS lore, which goes back thousands of years); GAs Black Marsh, Ivalice, Universe of Kingdom Hearts and World of Final Fantasy VIII (Gielinor); and GA Final Fantasy character classes (Skills/Combat). That's just current videogame FAs and GAs, I haven't mentioned those delisted, and roughly similar articles on physical games (Warhammer, D&D, etc), films, books, comics and whatever else. Now, I can't say I've played most of those I've listed (hell, I've never even heard of a couple), so I am not familiar at all with the content, but I, and apparently nobody else, would dream of AfDing them, regardless of their quality. I thought you'd invoke WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I think we can make an exception to that; Featured and Good rating is something every article should aspire to, surely. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 14:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies to comparisons to any article, featured or not. --Cheeser1 15:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

for what it's worth, i disagree with OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. see Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#deleting WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. i'd be curious to hear your thoughts 209.209.214.5 16:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the main reason they wouldn't be deleted is that they aid in the understanding of multiple "unconnected" articles. (Obviously I use that term very loosely.) The Characters in Devil May Cry, Castlevania, and FFclasses don't concentrate on one game. It's more akin to an article like Mega Man (series). First up, Combat/Skills. Combat and Skills are not part of the fictional universe, they are part of the game mechanics and how they are played. You compare Combat/Skills to the FFclasses article, which is all good, but there's a difference here. Notice how the FFclasses article is a lot more generalised? It doesn't go into detail of how the class actually plays in each game specifically. It does list attributes, but more so with the intent of explaining how similar classes are different; but as I said it's a lot more general. Furthermore, the FFclasses article does not list every single class in the series, only the major/recurring classes. RScombat lists attributes, combat styles, how they are attained, what they do, where to train up a skill, what weapon is weak to which and how to negate the advantages (I'm looking at you, Combat Triangle, you're a dead giveaway), and excessive detail about PvP when just the History section is sufficient. Within Combat alone, the first three sections (of five) should each have no more than a single paragraph with links to appropriate articles. The Level/Skills section, for example, should link go with something like "RuneScape players can advance to level 126. As they level up, they are able to improve various attributes" with enough expansion to take it to a paragraph, then slotted into the Gameplay section of the RuneScape main article. With the Gods article, the article freely states in the lead section that Gods have little impact on Gameplay, so anything beyond what is in the lead and first three paragraphs of the Main Gods section of that article shouldn't be considered notable even within the context of RuneScape gameplay! Now, compare Gielinor against FF8world. Do you see why I would sooner call for the deletion of Gielinor than FF8world? Gielinor is simply a list of the locations. It provides no real-world context of how it was created, no in-universe context of the culture or general geography( ie, FF8 article names the continents; Gielinor is like only being told the names of all 200-odd countries in the world and their position relative to each other). It provides no brief in-universe summary of its history. FF8world provides no summary of the deities native to that world, because they have no relevance to the notability of FF8 or its universe. Ong elvin 16:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

On a separate note, ever heard of the flawed Pokemon Test? And this essay also goes along the same lines as the Pokemon test - similar articles elsewhere does not mean these articles are appropriate. Ong elvin 16:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say (again) that for a MMORPG things like character skills and geography are more salient topics than they are for console games. FF8 contains something like 100-200 hours of playtime, with plenty of narrative scenes thrown in. MMORPGs are far more extensive, requiring several thousands of hours of gameplay. There is a different quality to the play experience, you can't just read a walkthrough to complete the game, or enter a cheat code to improve your character. The game worlds are bigger, there are more player options, and there is a social layer that does not exist on the console. I would say the combat triangle is one of the most salient pieces of information contained in the current article, because it tells you why the balance of combat skills is meaningful. And every MMORPG article should have at least 1000 words on PvP issues -- if you don't think PvP is a major issue for these games, go talk to Raph Koster. Shoehorn 20:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The quantity of information doesn't change the fact that the scope of information in these articles applies to them all equally - unless it's of any importance outside the game, then it's not worth including. It could give 1000 hours of varied play time, or 15 seconds of Pong. If CNN reports on how amazing a game is, and how varied its 1000 hours of gameplay is, then we can talk about including it (but not in excessive detail). --Cheeser1 21:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Well here is the real mystery of WP policy: How do you make a judgement about the relevance of information about a subject without taking into account the relevance of information to that subject? If you go in favor of "about", you fall prey to marketing and propaganda, and WP is unbalanced. If you go in favor of "to", you end up with Episode guides and lists of Final Fantasy characters, and WP is full of trivia. It looks like we have to rely on common reasoning to make these decisions, and a negative example of Runescape not appearing on CNN is not good reasoning. Shoehorn 21:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

CaptainVindaloo: the difference with those articles you've listed is that they all prove their own real-world notability - look at the references. You won't find an FA, or indeed a GA, like these Runescape articles, because it's not possible for an article to achieve these ratings without the basic requirement of sources to prove notability. Miremare 23:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much all those references the FF Character articles are quotes from the game. All their notability is derived from the game, they're an important facet of the game's universe, and because of their length, were forked off into a subarticle. I think the same thing applies here, this is not just seen in computer games but in other areas, such as Main characters of Megatokyo and Category:The Office (US). It's not like this is Terran Battlecruiser. This isn't other crap exists, this is how Wikipedia does it. - hahnch e n 13:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of in-game sources in Characters of FF8, as is to be expected with such an article, however there are also many reliable, independent non-game sources too. These establish notability, and are why it was able to become an FA (and not get deleted along the way). That is the glaring difference between the listed FAs and these Runescape articles which demonstrate zero notability. Miremare 17:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep: Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Pop culture and gaming articles like these are one of the main strengths of Wikipedia. World War I is covered way better elsewhere than on Wikipedia but good gad for Wikipedia's Katamari Damacy (random gaming FA) page! Trying looking up Katamari Damacy on Brittanica!--Eqdoktor 06:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: However, that doesn't mean we should write articles on every single aspect of every single topic in existence. Wikipedia is not a game guide; these articles are written to inform players on how to play the game. It is not helpful the general reader due to the lack of real-world relevance and notability. We are writing articles, not instruction manuals. --Scottie_theNerd 15:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete This article focuses on a games combat and should be deleted or removed. We should delete it.Gavegave30 16:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)givegive30

What's the difference? --Scottie_theNerd 16:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Note to closing admin - Gavegave30 (talk · contribs) is a suspected sockpuppet of banned user Maplefan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). See ANI report, user creation and block logs and (active) Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Maplefan. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 22:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep What? Runescape is a very popular game. Therefore, these pages do have their notablity and are important to the encyclopedia. See: Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Wikipedia has 2 million articles and doesn't have place for these 4 articles? I don't think so. Also, the references from the runescape website is reliable and enough for the article to be kept. 65.94.219.62 00:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

- Again, Runescape is notable; the Runescape combat system is not. Please regard WP:NOTINHERITED, as continually pointed out in this debate. If these four articles stay, what's to stop another four being made? Or another four hundred? Or four million Runescape articles? The line has to be drawn somewhere, and policies such as WP:N guide us on where to draw that line. Not everything to do with Runescape is notable unless proven otherwise by independent sources. Provide an independent source that asserts their notability and you have a case. --Scottie_theNerd 05:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki Done I transwikied it to the encyclopedia gamia, a gaming wiki. The page can now be found here. So if it gets deleted there will be a backup copy or you can edit it there. --Cs california 08:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Saying this takes 4 out of 2 million odd articles isn't an argument. Regardless, Wikipedia's scope is only to cover topics that are notable enough for a general encyclopaedia. Is a combat system with little notability in the gaming world, let alone the world as a whole, really that notable? If you really believe it deserves its own article, then move it to a gaming Wiki where it will be notable and deserving of its own article. Also consider the fact that every single article linked for comparison so far has covered their own topics in a very encyclopaedic fashion compared to Runescape combat, and has notability in the general gaming community. On this topic, name a major God of RuneScape and ask a random gamer if they know that deity in the context of RuneScape. Now pick a random minor character, let's go with Tingle from Zelda, and ask that same random gamer. I think you get my drift. FFclass is the only linked comparison for the Combat article, but it doesn't go into depths about the class intricacies, for example. It doesn't even list all of the classes ever used in a Final Fantasy title, only the ones that are iconic within the series. By comparison, the Runescape Combat article describes each stat, the effects it provides, etc. Ong elvin 15:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, parts of the articles are pretty self explanatory, especially with appropriate links. Attributes? Yeah, we know what they are. Melee, Ranged, and Magical combat? Uhh... all those paragraphs spent explaining could be shortened to three sentences extracted from a random dictionary. Does one really need any further explanation? Oh, and those three styles of combat are generic; there's nothing special about it; it'd be a rare RPG that doesn't feature those three. Combat Triangle? Yeah, sure, you can argue all you want about how the balancing is notable, but it's not. The point of a "Combat Triangle" is to give characters specific bonuses, regardless of attempts to negate the effects. Just say that there's a rock-paper-scissors effect at work and be done with it. Ong elvin 15:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to give an example of notability not being inherited. Let's compare RuneScape to Bill Gates. Both are notable enough for their own encylopaedia articles, no point arguing that. An encyclopaedia should provide information with a level of generality. No highly specific information. Now let's say we have Bill Gates' phone number. Is his phone number useful? Yes. To the general reader? No. Is the phone number valid and verifiable. Yes. Does that make a difference? No. It doesn't change the fact that Bill Gates' phone number is not encyclopaedic, unless you count an encyclopaedia whose sole scope is Bill Gates. Likewise, the articles nominated for deletion here can be compared to Bill Gates' phone number. Valid, verifiable, and useless to the general reader. I could say the same for the article on FFXI combat. Ong elvin 16:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

useful to the general reader? yes. i believe this article is very useful to the general reader because the general reader is most likely a newer member of the 'Runescape' community looking for news about Runescape. In-Game players can be abusive and rude to the newer players, generally unhelpful, leading to Runescape players looking elsewhere. Runescape is the most massively played MultiPlayer game on the computer, and is accessed by millions of accounts a month. Generally, a large portion of those players need help and due to WikiPedia being such a mainstream source for information, many look here. In short; the deletion of these articles would hurt anyone looking for runescape information. 8:43 PST, September 30 2007 (**PLEASE NOTE** : this is my first post, so tell me if i did anything wrong or if i can touch up on a few things) Gocaesarsgo31 00:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This is an incorrect definition of the general reader. The general reader is not a newbie of the game. A general reader is more like with no vested interest in reading the article, no particular reason. Granted, a new player would likely look here for help, but these articles should be transwikied, and a link provided within the main article. Just take a look at how MapleStory does it. Far more encyclopaedic and proper. RuneScape articles on the main Wikipedia should not cater to these newer players. RuneScape articles on gaming Wikis are under no such restriction. Transwikying the information results in no loss of information if you properly link the article. On the contrary, it can result in a gain of information because you are no longer under the restrictions of regular Wikipedia, and are free to provide more information targeted at newbies. But the moment you write information intended to specifically help players of the game, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Ong elvin 00:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a bit like requiring the article on Pride and Prejudice to not be useful to anybody who is actually reading the book. It also sets an unrealistic expectation for how editors should approach articles, discouraging anyone from adding new information to any article without first double checking that the information hasn't been intentionally left out of the article as "too useful to a minority audience". In fact this entire AfD (like the many before it) is an attempt to subvert the normal editing flow of these articles, where some people add details, some people fix cruft and vandalism, and others rewrite them to make them more coherent. Instead of requesting the interested parties to improve the articles by requesting citations, showing notability, and so on, some bureaucratic buckethead just sees five articles and decides they all need to go, willfully ignoring common courtesy as well as two or three years of archived AfD discussions because, well, who knows why? Should I point out that it has been less than 3 months since the last AfD for these articles? Would it be gauche to point out that this AfD was written by an account created less than six months ago? Shoehorn 08:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Read between the lines Shoehorn. I said "specifically to help players." There is nothing wrong with information that helps the general reader, or with real-world contextual information. That said, the Combat and Skills articles are catered specifically to the player, not the general reader. Ong elvin 09:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Shoehorn: Yes, it would be quite gauche to point that out, unless you're attempting to make some kind of point relevant to anything? It's more than a little gauche to descend into personal attacks just because you don't have any real argument, not to mention amusingly hypocritical to do so directly before accusing me of having "wilfully ignored common courtesy". And there's no need to point out it's been less than three months since the last AfD either, as that was the first thing that I did in the nomination. And I nominated four articles, not five. Would it be gauche to enquire as to whether you actually read the nomination before jumping in with an argument that amounts to "keep Runescape is notable"? Miremare 15:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Relevant parts could be merged into the RuneScape article, but my view of WP isn't a collection of game guides and walkthroughs. (and yes I do play RuneScape) DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 02:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep Gielinor and merge main 3 Gods into Gielinor (with a brief paragraph mentioning the minor gods); Gielinor is notable as being essentially an extended section of the main article, and Gods would work fairly well as a part of it but isn't notable on its own. Merge and greatly shorten Combat and Skills, which are so similar in topic that they really should have been merged from the start. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 02:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: It seems that many editors are claiming that the articles are "notable" in some way, but no independent sources have been provided to established that. --Scottie_theNerd 03:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep Ong Elvin, i disagree. The general reader WILL have interest in what the article is about. If no interest is there, then they would not have clicked upon the article. Merging articles makes pages longer, harder to read, and much longer time to find out what one is looking for. Example : Zezima. Zezima is merged with Runescape and yet i find little information on him. As you may know, Zezima is the #1 ranked player in the game and undoubtedly the #1 talked about individual in online gameplay yet Zezima doesn't get it's page. Merging/deleting ruins sections of wikipedia, and with merging it is inevitable the Runescape/Wikipedia community will suffer a loss. Gocaesarsgo31 03:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Zezima? Y'know that there's absolutely no mention of him in the RuneScape article, right? In fact, Zezima shouldn't even have a redirect to begin with! Ong elvin 04:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Merging loses information, which we do NOT want. Gocaesarsgo31 04:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The Runescape community is not the Wikipedia community. The information can be transwikied and hosted on sites like Encyclopedia Gamia, where such information is needed. Longer articles are not inherently more difficult to read, and if anything, making multiple articles makes information harder to access to to the greater number of navigational links. The only excuse for not reading a longer article is simple laziness. You seem to be making an odd assumption that the general reader has actually clicked on the article. WP:INTERESTING is not a valid argument; we are concerned with what is encyclopedic.

so much for wikipedia being your "one stop shop" for all the information you ever wanted to know. i don't know about you, but i like having my PDA, cellphone, and digital camera all built into the same device. i guess you feel differently? that a cellphone is a cellphone and should never try to be anything else because, like wikipedia, if it tries to be something else, it'll (obviously) bring down the whole?

oh - and thank god for hddvd vs bluray. why should anyone care if one goes the way of the betamax? we have multiple options, now, and multiple options should always be taken advantage of. just like on wikipedia. yay! standardization is crap, anyway. screw countries that use the same wall outlet everywhere - they make life horrible 209.209.214.5 12:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

And Zezima? Until you provide independent sources that support Zezima's notability, there's no purpose in even having a redirect to Runescape. I could be the most talked about person in Braybrook, Victoria, but unless there is substantial evidence that I am in fact a recognised contributor to the community, I'm not going to get an article or even a redirect. --Scottie_theNerd 04:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of Icefrog? azazel? redscull? Clan TDG? I can tell you that I know who they are, and they are definitely deserving of full articles of their glory. Icefrog is the creator of DotA, a custom map of WC3. azazel is the creator of NotD:A, another custom map. redscull is the creator of SWAT, yet another custom map. Clan TDG is a clan of experienced WC3 mapmakers. Do you see the lunacy of even mentioning Zezima? Ong elvin 09:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, i don't think people deserve articles. they may merit an article, but do they deserve one? i don't think anyone deserves an article. just nitpicking... 209.209.214.5 12:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't see any lunacy whatsoever. Let me show you Zezima's popularity in the online world. When searching "zezima" on youtube, I found AT LEAST 21,000 videos that were tagged "zezima", and perhaps more because I believe that is the maximum search results youtube lets you see. One video that has been viewed 1.3 million times is "ZEZIMA PK'N TRIP", showing Zezima's significance. Also, I wanted to show you how much of a web 'icon', so to speak, he is. Zezima has 21,000 or more videos, and subjects like Osama Bin Laden has 4940, and Burma has 3350. Does this show you his signifance Gocaesarsgo31 10:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This is nuts. Youtube hits do not establish notability. Seriously. --Cheeser1 11:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't tell me that Zezima is more notable than Osama bin Laden. --Scottie_theNerd 11:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Google hits don't establish notability. Google up El Dorado. Go on. Do it. You'll get around 1 million hits. Now go Google up RuneScape. 6 million hits. Now do a search on YouTube for O RLY. 400 hits. If you know your history, and are able to put 2 and 2 together, you'll realise why your YouTube searching does not in any way establish notability. The O RLY owl started small, but now it's known in mainstream society. Does that mean the wealth/lack of YouTube hits signifies existence/lack of notability? No. Ong elvin 14:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This might be a good read about what notability is not. Specifically the bit that says that notability is not the same as fame or importance. Also the bit that says notability is not a blanket; this is why all arguments on Runescape combat being notable because of the parent topic, are not arguments. Ong elvin 14:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I realise that no-one seems to have rebutted the citation of WP:SIZE in favour of keeping. Well, I'll tell you here and now that if you're going to cite that, use some common sense. WP:SIZE is obviously written under the assumption that the information to be split has notability. So first prove that the information on Runescape combat and skills have notability, then worry about WP:SIZE. On a related note, let me turn your attention to a gaming guide, and what doesn't belong. GASP! Information about RuneScape that doesn't belong in a game guide all about RuneScape?! EGADS! What is the world coming to? Well then... go find a professionally written and published game guide. Go on. Do it. Now flip to the page that details the game's development history, its critical reception, sales figures, and release date. What, you can't? Oh, yes, that's right. The point I'm proving here is that even a game guide doesn't indiscriminately print any information about a game. It still picks appropriate information, whether printed or online. Now, in terms of Wikipedia, if you deleted these four pages, Wikipedia would lose nothing. Ong elvin 14:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, regarding size and sub-articles, from WP:FICT: "Even these articles need real-world information to prove their notability". Miremare 15:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Erm, I don't really understand your point, other than it being about game guides. Citing examples generally works well in this regard, in my experience. A game guide statement is something like: "to be able to use Rune platebodies, you need to defeat the dragon Elvarg in the Dragon Slayer quest. For this you will need to go to wossname in Edgville to start the quest, get an anti-dragonfire shield from whatshisface in Lumbridge (forgive me, its been ages since I did Dragon Slayer), get a map from ... yadda yadda ... make sure to wear the shield when fighting the dragon, rangers and mages can hide behind the walls in the cave ... etc etc." The statements "to wear Rune platebodies, one must complete a quest" or "iron is tougher than bronze" aren't gameguidey (if they were, then so would be the statement "RuneScape is controlled by pointing and clicking"), they are simple statements of fact that would be of little use to a regular player. The odd gameguidey statement doesn't condemn the whole article either; its ludicrously simple to fix them. I don't see any problem with gameguide statements in any of these articles, however. Wouldn't you also think that only demonstrably notable topics could grow to an unwieldy size? A non-notable topic is very unlikely to have enough information to be a problem. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 17:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

why stray away from our topic? but indeed, if challenged, i will. although youtube hits do not officially show significance to a subject, they signify an importance in the online world. i am in no way, shape, or form saying Zezima is more notable than Osama Bin Laden, that'd be nuts. However, Zezima is still big in the online world and so is Runescape Skills, Gods, ect,. Ong Elvin, if we were to follow your advice about game guides, why have a Runescape page at all? Or Halo 3 for that matter. Gears Of War, toss that too. If we aren't allowed to post information about a game, than how do we factually describe something? Gocaesarsgo31 21:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The difference between RuneScape and the others is that these articles are not concise. Just look at Halo 3 and Gears of War. They dedicate information to Gameplay, sure, I'm not against it, but dedicating a whole separate article? Those two topics do not do that; they have wisely summarised the relevant gameplay information into a concise form. The editors of those articles know that no matter how notable Halo3/GoW themselves are, their combat systems are far from notable enough to warrant an article. Put simply, you must establish notability to create an article. You haven't done that. Notability doesn't tell you what you can and can't put in an article, once you establish notability with real-world context. What you do put in an article is subject to verifiability. To be sure, your information is verifiable, but that only protects your content from deletion. However, the topic is not notable, and thus the article must be deleted. Do not confuse verfiability with notability; that is what the Keep voters seem to keep doing. Ong elvin 01:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The topics are very much notable, and for sure notable enough to be put into their own article. In just the 'runescape' article, there is no information that we could find in these articles up for deletion. In such a large online community (Runescape), readers will scavenge every rock to find a bit of Runescape information. WikiPedia can help by realizing the notability of the articles (explaining tough concepts about Runescape) by keeping these articles. If we eliminate and eliminate, soon we will find every "branching" article deleted, dismissed, and thrown away. Detail is important, lets keep it that way Gocaesarsgo31 03:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"Explaining tough concepts" is exactly the sort of thing that goes well in a game guide. As I already said, Wikipedia does not cater to the player. What you just described is exactly that - catering to the player rather than the general reader. And why are you not reading the MapleStory article already? That is a living example of why these articles should be moved. MapleStory has a large community as well, but you don't see five separate articles for MapleStory; no, you see just one article, and then another twenty articles which wouldn't go to AfD. Why? Because they're on a separate Wiki project which caters to those articles. You're not losing information by deleting these articles, you are improving Wikipedia's quality. And as has been mentioned countless times, if you don't like all these AfDs, then move it to a StrategyWiki. Actually, someone said they did that just earlier. Ong elvin 04:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment you can only vote once per AFD Goceasars, I've removed the duplicate 'keep' above and emboldened your first keep for the closing admin to see more clearly. 86.138.198.93 09:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not cater for the player. StrategyWiki caters for the player. Encyclopedia Gamia caters for players. Sites like GameSpot, IGN and GameFAQs cater for players. Wikipedia does not. There are countless places where deep analysis of game mechanics belong. Why must they belong on Wikipedia? --Scottie_theNerd 08:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

CS California has transwikied the combat article to Encyclopedia Gamia, but the other three aren't there (that I can see). That said, the Gods are already covered by the RS wiki. 86.138.198.93 09:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, sorry about the second Keep, I wasn't sure if I had already voted and I am too lazy to scroll back up :) . However, may I explain "explain tough concepts about Runescape" which i send in my previous note. What these articles do is create background information that are extremely general to tell you ABOUT runescape skills and all the other topics. Look at the runescape skills topic for example (if you'd like, open in a new window and read along with me). The Runescape Skills topic tells you about the different skills of Runescape. It classifies it into different changes, and briefly describes each skill. Let's look at the agility description, shall we:

Agility Agility is a members' skill used to access remote areas and to take shortcuts, especially in the wilderness and on some quests. Many areas that contain slayer monsters have agility shortcuts to help higher level players reach the monsters they wish to slay more quickly. As players train the agility skill, their stamina regeneration rates increase and slows the rate at which their run energy reduces whilst running. Agility is the only member skill that retains its effects when players are on free to play servers. [citation needed] The agility skill was released on 12 December 2002.[11] As you can see, there is no "game guide" information posted here. This excerpt does all of the following: briefly describe the agility skills, explain how agility is used, and explains when agility was made [Wikipedia - Runescape Skills].

No game guide information here, none. Gocaesarsgo31 10:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not delete this page o pages similar to it as it hs helped me and many other people wit its accurate facts. Furthermore i dont see why some page about a game should not be part of wikipedia as it is not a guide as such but a page on the mechanics of the game which help peple like me understand what makes a succefull game today as runescape is famous fo its success.a cocerned wiki user 02/10/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.11.192.26 (talk) 14:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Because, as stated numerous times in this debate, the mechanics of the game are not notable. No independent sources have been provided to suggest that Runescape skills are, by themselves, worth of their own article. Ditto with Runescape combat. If the information in these articles have helped you, they can be read at specialised Wikis such as StrategyWiki. Just because you found it useful doesn't mean it belongs on Wikipedia.

Cocaesarsgo31: you seem to have a selective definition of what a game guide is. The passage you quoted is a thorough explanation of a single attribute in RuneScape. Look up any decent game guide on RuneScape; even on GameFAQs if you have to. Any decent game guide will have thorough descriptions of what is attribute is. The description you quoted is far from brief. On Wikipedia, the general reader doesn't need to know exactly what agility does. They don't need to know how its raised. In fact, the general reader doesn't even need to know what the exact attributes are; only the general concept of what they cover and how they are generally trained. Yes, the information is factual; no one is arguing that. However, it is written for a specific audience: RuneScape players. Please explain what a non-player would gain from reading what is essentially a player's handbook on RuneScape. --Scottie_theNerd 16:23, 2 October 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. There aren't enough reliable sources about the film itself, and all sources only briefly mention this film – for example, it's listed on a film festival's site along with all other films submitted and nominated for awards (this film didn't win an award but was nominated for some). If it becomes notable, the article can be recreated at that time, but it falls short for now. KrakatoaKatie 10:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coven (short film)

Non-notable student film, prod removed without comment. Has won one, non-prestigious award. On the surface appears to have been edited by numerous people but almost every edit is by sock puppeteer Tweety21 (currently blocked) or one of her many anonIPs. Precious Roy 17:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

note: Please ignore the inflammatory comments by Gayunicorn. It's another of Tweety21's socks. I've moved them below the discussion so as to not distract from the matter at hand. Precious Roy 01:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable.--Gp75motorsports 18:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep It's got a little bit of media coverage, so I think it's worth keeping around. The threshold for notability for something like this is fairly low, in my opinion, and an independent review in a reasonably good media organ qualifies. I don't see any compelling reason to delete. Orpheus 23:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep: Numerous sources verify that it is a recipient of a notable award and that the film has merit; per WP:NF: "The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking." Furthermore, there is no established, official religion of the nation, whether it is Wicca or Christianity. The comments border on hypocrisy. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The award is not "major" it's from a small festival, and three other films won the same award. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Precious Roy (talk • contribs)
Delete as nominated. I am confused, why is Tweety21's sock puppet arguing for deletion of an article they created? --Agamemnon2 06:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- She does a lot of things that don't make sense. My guess is she just wants to disrupt the process. Precious Roy 14:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong KeepWiccawikka 15:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC) I usually don't get involved in these kinds of forums, but I actually checked this movie out and read up the reviews in what appears to be credible sources. Comments by "gayunicorn", and "Precous Roy" aside I hope there really is not religious hate issues going on here, as this film does not appear to be promoting Wicca or anything else, but retelling a childrens story. (please no hate mail) I also noticed this film listed in Leelee Sobieski' wiki entry as well. (there seems to be a dispute of a personal and immature nature going on here that I hope other wikis ignore these two users. Another note of education Wicca is a peaceful relgion which states "harm none",) Wiccawikka 15:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC) — Wiccawikka (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
comment a number of the below comments seem abusive, I hope the closing administration will be mature in ignoring the comments of the two members who seem to be carrying childish behavior ( I checked out both profile and both seem to be in constant heated exchanges with other wiccians, and also spend a ridiculous amount of time on wiki..do these people have jobs or lives? ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiccawikka (talk • contribs) 15:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep appears to (just barely) meet standards for notability. Dlabtot 16:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Which standards does it meet, specifically? (see WP:ATA). Precious Roy 17:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Dlabtot. Seems to have outside coverage, even if it is minimal. --Cheeser1 17:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Minimal outside coverage is not one of the criteria listed at WP:MOVIE. Precious Roy 17:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  - Minimal meaning minimal to pass notability requirements. Obviously. WP:MOVIE states Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release. While this film is not yet old enough to have 5-year-old sources, it still has two of them (per WP:N, from which WP:MOVIE is derived), and the timeframe issue is mitigated by several awards (criterion 3), the involvement of a relative famous actress, and the fact that it's a short film, not a feature-length one. Also, keep in mind that you need not badger every person who "votes" differently than you. --Cheeser1 18:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    - He is entitled to make counter-arguments. This is a discussion, not a poll. Epbr123 18:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
      - It is a discussion, not a talk page, and even in talk pages, it's not really appropriate to go out of one's way to respond to virtually everyone who disagrees with you (especially with a simple reiteration of or elaboration on a point of disagreement - the closing admin will see his comments, he need not repeat them). --Cheeser1 18:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    - 1) The movie hasn't won "several awards" it won one minor award at a minor film festival, where three other films got the exact same award (not too prestigious if you ask me). 2) asking someone to clarify a position, or pointing out a fallacy in their argument is not "badgering" 3) I haven't questioned the arguments of "every person" with a differing opinion. Precious Roy 19:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Epbr123 17:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment I just noticed in WP:FILM: films produced in the past, which were either not completed or not distributed, should not have their own articles where "distributed" is not the same thing as showing at a film festival, would most likely apply here as well. Precious Roy 19:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm relatively sure that means further into the past. It's also important to remember that short films, even highly notable ones are not always "released" in any sort of theatrical or television setting. --Cheeser1 21:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  - I do realize that shorts do not get the same kind of distribution as features. Rejected is kind of a poor example though, seeing how it was shown over and over across the country by Spike and Mike. As far as I can tell, Coven showed at some film festivals (as few as two) and that's it. Precious Roy 01:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
    - My point is simply that WP:MOVIE is a general extension of WP:N to the category of films. It's slanted towards feature-length films, and is fairly vague (as are most policies) to allow for some interpretation and/or wiggle room (in the spirit perhaps of WP:IGNORE). It does have two outside sources, and it does have some sort of recognition. --Cheeser1 07:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
      - I realize this is getting close to badgering but: both of the outside sources (I assume you're referring to the Observer and Paper articles) are about the director of the film (a socialite whose WP article (created by Tweety21) has been deleted via AfD twice now (here and here—note my involvement in the second one, and my "keep" !vote)). The Observer article barely mentions the movie and the Paper article contains three sentences about it (and one more later in the article about how she'd like to turn it into a full-length)—these are not "non-trivial" references. Precious Roy 10:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disruptive comments by Tweety21's sockpuppet

Delete Gayunicorn 23:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC) THIS APPEARS TO BE A GLORIFICATION OF WICCA!!!! Although I am not against various religions, Christianity is the main stream religion in North American!! Also upon watching the movie this is PAGONISTIC!!! please for the love of God delete this entry!!!Gayunicorn 23:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC) — Gayunicorn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Gayunicorn, your comments are offensive. I request that you redact them. Corvus cornix 23:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This comment isn't really valid: the neutral point of view policy demands that we not discriminate against "paganistic" religions or, equivalently, favour Christianity. I recommend it be disregarded. Nihiltres^(t.l) 01:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

commentGayunicorn 23:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Re: comments put on my talk, I have absolutly no problems with other religions, whatever people do in the privacy of their own homes is their own busines, but we shouldnt be condoning it with movies. Should not have put up article in the first place.Gayunicorn 00:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The media should reflect mainstream and recognized religions, not fringe ones that are not organized or cults! also should not promote films with nudity. Gayunicorn 23:56, 27 September 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. --Core desat 00:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Derek white and the monophobics

Only claim to fame is that is has former Juliana Theory basist playing for them. However, there is absolutely no reference of this anywhere else other than the band's website: [26]. Thus it fails WP:V, and likely WP:BAND anyway. The Evil Spartan 17:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

delete. per nom, WP:BAND. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbeecat (talk • contribs) 17:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such. Therefore, it deserves a page.216.203.7.84 17:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it claims to have one of those members, but we have no third party sources; thus there are WP:V problems. The Evil Spartan 18:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with The Evil Spartan, Delete. Spryde 12:17, 27 September 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: unless articles are outright spam, correctable WP:NPOV problems are generally addressed editorially, not through deletion. John254 02:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A man called Brian

The notability is sketchy but probably sufficient. My main concern is the blatant violation of WP:NPOV in the first paragraph. It's possible that the entire article is a POV effort by its writer; I say this because AlexNewArtBot put the article on its suspected WP:COI list. Shalom ^Hello 17:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

very strong keep The subject is highly notable, and the POV can be easily fixed, and in any case is much less of a problem than is made out by the nomination. ~~Doubtful that there is any COI involved.~~ --NSH001 20:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- re COI, it is possible that the creator of the article might be Pouya Shoolizadeh, the son of the film's director, but this doesn't change my opinion on whether the article should be kept. --NSH001 07:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed and edited the article, so that it is now neutral and now only describes the film. --Pouya sh —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:25, 24 September 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. KrakatoaKatie 11:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 Brownlow Medal

User:Beamerized worked hard on this article, but it fails the rule that Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. We don't have line-by-line itemization of awards for other sports on WP. Shalom ^Hello 17:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Sufficient information already at Brownlow Medal and List of Brownlow Medal winners. --Dhartung | Talk 18:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Longhair\^talk 02:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC) `
Delete per nom. This is a shame as a lot of hard, dedicated work has gone into creating this good faith contribution. The creating editor even did the right thing and raised the topic at the appropriate project page. Unfortunately while Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, neither is it the place for mere tabulated data. If the data is removed, then all content is adequately covered at Brownlow Medal and List of Brownlow Medal winners. The result of this AfD may have a bearing on 2006 Brownlow Medal as well. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 03:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. We have articles on other award ceremonies such as the 2007 MTV Video Music Awards and these awards are high profile in Australia. It is not indiscriminate information. We should let User:Beamerized know about this discussion and allow him to transfer the data to userspace. I would suggest that we redirect to the page that advises that Jimmy Bartels won it as there will certainly be people who will look for it. Capitalistroadster 03:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. This page does not seem to breach WP:NOT#INFO. The collection of statistics is permissible as long as it organised properly. The page has been organised by year and by rounds of the competition. A short introduction would tweak it. At worst, it should be merged into another page, but then that page will become unwieldly. It is definitely notable per [[WP:N] as there a substantial newspaper article on the voting and there are no copyright issues as there is no copyright in data. Assize 03:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Could use some more content, but there is plenty of that: speculation, favourites and betting, maybe even the fashion? I don't see why it can't be made into a decent article. Recurring dreams 08:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep. I would like to see this article kept, but it needs considerable work. It is verging towards an indiscriminate collection, but I think Brownlow votes are a big deal in the AFL and are notable enough for Wikipedia. Fashion would be crossing the line into indiscriminate information. My input to the article would be to add some well-considered prose at the start - this means no personal opinions, no peacock/weasel words, fully sourced and neutral. This would give the article more of a sense of an encyclopedic outline of the event rather than just an isolate list of names and numbers. I would also condense the round tables to sheer minimum size, so that the article does not just become a very long block of stats. Maybe even have 2 or 3 rounds side-by-side per line break? Remy B 09:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep Dreams a good point: information on speculation/favourites, betting. Could also do with some information on the winner, and a table would look nice with all of the votes/leaders. Could make a nice little GA for someones belt. Good luck. Twenty Years 14:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep I did this page because I felt there was hardly any information apart from the winner and how many votes he got in the general Brownlow article. I guess we can keep it to a minimal by removing the votes section of all rounds. But I think we should leave the leaderboard and as most of you above have stated the add the betting or anything else related towards the night. If this is tagged for deletion I'd like to know why the 2006 one isn't. Beamerized 15:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment While I didn't nominate the article for deletion (and probably would not have) I supported (and still support) its deletion for the reasons I gave above. I raised the the 2006 Brownlow Medal article as its future would most likely depend on the consensus reached here. I saw no reason to tag it for deletion until consensus was reached on the suitability of individual Brownlow Medal counts as a whole. Tagging the 2006 article for deletion at this stage would seem to me to be verging on a WP:POINT violation, especially given the the likely decision to keep the 2007 article. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 23:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

~~Weak delete~~, like Mattinbgn I dont think the current article is encyclopedic. However, I much is said about the medal each year so I dont doubt it a good article could be written about each years medal; if good references and intro blurb are added I will change my opinion. Moving this into the Wikipedia:WikiProject AFL project space might be a good idea; User:Lonie From 50/2005 Brownlow Medal Guide could also be moved into project space to be sure it isnt abandoned. John Vandenberg 12:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, a source and an intro have been added. John Vandenberg 07:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The current structure of the article may or may not be heading towards innapropriate levesl of indiscriminate information, but this is not a deletion issue. I have expressed my doubts concerning including every vote, but it definitely deserves an article. JPD (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. This is entirely appropriate considering the significance and coverage elsewhere of the Brownlow Medal. Rebecca 05:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep on the article - and all other years in due course, weak keep on the round by round listing of votes. The AFL/Rleague stats site is probably a better place for that sort of detail.The-Pope 03:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Very Strong Keep as it seems that this article has got notability and passes other WP policies to deserve a separate page. - Niaz ^{(Talk •} ^Contribs) 09:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep -- and expand. - Longhair\^talk 09:42, 29 September 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 (as merged).--Kubigula (talk) 04:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey! Say! JUMP

Deletion nomination as a non-notable band. Contested speedy, bringing here for further comment. The relevent guideline, WP:MUSIC, especially the relevent section titled "Criteria for musicians and ensembles", has twelve criteria that would allow a band or group to have an article here at wikipedia. This group meets NONE of those criteria. There seems to be a tenuous future release of a single; however there does not appear to be ANY reliable sources around which this article can be built yet. wikipedia is not a crystal ball and this band MAY someday be notable. It is not now, however. Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Definitely delete for failing WP:CRYSTAL and WP:BAND - similar to other deleted band articles. Shalom ^Hello 17:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Disagree, keep. I find 4 points in that criteria that this group meets, including:
* Has had a charted hit on any national music chart - Hey! Say! was #1 in the Oricon Japan charts
* Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country - Hey! Say! is certified GOLD by the RIAJ
* Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album - Is performing the theme song for Japan's Volleyball World Cup effort, etc.
* Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network - Had a whole 40 minute timeslot dedicated to their debut announcement just today, besides another appearance in another music program barely 2 hours later
P.S. They're also having a debut concert in Tokyo Dome - biggest stadium in Japan. How many groups are notable for that? - Akaru 17:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- All of the above points apply to DIFFERENT groups, namely the groups Hey! Say! and Hey! Say! 7. Notability is not inherited; this new group does not automatically become notable because a precursor band did a theme song to a TV show. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  - Hey! Say! 7 IS a subgroup within this group now. Hey! Say! is not a group, it is a song by Hey! Say! 7, whose all 5 members are in this group, and even the name Hey! Say! 7 now exist as a subgroup under this main group. Technically, this IS Hey! Say! 7 renamed, and with new members added. Hey! Say! JUMP is also singing the Japan World Cup Volleyball theme song - something of national level. What about that? - Akaru 17:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Disagree. Criteria No.6: Hey! Say! JUMP has FIVE members who were part of a notable band (Hey! Say! 7) - Kamichan 17:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep While the band may not be entirely notable, the new evidence above points to a strong outcome of keep, which I would endorse wholeheartedly if it were not for some uncertainty around the facts. Liempt 21:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- If you could state more on the "some uncertainty around the facts", I can try and fix it. I'm new to editing Wikipedia and all, and infact, this is the very first article that I started. Please advice. =) Akaru 11:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
~~Keep or merge~~. Hey! Say! 7 are clearly notable and Hey! Say! JUMP and Hey! Say! 7 are very closely linked. Hey! Say! JUMP's notability in their own right has some evidence given by Akaru, but it might be better to have just one page for both bands, so I would reject the deletion suggestion and let the merge discussion run its course. Bondegezou 11:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Seconding the merge and keep of Hey! Say! 7 into Hey! Say! JUMP. In any case, there won't be any notability issues anymore once this merger has taken place, right? - Akaru 18:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment. Akaru, as creator of the page, you are best placed to combine the material from both articles into one, so I suggest you be bold and just do that. The other article can then be made a re-direct. I would imagine there won't be a notability issue for the merged page. Bondegezou 11:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    - Merged I have merged the article Hey! Say! 7 into Hey! Say! JUMP. Hopefully this now eliminates the notability problem, and that I did it correctly. This is my first time making a merge, so if I did something wrongly, please correct it. Akaru 08:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  - Coment - I am not sure about the deletion of this article. See also WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. This band may be notable (I am not sure). Greg Jones II 02:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  - Following the merger of Hey! Say! 7 into Hey! Say! JUMP, I'd say this is now a strong keep. Bondegezou 10:53, 29 September 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--JForget 23:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mall of Georgia

This article doesn't seem to comply notability ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 17:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

and WP:SOAP as well. ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 17:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Cursory google search lands enough third party coverage to satisfy WP:N. I agree with the advert cleanup tag; the article needs a rewrite. - superβεεcat 17:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. This is the biggest mall in Georgia. TheCoffee 17:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep it fits well in Category:Shopping malls in Georgia (U.S. state) and is not written any more poorly than some others in the Category. Malls are notable for their economic impact, and looking through Google hits .... this ones pretty big. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 19:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:GOOGLE. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep I'll try to clean this up; if it really is the biggest mall in Georgia, that alone would make it notable. Even if not, it seems to be a large enough center that finding reliable sources should be no problem. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC) I've added some references to this article; two of them are behind paywalls, but at least one clearly cites the mall's notability as largest in the state. That alone would make it notable in my opinion. This page still needs a lot of work, but I'm not really in a working mood today. I'll still try to improve this article over time, however. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep this is the largest mall in Georgia and, if memory serves, when it was completed it was the largest shopping mall in the southeastern U.S. (However, I think some larger malls have opened since then.) Lack of sources or poor article quality is NOT a reason to delete. It is a reason to tag for improvement. LaMenta3 21:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Georgia is a mall-passionate state. There are many very large malls there (a couple of gigantic ones in Buckhead alone). The largest one in the state should not have even been nominated for AfD. --Oakshade 23:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

At the time it was nominated, I don't think the article even mentioned that the mall was the largest in the state. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It's indicative to a serious problem I have when noms don't even do the slightest amount of research before nominating an article for AfD. AfD should be a last resort when dealing with a possibly non-notable topic. WP:SOFIXIT should be a requirement, not an option. But that's a debate for a different page... --Oakshade 01:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep this is just another attempt at a wiki administrator wanting to delete or tag articles instead of improving them --Mjrmtg 11:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep Superregional mall of over 1.7 million square feet of retail space, and the largest in its state. Edison 14:45, 25 September 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. --Core desat 00:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boston Logan Airport Fake Bomb Incident

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Simpson. WP:NOT#NEWS states that a news event like this belongs on Wikinews instead of Wikipedia if the event does not have "historical notability". 17Drew 17:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete A1, or Delete per nom. This isn't a stub, it's a single sentence which reads like a headline. If a legitimate article or stub can be created about this event, recreate. - superβεεcat 17:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom (not speedy). Wikipedia is not the news; nothing really happened here anyway. Shalom ^Hello 17:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. WP:NOT#NEWS. --Evb-wiki 18:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete WP:NOT#NEWS --Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 19:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete passing news story. MarkBul 19:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete As per above issues with it being more closely related to news than an encyclopedia article. Liempt 21:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wikinews if the information in the article isn't there already. It might not belong on Wikipedia, but how about an attempt at legitimate information preservation? LaMenta3 21:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

They already have an article. And it's far more than two lines, so I don't see what transwiking would constitute doing. 17Drew 22:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I was just saying if there was anything about it that COULD be transwiki'd, it should be. As this isn't the case, then delete until/unless this becomes something bigger. LaMenta3 00:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Not even a drop of spittle in the river of history. This is yesterday's news... or at least last Friday's news. Mandsford 00:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
While I think it makes much more sense to have an article on the event than one on the person, I must also support the delete position for this article, just as I did with Star Simpson. This very easily could have turned into the sort of event that would be notable for this project's purposes, but it didn't (or hasn't so far). It looks like the story is essentially over, so there should be no article. If we get to the point where the criminal charges are decided and something interesting happens, we can reconsider the decision. Erechtheus 04:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep or merge and redirect without deleting to Star Simpson due to widespread news coverage and newness of the incident that prevents us from sufficiently determining the importance at this point. Also, I have expanded the article considerably from its previous condition. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment If we can't determine that the event is important, the article should be deleted. I might have a tremendously notable life, but that does not mean I get to have an article until I meet that notability standard. Erechtheus 22:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Either keep and merge in Star Simpson or merge both with the 2007 Boston Mooninite scare Artw 19:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep The arguments at the article on Simpson are that it belongs under the incident, rather than the person. It is notable as showing the irrationality of contemporary paranoia, but as an incident--not about her specifically. DGG (talk) 00:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - This event, while it did generate a lot of instant media attention, is not likely to have any long lasting notoriety or importance. This incident is not likely to set any legal president or cause a change in security procedures at Logan. In the long term it will be no more notable then other airport security violations (think Monica Emmerson and the child’s sippy cup incident in June 2007). Hardnfast 14:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - not nearly as noteworthy as the 2007 Boston Mooninite scare, and certainly not as likely to stand out as a notable incident months or years from now. Maybe this could be a footnote in some article about suspected bomb scares and hoaxes in 2007, but I'm not excited about it. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete not a noteworthy event. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete for various reasons stated above. When story first broke it appeared to be a pretty major event, but it was merely a strange incident. -_Coffee and TV 20:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep if Star Simpson is deleted; if Star Simpson is kept, merge to that article. I agree with DGG that the incident is notable, but readers would be more likely to search for the protagonist's name than for this title, so it would be better for the information to be at Star Simpson. Nevertheless, it would be better to keep it at this title than to expunge it entirely. JamesMLane t c 21:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Star Simpson herself is almost certainly not notable. In the event an article is kept, I'd suggest this is the one to keep and that Star Simpson should then become a redirect to this article, solving your search concern. I still don't think this event is notable at this point, though. Erechtheus 03:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. No lasting notability here, just another news article. We are not a general news archival service. Burntsauce 21:53, 26 September 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 and redirect. History of this is a clear cut and paste copy from National Identification Number#Chile, which needs to be removed for GFDL reasons anyway. Someday somebody can write a sourced article at the full name or this page. GRBerry 01:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RUT

Really very badly written; unsourced; non-notable in its current state; orphaned; uncategorised. Porcupine (prickle me!) 16:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete While I disagree about notability, (I'm sure to a Chilean a RUT is far more important than an un-notable SSN), this article is a carbon copy of the Chilean section of the related page National Identification Number. Furthermore, its lack of sourcing and it's orphaned and uncategorized state lead me to believe that this section should stay in the Nat. ID No. article, at least for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liempt (talk • contribs) 21:19, 24 September 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 per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Boulevard

James Boulevard (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD) Prod removed by an anon IP with no article improvement. This article about an independent wrestler does not establish notability and has no third party referencing. Nikki311 16:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Nikki311 16:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:42, 24 September 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 per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Left Book Club Online

This article is about a website with no claim to notability other than it having been started by a member of parliament. B1atv 16:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - groups are not notable for their founders in most cases. Probably nn book club. OSborn^arf 16:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above + failed to find significant coverage with Google. -- Kl4m ^{T C} 16:28, 25 September 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. --Core desat 00:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ultramod

Dictionary definition only. Transwiki to Wiktionary, or delete per WP:NEO Saturn 5 16:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NEO, do not transwiki. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per nom and WP:NEO. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 20:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete' per WP:NEO. Do not transwiki. Liempt 21:26, 24 September 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. --Core desat 01:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fabolous' fifth studio album

Long on rumor, short on fact. No bias against recreation under the actual name once that can be sourced, but for now, this is a bunch of unsourced rumor and crystal-ballery. TexasAndroid 16:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

delete per crystal balling. When the album has real press on it, we can cite said press and create an article. This is nothing yet, however... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - the article text contains three sentences of which two sentences feature the word "rumoured". No reliable sources and all speculation. -- Whpq 18:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Honestly, who thinks that Fabolous is truly gonna release an album next year based on the information already put here? No reliable sources, just crystal BAAAALLLIINNN!!!!! (Get it?????) --Andrewlp1991 05:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

delete - until official confirm dates are announced. West Coast Ryda 16:58, 27 September 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 deletion by Nihiltres. Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hydromissions

Nonnotable Neologism. The Evil Spartan 16:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Any policy covering such statements like "The name, hydromissions, is actually a registered trademark of Hydromissions International, LLC"? Easily searched on google, first hit is to the company in question, but this article is mostly a marketing blurb. Yngvarr (t) (c) 16:17, 24 September 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. Just not notable enough. - Ta bu shi da yu 20:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Res Medicinae

Non-notable software project. The Evil Spartan 15:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep as notable with 7,500 hits on MSN, [27] and 619 Ghits. [28] Cites include "Brave GNU World" [29], "The Linux Documentation Project" [30], but none of the usual articles from publications. I understand this line of reasoning is weak (see the arguments not to make), so i won;t be upset if it's deleted. Bearian 21:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete It might be notable if it was widely used software, the de-facto standard application for medical practitioners etc, but at the moment it should be on sourceforge, not WP. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 02:09, 1 October 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. Seems to be OR, and not notable enough anyway. - Ta bu shi da yu 20:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cybernetics Oriented Interpreter

Another technological invention of fringe notability. Fails WP:NOTE, WP:OR (article created by same person who wrote the main paper on the subject): [31]. The Evil Spartan 15:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete not notable, self publishing, does that make it OR as well? I believe that developing your own compiler or interpreter is a common compsci degree task these days, which makes any single one of them a very small fish in a very big pond unless it can be shown that the computer language concerned is achieving widespread acceptance and use. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 02:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete as per WP:OR and self-publicity as well. Niaz ^{(Talk •} ^Contribs) 08:41, 1 October 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. --Core desat 01:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grand Theft Auto Cathedral City

Another fan-written mod for a game. WP:NFT. The Evil Spartan 15:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete self-statement says it all: "and it is destined to be the biggest mod for this game once it is finished". Yngvarr (t) (c) 16:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete as a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL, among many other things. JavaTenor 17:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per above. Operating 17:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. No independent media coverage, ergo no notability/reliable sources. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Who has deemed it to be destined to be the biggest mod? I see nothing special here, it's just something a fan came up with and named it after a city near Palm Springs, CA. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This mod has its own space on many popular GTA websites/forums and many people are awaiting it, and i thought it would be a good idea to post an article which will be constantly updated so it can provide information for users that will view this or want to find out about the mod. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Resta (talk • contribs) 10:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC) — Tony Resta (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- The problem here is that web fora are not considered to be very reliable at all. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that would be the case if i posted an article on a mod that isnt mine. But i know every fact on this mod seeing as im the director of it and i can assure you that all the information given within the article is reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Resta (talk • contribs) 10:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, information that can not be referenced in independent sources (who utilize a reasonable degree of editorial oversight) violates our policy on verifiability. This policy actually works to your advantage, even though it may seem like a pain right now. If none of the information on the mod can be sourced, then anybody could come on here and say anything about it, even things that are false or potentially defamatory. Right now, if someone wrote that it ends with a 15-minute FMV of Mussolini and Eva Longoria fighting to the death with butter knives, we wouldn't have any way of knowing whether that was true or not, since it'd just be your word against theirs. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
You may also want to take a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:07, 26 September 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. --Core desat 01:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lehigh Valley Arts Council

This is a promo-article written by the subject of the article with only weak claims of notability. B1atv 15:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete These sort of organisations are ten-a-penny. non notable. Very clear conflict of interest from the author. Secretlondon 16:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, no attribution of notability to independent sources. Unlikely there can be any real notability with a group like this. Wikipedia is not a directory of non-profits. --Dhartung | Talk 20:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom, just another promotional article posted on Wikipedia. Burntsauce 21:59, 24 September 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 per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Xtac Fashions

This company does not appear to pass WP:CORP. Google has nothing but brief mentions; even the only third party source listed on this page is a forum post. Thus is fails WP:V as well. The Evil Spartan 15:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - nn company, I think this could've been speedied. --216.9.250.105 12:18, 27 September 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 Extract, transform, load. This is the best option, and actually the most accurate. - Ta bu shi da yu 20:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Data loading

Contested prod. Article has no sources, and is not written in an encyclopedic tone. Too technical, very little context of why this process is notable. Would try to fix, but it is difficult to figure out what to keep and what to discard, and lack of notability makes it unlikely that it is worth the effort. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete It looks like a summary or outline was copied out of a textbook to me. This could very easily be merged into the Data warehouse article. The article is very specific to data warehouses and not to anything else. The title is too generic for this article if it were to stand alone. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 15:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- There are entire text books on data warehousing, so it would not be that unusual for such a topic to have several sub-pages on WP. Dhaluza 16:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

In regards to your comments about numberous books about Data Warehousing, I agree there are. However, this article does not cite any and thus fails WP:N --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 12:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

~~Speedy Delete~~ - completely incoherent, does indeed look like it was copied out of a textbook, original author signed on the page. OSborn^arf 16:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC) Change to neutral per below OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 15:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Extract, transform, load. The information in this article is a grab bag of unreferenced information and how-to so there's nothing to merge. But data loading is part of the ETL function. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whpq (talk • contribs) 19:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep this is obviously a topic that deserves coverage, but just as obviously needs work. A clean-up tag would have been much more appropriate than an AfD tag, as this is the user's first contribution, and WP:BITE is certainly a factor. Assuming references can be found for the content, it would not merge well with Extract, transform, load as suggested above because of its size, but that article could be used in summary style with a link to this one, and hopefully an improved article on Data extraction and an integrated view with Data transformation as well. If the closer decides to delete, I strongly suggest the page be userfied to the author's space so he is not discouraged from working on improving it. Dhaluza 10:04, 30 September 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--JForget 23:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Innocent Mdledle

Totally unsourced; doesn't assert its notability. The removal of a PROD was simply a "routine" removal, by the creator of the article. It was unexplained. Porcupine (prickle me!) 15:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete lacks notability. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 15:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep professional footballer who has played internationally = competing at the highest level. Nuttah68 17:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep He's played for the Pirates 40 times [32]. He's also mentioned on Reuters [33] and Fifa.com [34]. Operating 17:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 18:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Seems notable enough to me, though it could do with a bit of a shake-up. - PeeJay 18:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep, if reliable references are provided for South Africa game or the 40 odd games for the Pirates, then the player is verifiably notable as per WP:BIO. King of the North East (T/C) 18:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep The guy is a South African international and therefore completely notable. Number 5 7 20:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Mdledle has played in a fully professional league for Orlando Pirates (as recently as 22 September: http://www.supersoccer.co.za/results_1.asp?id=794) and at the highest level (in past South Africa national team matches). Jogurney 21:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. There's no AfD template on the article. --Malcolmxl5 21:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Member of national team, played in fully professional league. Not to mention, the lack of an AfD template on the page would pretty much speedy overturn a deletion in DRV. Smashville 22:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment I've now added the AfD template to the article. This is procedural and I don't endorse the nomination ChrisTheDude 22:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong and Obvious Keep Article certainly needs work, but he's an athlete who has competed at the highest level, both professionally and internationally. What possible rationale for deletion could there be? Doesn't assert notability? Are you serious? faithless (^speak) 06:36, 26 September 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 per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GoAbroad.com

Contested prod. The stack of references and the "most visited directory of its kind" seem to be a legitimate assertion of notability. However, I'm not convinced it's important enough to warrant its own article, so bringing it over for a consensus. The 20 references are misleading, as many are to the site itself. — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete, pretty much spam. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ Delete Although the article could be much better. The foundation that this article attempts to expand on is quite large and notable. A google query on "go abroad foundation" brought back 1.9m hits. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 15:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Try it with the quotes (your search is bringing up anything that includes the words anywhere) and you get a slightly less impressive 2 ghits on "go abroad foundation" and 21 ghits on "goabroad foundation", all but 3 of which are from their own website or blogs. While normally the google test is unreliable, for an article about a website I think it's a valid criteria. — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I had originally used GoAbroad.org as the criteria for my response. I accidentally misread the title. This article is about a company that coordinates travel for students. Although its reach is broad, it is still just a sup'ed-up travel agency to me. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 16:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. No clear demonstration that this site is a category-leader. Besides, "most visited directory of its kind" does not impart absolute popularity, just within self-defined terms. Feels spammy to me. -- P L E A T H E R _talk 19:21, 24 September 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. Any editor willing to work on it is free to contact me to discuss userfication.--Kubigula (talk) 04:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buddhist polemics

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Buddhist polemics

This page is an essay written completely (ironically) as an argument against Buddhist polemics as an apologetic statement in support of buddhism. My own personal (i.e. Christian) bias aside, the content is vastly inappropriate for Wikipedia and there's no precedence for an article like it for other religions and beliefs (such as for Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism etc etc). If the article is to be kept, it should conform to Wikipedia's standards, but if this cannot be radically adjusted to conform to the references and obtain a neutral point of view, the article should be removed. There have been cleanup tags (for point of view and references) for over 6 months now, with no apparent intention or action to address the matter. linca ^linca 15:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Vast NPOV issues, and a complete rewrite is nearly impossible. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep and improve as necessary. How is a rewrite "impossible"? Cleduc 15:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment It would be "impossible" per se, to improve the article as it is. If anybody familiar with the subject matter can provide at least two or three third party reliable sources on the topic, write at least a stub article that doesn't use any of the existing content (as it's completely unusable in its present form) then the article is deserving of being removed as it's a one-sided essay on what's wrong with Buddhist polemics, which is not the porpose of Wikipedia. There are simply too many problems prevalent in the page in its present form to make reliable use of any of it, especially considering its lack of references (which is common across the board in the Buddhism articles, I must say). --linca ^linca 15:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep and improve (necessary). Klimov 16:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete as unsalvageable POV fork with unclear and meandering subject matter. < eleland // talkedits > 19:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep: What a neat idea. Let's let this develop per WP:IGNORE and see if it's worthwhile; if not, we can always delete it later. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: This article hasn't been touched much in almost six months, in which time it has had cleanup tags on it. It's time to go. It's been ignored enough. --linca ^linca 03:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Unnecessary rambling and dangerously close to WP:OR. Discussion of the differences between e.g. Mahayana and Therevada can easily be included in Buddhism or related articles without turning it into a bizarre he-said-she-said debate. bikeable (talk) 00:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete or userfy. This article is a hold-over from an earlier era of Wikipedia ... a time when anything seemed possible. It's an essay by an editor who is no longer active. It doesn't really fit in with what Wikipedia is trying to do these days.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 03:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Nat Krause. I was unsure if this article should be blanked and left as a stub or deleted altogether. I decided it should be deleted. Wikipedia should discuss the differences between the Mahayana and Theravada and evaluate the polemical claims on both sides. There are many accusations leveled against the "Hinayana" across wikipedia, and these accusations should be addressed. However as bikeable has indicated, this can be done on a case-by-case basis. The article currently is just wikipedians' opinions. See also Basic Points Unifying the Theravāda and the Mahāyāna. Arrow740 04:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Nat Krause makes a really good point above. I actually enjoy this essay, but it certainly doesn't fit with what the rest of the encyclopedia has become. I wonder if there is another wiki to trans wiki it to? There's no question this is an essay, but it is a good essay. I didn't have the heart to afd it myself, but in it's current form it has to go. A woeful delete. daveh4h 04:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I feel the same way. This essay is the only place where the misleading "Theravada monks are selfish" nonsense is addressed. However, it is still an essay. Arrow740 05:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I neglected to mention that this article, in addition to its essay substrate, has been the subject of influxes of material, mostly from Theravada, which is where the "Theravada criticised and explained" section comes from.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 11:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete The current content largely falls under OR, and most of the factual material is already covered in other articles. --Clay Collier 18:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Weak Delete as a possibly interesting essay, but not everything of possible interest ought to be in Wikipedia. Orbst 23:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Needs to be sourced, but a summary of the theological controversies in the evelopment of he religion would seem altogether appropriate. DGG (talk) 03:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It's an essay, and will almost certainly remain unsourced if kept. Note the meaning of "theological." Arrow740 03:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong delete OR/essay. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Not only the content falls under OR, it is highly POV and has no place on Wikipedia 216.99.54.18 00:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this vote is valid: anonymous users can't vote.Greetings, Sacca 08:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep It's an ok article, just needs some sources, and these can be found. So keep it and the sources will appear. many articles in the Buddhism section only now are starting to receive their share of sources, it takes a while. Greetings, Sacca 08:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: If what you say is true, then it may be salvaged, but the fact is, there is nothing here that's referencable; it's major issues are that of point of view: Wikipedia (and any Encyclopedia for that matter) needs to provide a neutral point of view, which presently this is one of the most POV and bias skewed articles I've ever seen, and I casually browse thousands of articles (and edit only a small amount of them). I don't believe this article can be salvaged, being why I listed it for delation, because there's nothing in the article that can be kept. The article may as well say "I don't like people who bag out Buddhism because they're stupid and don't know what they're talking about because Buddhism is real and I don't care what you say". This is a simplification of the article, but it's generally what the article says. It doesn't provide any information in support of why the polemics exist; noted polemics; factual evidence against common polemic arguments. These are encyclopedic content, though not included. Deprecating polemics without a valid explanation, speaking in the first person (which happens in a couple of instances) provides a great deal of imbalance. --linca ^linca 08:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: A good guide as to how this article should be presented can be seen here. This is the article for Christian apologetics, which is in support of a point of view based argument, however here the subject matter is handles with consistency and balance. It doesn't simply highlight all the positives and gives due course to the flaws therein, which needs to be mirrored in an article like this, though taken more tenderly; a topic about positivity is easy to remain level, but one that focuses on the negative aspects is harder to remain cool. I understand this, but the key to handling the matter is restraint and unfortunately, restraint hasn't been applied in the article at all and simply denounces any viability to claims by polemics. It also is written in such a way (in the lead paragraph, no less) that the polemics hide the truth. I need to address that this indicates that the buddhist truth is the absolute truth, which is not a point of view that can be even conjectured on Wikipedia. And that's just mere words into the article. --linca ^linca 08:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep but tag as needing rewrite ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 20:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. From what I can tell, this article seems to exemplify the topic. (I.e., it is a piece of Buddhist polemics.) The main grounds for deletion are the lack of neutrality and, perhaps to a lesser extent, unverifiable original research (i.e., an essay). If need be, the relevant Project and Talk pages can be notified of the deletion, so that any useful (?) content can be gleaned. HG | Talk 08:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment This isn't a polemic essay, it's an apologia. But nonetheless... --linca ^linca 10:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. Not to mention this article doesn't cite a single source.Vice regent 20:57, 1 October 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. --Core desat 01:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Justin Scharvona

Doesn't seem notable enough for inclusion into wikipedia. Plenty of people are involved in the creation of soundtracks for games, and simply working with a band does not automatically imply notability. Arendedwinter 14:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete. Not enough of an assertion of notability. Barring a speedy, simply delete as very non-notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Notability to come. I can't find anything that asserts he worked with the artists mentioned, though I did find a snippet that says he worked with Bananarama, remixing one of their old songs. Whether it was successul or not, I don't know. To quote something I found online: "Someday I'd like to see Justin Scharvona recognized somewhere -- he's had the misfortune of scoring some really shitty games, but still, a good composer."--Sethacus 15:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment The same user who created the article removed the Afd template from the page with no explanation. I have reverted it back. Arendedwinter 16:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Hey, he "worked in bands like The Smiths"! Um...what does "worked in" and "bands like" mean, exactly? I would have speedied this one. Sorry, Justin! You're probably a great guy, but this doesn't state a case for notability. -- P L E A T H E R _talk 19:26, 24 September 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 and salt.--JForget 23:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sheasgreen

Patent hoax - this man did not exist - and previously prodded & reposted. As {{db-repost}} isn't usable on previously prodded articles & "hoax" isn't a speedy criteria, bringing it here for a formal sentence of execution — iridescent (talk to me!) 14:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - If this man truly didn't exist, then yes, this article should be deleted.--Danaman5 14:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete and salt. Hoax, eh? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete Hoax, unless there were people named Kevin in the 18th century.--Sethacus 16:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment There were people called Kevin in the 6th century, let alone the 18th — iridescent (talk to me!) 16:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment You really do learn something new every day. Doesn't change my vote, though, as it's still a hoax.--Sethacus 16:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete and salt if not speedable as recreation of identical article Edward Sheasgreen (created after initial deletion of Sheasgreen). Recommend blocking user as well. Katr67 16:53, 24 September 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 16:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bioenvironmental Engineering

Y4kk 13:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Should this article not be simply tagged for vast improvement? There's nothing here that's incorrect or inaccurate... it's just... nothing other than media. I'm voting a ~~weak~~ keep and encourage somebody to write some prose and outline whe the hell Bioenvironmental Engineering is. It's definitely an article worthy of note and deserving to be here, just obviously not in its present form. --linca ^linca 15:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep No doubt this article needs some help. However, it appears to ba a description of a MOS. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 15:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep per WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. I see nothing strong to delete. Carlosguitar 15:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I also like WP:JUSTAVOTE as an appropriate response to the initial post. --linca ^linca 16:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep This is an Air Force occupation. More detail needed! Jeremyabbott1980 19:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete I can't imagine that every American military job description deserves a Wikipedia page - there are thousands of them. MarkBul 20:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

~~Keep~~ Information/History added on page. Jeremyabbott1980 23:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You already voted. Carlosguitar 20:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm now voting a strong keep (as a change from my weak stance) as the article now is detailed and summarises the subject mater. It needs a lot of work, but is now not simply a collection of images. Massive wikify needed, but definitely has enough content to stay for now. --linca ^linca 07:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy keep as no reason for deletion has been presented. --Itub 11:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong speedy KEEP Why are why we talking about deleting a relevant article? Everybody should know this stuff! --Gp75motorsports 18:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep per above. No reason for deletion.Biophys 23:31, 1 October 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, WP:SNOWBALL. Angelo 13:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Luìs Fernando Centi

I tagged this for speedy deletion because there's no evidence of notability. Declined because WP:BIO states that footballers who have played in a fully professional league are in general notable. But it also states that meeting this criterion "does not guarantee that a subject should be included". A politician would need to have held major office or achieved significant press coverage. By that reckoning, with over 3,500 professional footballers in England alone and goodness knows how many worldwide (100,000?), notability needs a bit more than simply being in a team.

There's no evidence in this article that the footballer has done anything worthy of note for his team (e.g. scored any goals) nor how long he's been a professional (a week? ten years?).

Wikipedia is not a directory - specifically: "Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety". Wearing a number 6 shirt isn't enough. andy 13:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep There's nothing wrong with the stub and this nomination willfully misunderstands, or simply wishes to ignore, Wikipedia policy on sportspeople. The nominator may think he's not notable, but WP:BIO shows that he is. This is a complete waste of other people's time. If you'd bothered to do a moment's research you'd have spotted that we already have a larger article on Luis Fernando Centi and that a redirect might have been more appropriate. The confusion came because of the accent over the i in his first name. This article shows that he's made plenty of appearances for a variety of teams in the lower echelons of the professional Italian league system. Nick mallory 13:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The article has been replaced with a redirect to the other article on the player, can we close this AfD now? If andy wants to nominate the other article then that's obviously up to him..... ChrisTheDude 14:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Woodym555 15:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep The article has been redirected to the name without diacritic. The player is notable enough, though the article is barely a stub and could use help. Alexf^{(Talk/Contribs)} 15:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Passes WP:BIO as has played in a fully professional league for Livorno and Atalanta at least. Number 5 7 15:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep has played for several clubs in fully professional leagues. It has now been redirected to to the slightly more comprehensive Luis Fernando Centi. In any case this was an article that needed some expansion and not deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodym555 (talk • contribs)
Speedy Close as article has been redirected. Article it has been redirected to meets WP:BIO criteria (which I agree with). Davewild 07:30, 25 September 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. --Core desat 01:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dark Carnival (ICP)

This folklore should be deleted or merged with the Insane Clown Posse article. Endless Dan 13:12, 24 September 2007

Delete It's a hopeless mess of original research. No benefit to a merge. Shalom ^Hello 13:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. What a boatload of crap! Original research, bollocks, attack, take your pick. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I love OR because its amusing. The article led me to Horrorcore which intrigued and amused me. I think that'll be going the same way too. Operating 17:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep.. Why not? I didn't have a clue what any of it was till I read the article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.25.247.67 (talk) 11:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC) — 12.25.247.67 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep and clean up with references. The article concerns a storyline of multiple well-selling discs from a notable music group. Merge at worst, but definitely notable and certainly easy to reference. Please note for example that a book has been written on the subject: The Story Of Insane Clown Posse And Their Dark Carnival. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The article is a lot of original research. Even sourcing doesn't help this article much. RobJ1981 19:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
KEEP There is no reason to delete this article. There are possible reference sources like the book mentioned above, www.juggalofaith.com, and other websites devoted to this religion. Just like any other niche religion there isn't a good centralized source of information but it is still interesting, just needs to be cleaned up and/or merged. I actually was looking for info on the religion around ICP so it was helpful to me. cynthiamonster 13:03, 27 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.106.211.89 (talk) — 129.106.211.89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

The result was Delete --Haemo 19:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ayman Ahmed El-Difrawi

1) No assertion of notability. 2) Wikipedia is not a criminal database. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 13:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment I've used subst:adw templates on the talk pages of the editors that have more than the average number of edits but haven't apparently been involved in the discussion here yet, also I've reminded one contributor to this discussion that they may wish to vote as well as comment. I hope that's not excessive canvassing? I used Wikipedia Page History Statistics linked from WP:AFD#How to list pages for deletion to get the list of contributors / number of edits / average edits. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 02:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Note Please insert a blank line before commenting, it makes it easier to insert further comments at the text they relate to. Thanks. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 05:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Whilst it may be a commendable activity to publicise the activities of criminals, criminality is not notability, and WP is not a criminal record system. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 13:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete for non-notabilityJJJ999 03:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per above. He's not notable. Shalom ^Hello 13:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep Subject is certainly notable within a somewhat narrow topic area. Also related to Lou Pearlman which certainly is of broad interest. Article is something of a battleground though, perhaps another approach is to find a relatively stable version and lock it for the time being? Shritwod 20:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: What do you believe makes the subject notable? DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 15:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I think you can judge by other sources (Google them) that there's some interest in this person. People such as Robert Soloway are listed, this person is not dissimilar in terms of activities Shritwod 12:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: That might indicate that Solway should also be considered for AfD, rather than that El-Difrawi should be kept. The question is what makes El-Difrawi notable? I've searched extensively on him already, and I don't perceive notability. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 00:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: It depends what circles you move in. Soloway is a big deal according to Microsoft and those who've sued him, but that's not the point. I think to prove notability, you need to look at El Difrawi's business activities rather than looking for him by name, because he takes care to conceal his identity. However, the business are all linked and easy enough to trace with the correct investigative tools. I don't want to put down your efforts with regards to this topic DMcMPO11AAUK because I find your POV valuable, but I guess I've dug into the evidence differently to come to my conclusions. Shritwod 21:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment So what aspect(s) of his business do you believe that El-Difrawi is actually notable for? I see an allegation that he may have been involved in the perpetration of large scale advance-fee fraud based on the promise of publicity to aspiring models and actors. I see no actual verifiable evidence to support this assertion, just a lot of allegations and tenuous links drawn between companies and names, sewn together with suppositions and assumptions. I don't doubt that for some standards the sources may be sufficient, but I don't believe that the sources meet the verifiability standards that WP aspires to. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 03:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep This subject is notable enough to have several websites dedicated to his scams, is featured prominently in book about the modeling scam, and is particularly notable given the current events surrounding Lou Pearlman. The sheer number of people contributing to and vandalizing this article shows that it is a topic that a lot of people are familiar with 08:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.223.243.6 (talk)

Comment There are possibly 4 editors with an interest in the article and me. I caught some vandalism on recent changes, then read the article, then looked at the references and decided some of them were insufficient to support the assertions they were being used for. My concern now is to try and ensure that references used in the article are suitable for the assertions they are used to support. I have to ask, though, what makes Ayman Ahmed El-Difrawi notable? I see no evidence of "several websites dedicated to his scams," but perhaps "a few web sites mention him." That Lou Perlman is notable does not make Ayman Ahmed El-Difrawi notable. That a person is mentioned in a book does not make them notable. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 05:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Please note that the book that has been mentioned is self-published; using it as source violates a WP:BLP and WP:SELFPUB guideline that states, "Self-published material may never be used in BLPs unless written by the subject him or herself." DylanKate 18:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Being mentioned in a self published book by a third party might help establish notability, however in this case the association between El-Difrawi and Pearlman is shown elsewhere eg an SEC filing that is a good reference. In this case I've seen no suggestion that the book includes any additional assertion of notability that hasn't been covered in the article already. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 00:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment What do you think makes Lou Pearlman notable? The fact that he was good at self publicity while Difrawi was good at hiding his activities does not make him more notable. I don't know what you're looking for. The fact that this guy started a company that ripped off hundreds of thousands of people and stole $3million through bank fraud is pretty notable to me. Major news outlets such as Dateline NBC and Fox have covered this guy's activities. There are at least half a dozen web sites on scams with multiple pages of information specifically about this one person. Apparently one has to put oneself in front of crappy boy bands to satisfy your need for notoriety. So, if you remove media mention and crime as sources of Notoriety, then I insist you mark for deletion John Gotti, Lou Pearlman, and Al Capone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.223.243.6 (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Did I say that I thought Pearlman was notable? I'd never heard of him until I saw a suspicious modification of the El-Difrawi article crop up in a recent changes list and decided to have a look at it. John Gotti means nothing to me. Al Capone I've heard of. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 01:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment So you're definition of Notoriety is people you've heard of? So you will be going through Wikipedia and nominating for deletion anyone you haven't heard of? Sounds like a great policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.223.243.6 (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC) DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 04:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Notoriety? I'm not discussing notoriety, I'm discussing notability. See comments above, El-Difrawi may be notable, but I see no evidence of such notability in sources that meet the standards that WP sets itself. Personally I don't believe he is notable. And no, my test of notability isn't based on whether I have heard of someone or not. There are many people I have heard of who are not notable, and there are many people I have not heard of who are notable. For example, I have no idea who currently holds the world speed record for pedal cycling, but I find it a notable achievement. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 03:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep though per BLP the minor unrelated crimes should be removed as irrelevant to the actual notability. DGG (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: As above, what do you believe makes the subject notable? DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 05:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete No notablity asserted. As others said, WP is an encyclopedia, not a list of criminals. Steve Dufour 12:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: So I expect to see you and others suggesting the deletion of entries for john Gotti, Al Capone, and Jeffrey Dahlmer since they are just criminals and don't belong in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.223.243.6 (talk) 15:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment' Criminality is not Notability. Those criminals that are mentioned in WP are not mentioned simply because they are criminals, but because of the nature, scope and scale of their activities. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 03:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Please point me to the exact section of WP:BIO that states that the inclusion of criminals is dependent on the nature, scope, and scale of crime because I can't find it. What I can find is that Wikipedia finds notability in participation "in a significant event or controversy reported by credible news media". If this is the measure of notability I believe it's been met. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.223.243.6 (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete The subject of this article does not coincide with Wikipedia's guidelines for notable content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirandadanielle (talk • contribs) 19:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - NN. The article is 99% original research, using primary sources such as court cases dockets, and listing websites abiut which there is no certainty of its origin or author(s). It should be speedied. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment I believe that several editors are trying to establish links to many sources which have been deleted by a certain employee of Mr. Defrawy. Nobody here has said what makes someone notable. How about a person who started one of the largest modeling companies in the world, is apparently running for congress, and is a principal in dozens of other companies. Crimes and BS aside, this guy is everywhere and into everything. Whether or not you believe the article has been biased or the result of edit wars has no bearing on notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.223.243.6 (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC) DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 04:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Nobody here has said what makes someone notable. - see WP:BIO --Sc straker 04:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete for non-notability. Although I commented on this page earlier, I was hesitant to weigh in on deletion since I am employed by the subject of the article and didn't want my opinion to be perceived as biased. However, DMcMPO11AAUK left a message on my talk page encouraging me to vote, so here's my two cents' worth. DylanKate 13:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep I think El-Difrawi's eeeehrm "Internet marketing" methods are highly interesting, and big-scale enough to be notable. Still growing and getting more sophisticated, too. I partly agree with DDG about the "minor" (what's minor about child abuse?) criminal cases. They should be there imho but could do with a less prominent description, I'll give that a shot. --SooperJoo 16:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Fails WP:BIO for notability. --Sc straker 04:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Gee let's actually take a look at the WP:BIO criteria for notability instead of just declaring that it doesn't meet the standard.

Under General I see: "Has been the participant in a significant event or controversy reported by credible news media." Hmmmm - I can't see how anybody could argue against that. Particularly with the work that has been done here recently, credible news media sources have been cited to document his connection to a significant controversy. I believe notability has been achieved and thus the inclusion of primary sources is acceptable according to Wikipedia policy.

Here we go: "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines"

Comment there's nothing substantial to date about the coverage of El-Difrawi, nor does the controversy appear significant. "Significant" news stories get repeated international coverage, not sporadic local comment. Most of the news stories about El-Difrawi seem to be wire service copy that's been used as filler by various media on slow news days. For example, el-difrawi seems to be so notable in such a significant story that outside of US newsprint, radio and local news, as far as I can tell, he's never been featured. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 18:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. You've clearly made up your mind. So now, you've listed your definition of "significant" news coverage. Again, I disagree and Wikipedia policy is ambiguous. El-Difrawy was featured on dateline NBC, but unfortunatley there's no real way to link to the story since you'd have to pay for a transcript and third party sites aren't good sources. I believe the shear volume of news coverage, along with the fact that his phishing scams are getting national press are significant. I believe the fact that the modeling scam took in 150,000 people makes the controversy significant. He was convicted of stealing millions through bank and wire fraud (made national news). Now that his business is implicated in one of the largest money-laundering and ponzi schemes in history - he's even more significant. He founded Transcontinental Talent - and that is all over international news (even if his name has yet to be mentioned since big Lou is getting all the attention). Again this article is developing while people work to track down news. Unfortunatley some of it is so old it's no longer available from it's original source, and linking to something like a Newsweek article on someone elses site is (I believe) unacceptable. Just look at the sheer volume of valid material that's been added in such a short period of time. Even if what's here isn't enough, deletion would be premature as this article shows significant progress.

Again I think he's very notable, and you don't. Clearly every time I come up with something to satisfy the criteria you list here, you'll find some other criteria that you don't think it satisfies. I sincerely believe that WP:BIO criteria for notability has already been met. Unless you can show me a good counter definition by Wikipedia for significance, then I am not likely to agree with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.223.243.6 (talk) 20:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Bias aside I think the lack of notability argument is dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.223.243.6 (talk) 16:57, 1 October 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 by User:Lectonar. Shalom ^Hello 13:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wapan

Neologism. Nothing more, nothing less. Doesn't even seem to be a noteable one at that.Arendedwinter 12:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete the best I could find is an entry at urban dictionary, no reason to include it here Yngvarr (t) (c) 12:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete (A3: no context). Article already tagged for speedy deletion. Powers ^T 12:50, 24 September 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 23:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 5ive Po1nts

Contested prod (and prod2). Original prod concern: "Non-notable fashion brand started by a high-schooler, with no evidence of existing outside some drawings. No Google hits. Elements of auto-biography slip in when article refers to subject as "i". When there is some evidence that the clothes exist, are sold in specialty stores and that "many celebrities" wear them, no problem with re-creation." Kateshort forbob 11:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Jordan C. Johnson should also be added to this AfD ChrisTheDude 11:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete No sources available, 5 total hits on Google, none appear relevant to the issue. Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete It's a newly established fashion brand that hasn't made it big that it received mention by reliable sources and such. Literally something made up in school one day in 2007. Should have waited until it really hits a major breakthrough or somewhat before it starts the article again. Considering this article and the article on Jordan Johnson are created by the same user User:Billionare09, there may be a conflict of interest with respect to the articles.--Alasdair 11:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- And one more thing: The article on Jordan C. Johnson isn't exactly verifiable either. It's going a bit too far in predicting his graduation date (in 2009), saying as if it had happened.--Alasdair 11:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Q ^{T C} 12:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No sources, no evidence of notability, obvious vanity entry. I've proposed deletion of Jordan C. Johnson. Powers ^T 12:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- The prod was contested; I've nominated it for deletion. Powers ^T 18:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete. WP:NFT, WP:OR, WP:V, need I go on? CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Suspected hoax. If it's famous for celebrity usage, you'd think it would have some kind of google presence. --Moonriddengirl 13:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Google results: 1 - 4 of 4 for 5ive Po1nts. One of those is to Wikipedia regarding this AfD, one is for a German Christian band, and two are from forums, not WP:RS. No verifiable results for "Jordan C. Johnson". Claim "The line is sold in upscale specialty stores." is not verifiable, and if it were true, certainly there would be Google results to back that up. Additionally, the Jordan C. Johnson article is basically "telling the future" (WP:NOT#CRYSTAL applies to both of these articles). ^Ariel♥Gold 15:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per all above. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 21:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment The AFD notice was removed from the article yesterday; I reverted this morning. I don't know if this affects the discussion. --Kateshortforbob 08:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't. But I did see that the IP address who removed it has also previously contributed to the article, so watch the article page in case it happens again. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 10:38, 25 September 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. --Core desat 01:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pedbase

Website by individual doctor with information on childhood disease. Not authorititave, fails WP:WEB. Suggest delete. JFW | T@lk 11:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. WP:NN, fails WP:WEB, and provides no WP:RS. It's basically website spam. --Evb-wiki 12:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The subject website isn't even the top Google result for "Pedbase"; it's number 5. "Pedbase" is apparently common abbreviation for any "Pediatrics Database", not just this website. No sources establishing notability. Powers ^T 12:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete per CSD A7 - website with No assertion of importance/significance Darksun 14:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:WEB. Google news results: 0. Google news archive results: 2 [35] And one of those does not appear to be the site in question. There are millions of online databases out there, but certainly not every one is notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. ^Ariel♥Gold 16:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 23:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete CSD A7 -- Kl4m ^{T C} 19:22, 27 September 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 and rename to List of Master's degrees in North America. Sandstein 23:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Master's degree in North America

Subjective list on a subject that is too broad to ever be completely or satisfactorily covered. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 10:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep I don't see anything subjective about the list. The descriptions of some of the entries might be subjective, but that can be fixed by editing. I also disagree that the subject is too broad; there must be a finite (and relatively manageable) number of Master's degrees in North America. --Itub 12:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No, there aren't. That's the problem. A university can award a Master's degree on any subject it likes. Coming up with a finite list of a infinite topic is fruitless. Plus different universities criteria for a Master's program differ. It already includes notable omissions, such as Master's degrees in Computer Science, to name one. An article with such a title could discuss Master's degrees in North America in general (such as general requirements), but nothing specific since they differ from college to college. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Not sure whether this should be kept or not. If it is kept, it's at the wrong name; compare Master's degree in Europe, which actually includes significant discussion of the topic. This article is actually a list and should be named appropriately (i.e., List of Master's degrees in North America). Furthermore, much of the "content" in this article is trivial in nature: "Master of Music is a one year full time or two to four year applied degree in the field of music," is nothing more than a dicdef and doesn't say anything encyclopedic about it. Many of the entries are almost identical; just replace the two instances of "music" with any other subject area. Still, I'm not prepared to say this article definitely needs to go. Powers ^T 13:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep and let it develop. Let's see if this can go somewhere. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete - I havent got any objection to each entry on that page having its own Article and being in Category:Master's degrees(Then at least a "GO/Search" will find it), but, to have 1 Article simply regurgitating what every Article in that category already says, on their own Article page, is pointless. All links to this Article should be redirected to Category:Master's degrees. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 19:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Rename as List of Master's degrees in North America and be tagged a list, but the explanations need to be change as many schools have different standards; another option is to expand on the article as a whole by discussing the history of Master's degree and accreditation and fixing the entries again as stated. As the article is now, it is a poorly written list.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 19:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Rename into a list per Powers and Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep as a list. I note that it seem no longer strictly limited to north america. DGG (talk) 03:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Rename to a list. To be frank, if the list was nominated for deletion I'm not entirely sure how I'd feel about it. There are lists of degrees at several places on WP, often within better articles. The Europeans M.S. degrees page seems worthwhile. JJL 14:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Rename as list per Powers, Tanner & Lentice DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 02:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep There is a lot of good information that should be kept, even if the page needs to be restructured or changed to be good. Wikipedia is continuously a work in progress, deleting a something because it has a long way to go doesn't make sense, and is a bad attitude. If people had that attitude at Wikipedia's inception, it would never have become what it is today. Phasmatisnox 17:35, 2 October 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 by User:Lectonar. Shalom ^Hello 13:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rashmi uday singh

Reads like a giant promotional advert. Wasn't sure if it would pass for a speedy. Arendedwinter 10:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete as copyvio per CorenSearchBot's discovery. DWaterson 10:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete as blatant copyright violation. Tagged. Powers ^T 13:07, 24 September 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 although I have redirected it to the album's article as it makes more sense if the song doesn't merit its own article but if the album is notable or deserves it own article. I see that the album has a section about some of singles which some minor details and if any info from Trapped Under Ice is worth mentionning in the single's section of the album feel free to do so.--JForget 23:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trapped Under Ice

Previously prod'ed, this song doesn't have any sources out there demonstrating its independent notability - aside from being a Metallica song from "Ride The Lightning." BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete, no sources and no claim to notability beyond appearing on a notable album. Powers ^T 13:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Make that a Delete all; including all of the songs from this album in one AfD would've been helpful. =) Powers ^T 13:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  - I considered doing that, but opted against, since there may well be one or two which can be established as notable, in which case the batch-AfD would have got very confusing and probably been closed early. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep all of the Metallica songs listed on this page. The songs are not individually notable, but they are part of the canon of a famous band, and deleting these articles would essentially remove information not stored elsewhere on the site. Shalom ^Hello 13:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Removing information not stored elsewhere is fine if that information is not sourced. Powers ^T 13:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Being part of the canon of a famous band doesn't make them notable enough for their own articles. See WP:NOTINHERITED. I don't see any of their award-winning tracks nominated so they probably could all go. MorganaFiolett 14:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable song. Information about it may be incorporated into the album article, but redirect is unnecessary since the song itself is unlikely to be the subject of a search. Note, I removed the external link to the lyrics, which was placed in violation of WP:EL. --Moonriddengirl 13:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
delete Songs which lack independant sources about THEM should be redirected to the relevent albums, per wikipedia guidelines. With only a few exceptions, non-single tracks from albums usually lack the references around which to build an article, and this seems to clearly fit that mold. If enough independant source material can be provided, this may be keepable as an article. But not as it looks now. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per all above, I see no reason that this song has any independent notability. J Milburn 18:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to the album article. Corvus cornix 20:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge and Redirect to the album article. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 02:25, 1 October 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. Consensus seems to be that each song is notable, but only in the context of the album. One keep did not give a reason for notability on it's own and resorted to a personal attack, so I couldn't take this into consideration. The other keep was only week, and seems to confirm that the notability of the song on it's own is in question. Tribute songs also don't really strengthen the need for the song to have it's own article, though it means that the song should probably be noted in the album article. Ta bu shi da yu 13:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Four Horsemen (song)

Previously prod'ed, this song doesn't have any sources out there demonstrating its independent notability - aside from being a Metallica song from "Kill 'Em All." BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Probably not individually notable. Also note that there's a song by the same name on the Aphrodite's Child album 666. JFW | T@lk 11:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless sources are provided showing its notability. J Milburn 16:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Are you kidding me?--E tac 16:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Why would I be doing that? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  - Because apparently you are having delusions of grandeur and believe you have become some sort of wikigod.--E tac 17:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    - Not so, and you might want to be slightly more collegial in your comments in future. What I'm doing is going through a number of articles on heavy metal albums and establishing which songs don't appear to meet any notability standards. I then list them for deletion. Now, if there's independent notability for this or any other album track on "Kill 'Em All", I'm more than happy to be proven wrong. Simply calling me names isn't going to help in any respect. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
      - Probably not, but it is mildly entertaining.--E tac 07:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
        
        Incidentally, is there a rationale for your wanting this article to be kept? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
delete Songs which lack independant sources about THEM should be redirected to the relevent albums, per wikipedia guidelines. With only a few exceptions, non-single tracks from albums usually lack the references around which to build an article, and this seems to clearly fit that mold. If enough independant source material can be provided, this may be keepable as an article. But not as it looks now. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to album Songs of notable artists which, by themselves, lack reliable sources don't necessarily have to be deleted. They can be redirected to the proper music album for reference, since people might search for them in Wikipedia or in other search engines. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 21:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep - Notability of songs are still under development. However it appears that it meets ...has been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups since it was covered by Gregorian --Lenticel ^(talk) 23:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Counting the original performance as well, that makes two bands, which may not equate to "several". BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  - a tribute album to Metallica has the song. Moksha and Slayer performed the song as well. Note that I'm not a fan of Metallica, I just like some of their songs. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Slayer did not perform the song. LuciferMorgan 15:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry abut that but 3 bands + album still counts as several right?--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

L::Dude what about machanix —Preceding unsigned comment added by E tac (talk • contribs) 05:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge and Redirect to album article. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 02:27, 1 October 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. "Don't even think of deletion of Phantom Lord" is not really a valid reason for keeping the article. As with the other songs, an article about this song is not required. However, a description of the song would be appropriate in the album article. Therefore, merge and redirect. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phantom Lord

Previously prod'ed, this song doesn't have any sources out there demonstrating its independent notability - aside from being a Metallica song from "Kill 'Em All." BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete unless sources are provided showing its notability. J Milburn 16:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
delete Songs which lack independant sources about THEM should be redirected to the relevent albums, per wikipedia guidelines. With only a few exceptions, non-single tracks from albums usually lack the references around which to build an article, and this seems to clearly fit that mold. If enough independant source material can be provided, this may be keepable as an article. But not as it looks now. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to album Song is notable to album but not its own article. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 06:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to album unless notability is shown, which is a standard practice for such a case and something that can also be implemented directly (e.g. instead of a prod). --Tikiwont 15:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

DONT EVEN THINK OF DELETION OF PHANTOM LORD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.230.151.211 (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Kill 'Em All, no indications that it was a notable song, nor it hit charts or whatever.--JForget 23:26, 27 September 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. Though there are media articles that this song was blamed for a murder, it can also be argued that this can be noted in the article about the album. It is not notable for it's own article, but it is notable enough in the context of the album Kill 'em All. Therefore, decision is to merge and redirect. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No Remorse (song)

Previously prod'ed, this song doesn't have any sources out there demonstrating its independent notability - aside from being a Metallica song from "Kill 'Em All." BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleteunless sources are provided showing its notability. J Milburn 16:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Changed to weak keep; see below. J Milburn 16:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
delete Songs which lack independant sources about THEM should be redirected to the relevent albums, per wikipedia guidelines. With only a few exceptions, non-single tracks from albums usually lack the references around which to build an article, and this seems to clearly fit that mold. If enough independant source material can be provided, this may be keepable as an article. But not as it looks now. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to album Songs of notable artists which, by themselves, lack reliable sources don't necessarily have to be deleted. They can be redirected to the proper music album for reference, since people might search for them in Wikipedia or in other search engines. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 21:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to album Per Mtmelendez -- ALLSTAR ECHO 06:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep This song was actually blamed for a murder. Google the murderer's name Troy Kunkle, and this'll prove that the song has at least a limited notability. LuciferMorgan 15:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've had a look, and found this and this. Both of them mention this song a fair amount, and I suppose that does offer "No Remorse" some independent notability. J Milburn 16:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I am still not convinced this is enough information to build an encyclopedia article on the song around. These two sources support the addition of MAYBE 2-3 sentances in an article, and I don't see why such sentances could not be added to the Kill 'em All (album) article and have the same relevence... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:24, 1 October 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 Ride the Lightning, so info can be put if necessary in the album's singles section.--JForget 23:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Escape (Metallica song)

Previously prod'ed, this song doesn't have any sources out there demonstrating its independent notability - aside from being a Metallica song from "Ride the Lightning." BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete unless sources are provided showing its notability. J Milburn 16:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
delete Songs which lack independant sources about THEM should be redirected to the relevent albums, per wikipedia guidelines. With only a few exceptions, non-single tracks from albums usually lack the references around which to build an article, and this seems to clearly fit that mold. If enough independant source material can be provided, this may be keepable as an article. But not as it looks now. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to album Songs of notable artists which, by themselves, lack reliable sources don't necessarily have to be deleted. They can be redirected to the proper music album for reference, since people might search for them in Wikipedia or in other search engines. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 21:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to album Per Mtmelendez -- ALLSTAR ECHO 06:11, 25 September 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 the same-titled album Ride the Lightning. Now some of the info you believed should be merged can be done so.--JForget 23:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ride the Lightning (song)

Previously prod'ed, this song doesn't have any sources out there demonstrating its independent notability - aside from being a Metallica song from "Ride The Lightning." BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep or merge with the album article. The title song of a well-known album by a famous band is notable. I do agree that sources would be helpful. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless sources are provided showing its notability. J Milburn 16:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Note Eugene Ghanizadeh's comments on the talk page of this debate. J Milburn 16:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
delete Songs which lack independant sources about THEM should be redirected to the relevent albums, per wikipedia guidelines. With only a few exceptions, non-single tracks from albums usually lack the references around which to build an article, and this seems to clearly fit that mold. If enough independant source material can be provided, this may be keepable as an article. But not as it looks now. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to album Songs of notable artists which, by themselves, lack reliable sources don't necessarily have to be deleted. They can be redirected to the proper music album for reference, since people might search for them in Wikipedia or in other search engines. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 21:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

As the article includes no special information about the song but some ideas of its lyric, the information is better to be added to the album's page and until there is no notable fact about this song, it is waste of pages to have one page for each song of a band even if the band is a successfull one. (copied from Talk page, where it was added by User:Eugene Ghanizadeh —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigHaz (talk • contribs) 22:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to album Per Mtmelendez -- ALLSTAR ECHO 06:11, 25 September 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 Master of Puppets--JForget 23:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leper Messiah

Previously prod'ed, this song doesn't have any sources out there demonstrating its independent notability - aside from being a Metallica song from "Master of Puppets." BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete, unless sources asserting notability are provided. J Milburn 16:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
delete Songs which lack independant sources about THEM should be redirected to the relevent albums, per wikipedia guidelines. With only a few exceptions, non-single tracks from albums usually lack the references around which to build an article, and this seems to clearly fit that mold. If enough independant source material can be provided, this may be keepable as an article. But not as it looks now. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to album Songs of notable artists which, by themselves, lack reliable sources don't necessarily have to be deleted. They can be redirected to the proper music album for reference, since people might search for them in Wikipedia or in other search engines. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 21:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to album Per Mtmelendez -- ALLSTAR ECHO 06:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep The song has been played live many of times and is notable for being a big part of the Dave Mustaine and Metallica fued.--138.192.78.248 02:38, 28 September 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 Master of Puppets--JForget 23:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Thing That Should Not Be

Previously prod'ed, this song doesn't have any sources out there demonstrating its independent notability - aside from being a Metallica song from "Master of Puppets." BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete, unless sources asserting notability are provided. J Milburn 16:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
delete Songs which lack independant sources about THEM should be redirected to the relevent albums, per wikipedia guidelines. With only a few exceptions, non-single tracks from albums usually lack the references around which to build an article, and this seems to clearly fit that mold. If enough independant source material can be provided, this may be keepable as an article. But not as it looks now. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Although I've written some material for the article, now that I look into the notability guidelines for songs I can see that there's no need for this article. Should be merged with the Master of Puppets article. --Miguel1626 22:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to album Song is notable to album but not its own article. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 06:14, 25 September 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 Master of Puppets--JForget 23:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disposable Heroes (song)

Previously prod'ed, this song doesn't have any sources out there demonstrating its independent notability - aside from being a Metallica song from "Master of Puppets." BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete, unless sources asserting notability are provided. J Milburn 16:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to album Song is notable to album but not an article on its own. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 06:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delelte Unfortunately, the article is mostly original research. LuciferMorgan 17:28, 26 September 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 Trivium (band) (non-admin closure). Pablo Talk | Contributions 03:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brad_Lewter

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Brad Lewter

Notability

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to Trivium (band) - no evidence of individual notability apart from the band. DWaterson 11:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect. Nothing notable to merge, unless we find some source for the "juggling and hoolahoops" (sic) claim. Powers ^T 13:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Trivium (band) per above. ≈ Maurauth ^(Ravenor) 10:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect: Nothing notable to merge. --Sc straker 14:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect LuciferMorgan 15:34, 30 September 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 in this mess of a discussion, therefore default to keep. Whether the article should be expanded or renamed is not a matter for this AfD. Sandstein 23:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dalmatian Italians

Currently Croatia has a minority of approximately 30,000 Italians. The vast majority of these live in Istria, not in Dalmatia. The article is about a fictitious entity. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Italians were an important presence in Dalmatia till recent times, as stated in the inserted links. DIREKTOR is used to perform disturbing actions to enoforce nationalistic POV. The present action is, simply, useless--Giovanni Giove 16:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Aside from Giovanni Giove's uncivil attitude, the simple problem is there are no Italians in Dalmatia. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
This is obviously a very controversial topic, but let's look at it objectively without getting into emotional bias: It is true there are few Italians left in Dalmatia, but there is a long history of Italians in Dalmatia, and political, cultural and economic ties to Venice. Up until the 1950s there were significant resident poulations that called themselves Dalmatian Italians- granted many were ethnic Croatian. This article is about the historical group and should expand and focus beyond what is in the Dalmatia history article. I say no to deletion... but let's stay neutral! Mariokempes 17:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
This is for deletion. Italo-Dalmatians was the name used by the members of Autonomist party in Dalmatia in 19th century. It doesn't really describe some special unique ethnicity. The most of these autonomists were actually Croats. Leaving this topic IS emotional bias! Zenanarh 17:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't get your point. Who said anything about a special ethnicity? First off, I have absolutely no ties to the area and I am trying to look at this from a neutral point of view. The fact that both sides claim a form of revisionist history alone suggests this topic has merit. I personally have met many Italians that left Dalmatia in the 1950s. Many have Croatian surnames and others have immigrant roots from southern Italy. Nonetheless, they still consider Dalmatia their home but they also consider themselves Italian (dalmati as they call themselves). Dalmatian Italians may just be a forced, non-ethnic, political creation (I don't know) but they did (or do?) exist- is this not enough to write about without getting bent out of shape? I'm not saying either side is right or wrong- nor do I really care to stir a heated debate. I think there is material, however, for a valid article with a neutral point of view... showing all valid viewpoints and offering a reader like me some insight. On the off chance that you agree with me but you think this article is just the wrong place, please enlighten me. Mariokempes 23:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The article "Dalmatian Italians" is ordinary case of POV content forking, see WP:FORK.
Simply, this article should be part of the "Italians in Croatia".
This article was created by user:London321. He's not active anymore, and has made less than 100 edits, mostly on few articles (Jeronymites, Dalmatian Italians, Dubrovnik Highlands, Viduzia, Travunia, Hieronymites, Chakavian dialect, Korzulot) and in few days - 16 November 2006 and 12 February 2007, and 26 Feb 2007 and 14 March 2007.
E.g., in his version of article Jeronymites (originally a redirect), which is typical POV forking and original research, he made 30 edits in one day. Those edits were of unnecessary type; these can be made with "show preview". That was typical collecting of necessary number of edits for voting right on Wikipedia.
Later, the content of the article Jeronymites, was deleted, and original redirect was restored [36] (JzG's comment was:The content as of today appears to be either unverifiable or undue weight. Restore the original redirect.).
Interesting, the IP-user Special:Contributions/195.194.240.65 was of similar interest and bad knowledge/POV spreading on the similar topics (e.g. [37], here).
I have strong reasons to believe that user:London321 was a sockpuppet of Giovanni Giove (WP:SOCK). Later, when London321 "disappeared", Giovanni Giove emerged with stubbornly defending this POV fork/orig. research article.
Even if it's not the case of sockpuppeteering, this article should be deleted. Any work regarding this matter should be made as part of article Italians of Croatia (like in: Czechs in Croatia, Germans in Croatia). Kubura 06:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

KUBURA I ASK YOU TO APOLOGIZE, for the accusation of sockpuppetry.--Giovanni Giove 15:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Assuming this was a POV fork, wouldn't merging it into Istrian exodus be an appropriate solution, so that we can at least have the neutrality dispute there? That article indicates (though without references) that Italians lived in the Dalmatian city of Zadar until the exoduses.--Chaser - T 18:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. There's very little content here, and it's obviously a controversial subject. If we're going to have controversy, let's have it be over a significant article instead of a one-liner. Powers ^T 13:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This is obviously a stub, it well referencied and it shall be expanded.Giovanni Giove 15:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Then expand it. As the article stands right now, it's not useful. Powers ^T 17:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge into Dalmatian. Arf-aderci! User:Mandsford 00:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Expand. As Giovanni Giove wrote: "This is obviously a stub, it is well referencied and it shall be expanded"; and as Mariokempes wrote: "I say no to deletion... but let's stay neutral!"--Brunodam 02:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. As other solution, it can be modified and added to the article "Italians in Croatia". Kubura 08:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Rename and modify in Italians in Croatia, per Kubura. Mir Harven 18:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Where is this "Italians in Croatia" article? From what I can see, it doesn't yet exist. Will this issue simple be "transferred" to the new article? Will "Dalmatian Italians" redirect to there rather than be deleted? Mariokempes 19:01, 25 September2007 (UTC)

You're right, it should be created. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete or Rename to Italians in Croatia, Croats in Italy, Frenchmen in Spain, Bugs on the Moon etc... Zenanarh 23:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Italians in Dalmatia are a minority, not a bunch of tourists. Furthermore, one with an indubitable encyclopedic noteworthiness.--Victor falk 14:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No, Italians no longer constitute a national minority in Dalmatia (though there are about 30,000 of them in Istria and the area around Rijeka). The last remnants in Zadar (Zara) disappeared after WW2. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Since when are historical minorities not an encyclopedic subject?--Victor falk 14:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right, of course (my family used to be part of this same minority), but the historical aspect of this minority (and its influence) must be mentioned in the title. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, there still is Trieste and those 3000 in Istria, so historical in the Title would be misleading

How? Trieste and Istria are not part of Dalmatia. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Expand 2. Dalmatia goes geographically from Trieste (Italy) to Scutari (northern Albania) and historically from Istria to the coast of Montenegro.

Geographically it is impossible to include the Dalmatian Italians only inside the coast of Croatia, because they live even in Italian Istria, Slovenian Istria and Montenegro. The article "Italians in Croatia" is related to a nation (Croatia) that has a huge part of the Dalmatian coast, but not all.

Historically, even if we consider the contemporary historical Dalmatia (from Fiume/Rijeka to Cattaro/Kotor) we have to pinpoint that there are two countries involved here: Croatia and Montenegro. And actually still live 300 and 500 Italians in the first and in the second of these two countries.

I believe the article must be expanded, with the inclusion of an historical and geographical section if we want to make a good "neutral" and impartial wikipedian article. Allow me to repeat, as Mariokempes wrote: "I say no to deletion... but let's stay neutral!--Brunodam 22:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Brunodam your discussion has big problem. First historical Dalmatia was a part of Roman Empire province Illyricum. In that case Dalmatia was from Istria to Kotor but also deep into the inland reaching Panonia. More precisely western part of that Dalmatia was sub-province Liburnia. But that historical Dalmatia has nothing to do with any kind of Italians or in other words there were no Italians there in that age.

Byzantine province Dalmatia in the early Medieval were actually a few cities of "modern" Dalmatia, however from that age Dalmatia was concerned to be the same territory as at present, which means from Ravni Kotari (plains behind Zadar) to Dubrovnik or Pelješac peninsula. Previously mentioned Liburnia transformed into first Croatian Medieval State in 9th century. Both were the parts of Croatin Kingdom in 10th century. Once again there were no Italians there.

Some limited influx of Italians was recorded during Venetian rulling in Dalmatia, but real arrival of Italians to Dalmatia occured in the end of 18th and in 19th century but also in 20th century-these were soldiers. This Dalmatia doesn't include Istria, MonteNegro, Albania. Zenanarh 23:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Zenanarth, we Italians did not appeared suddenly in the 18th century, as you know. We Italians as a national entity were created from the union of Venetians, Lombards, Sicilians, etc..in the nineteenth century, and so when we write or talk of Venetians we mean Italians "before the Unification of the Kingdom of Italy". This unification process includes even the Italian populations that did not participate in the Kingdom of Italy, like the Dalmatian Italians. The problem is that you (and other Croats) keep repeating that the Venetians in Dalmatia were not Italians..... and this goes against the main logic of our "Unification" process of all the neolatin people in the Italian peninsula and surrounding areas (like Malta, Nice, Dalmatia, etc..). This logic (similar to the one of the Germans in their "unification" areas) make us consider the Venetians in Dalmatia (who assimilated the Neolatin original Dalmatians, descendants of the romanized Illyrians) as "Dalmatian Italians". Many historians in western Europe pinpoint the similarities between the Sudeten German people and the Dalmatian Italians, and always call in their books Germans the Sudeten German people and Italians the Dalmatians Italians. Of course, all this (Italian and Slav point of view) should be written in the article "Dalmatian Italians", as an historical section. And the article should even have the expansion related to "contemporary" Dalmatian Italians (meaning those after the creation of the Kingdom of Italy in 1861). As you probably know, between 1941 and 1943 the Kingdom of Italy had the "Provincia di Cattaro" in actual Montenegro. It would be a mistake to put those Dalmatian Italians of Cattaro/Kotor between the "Italians of Croatia". And, of course, to place Cattaro/Kotor in Croatia would be a falsification of contemporary history, don't you believe? Regards.--Brunodam 03:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Brunodam I understand what you mean. But maybe you didn't understand me. When I say Venetians I count them as Italians, don't worry. But the real problem are Dalmatians, precisely those Dalmatians who were Neo-Latin or Dalmatian language speakers (Romanized Illyrians). These Dalmatian speakers were actually assimilated by Croats or Slavs if you like it, from 9th to 14th century. Until 15th century small number of them survived as Neo-Latin speakers and they were mostly some noblemen or some cives (citizens) in Dalmatian cities, but also they were bilinguals. Words of Dalmatian language entered in Chakavian dialect of Croatian language very early. Chakavian is one of the oldest Slavic dialects in the western Balkans and is full of Neo-Latin (Dalmatian language) words. Or in other words almost all Dalmatian speakers became Chakavian speakers long before coming of the Italians (Venetians). Also Croatian noblemen who were the majority of the Dalmatian noblemen already in 13th century were using Latin format of writing their names. Very good example is the city of Zadar, where almost all names found in the documents in 13th and 14th century were Slavic names written more or less by "Neo-Latin grammatics". So it's absolutely uncorrect to say that Venetians assimilated Neo-Latin speakers, since until 16th century they had been already assimilated by Croats. Also it’s uncorrect to point that there was some continuation between Dalmatians and Venetians by means of ethnicity. There's another important fact which I've detected in some Dalmatia related articles - Italian users like to point that Dalmatia was Venetianized during the Republic ages. The truth is that administration of Dalmatian cities was Venetianized (documents for Republic usage) and noble society was Venetianized in some degree. Native noblemen who were participating in the public life of Dalmatia and were using Venetian language didn’t become Venetians just like that. In Venice they were not concerned to be Venetians, they were called Schiavoni – Slavs! In the same time Venetians didn’t significantly populate Dalmatia. Also some of Venetians who arrived to Dalmatia were Slavized. A Venetian trade unionist Giovanni Battista Giustiniani was passing through Dalmatian cities in 16th century and was sending reports to the Republic government in Venice. He noted that Dalmatians didn’t speak Italian nor Venetian and they didn’t understand it. Only a small part of Dalmatians did, people connected to political life of Dalmatia – noblemen. In addition most of them were bilinguals actually! Is it enough to call these people Italians? Certainly not. However there was a small number of these famillies that were totally Italianized. How many of them? A few families in each city? Maybe. “Italo-Dalmatian” was name used in 19th century by members of Autonomist Dalmatian party who were, once again, mostly bilinguals. If you want to write about these people you must be conscious of the fact that majority of them cannot be called Italians, since they were not. That Italo- goes for language used by them as a symbol of distinguishing from the masses, with purpose to save their positions and honors in isolated circles of minor population – members of their families. Even many of them didn’t try to recognise themselves as Italians, but more likely as Dalmatians, including Tarallo – their “spiritus movens” who noted a few times that Dalmatians were nothing like Italians. If you want to write objectively about these people I can help you a lot with finding the documents in the Dalmatian cities archives, but if you want to POVerize it, I will be your first opponent. I think you are normal person (nothing like G.G.). Cheers. Zenanarh 12:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your Croatian explanations, Zenanarth, but I believe you are confusing the Dalmatians (with their extinct Dalmatian language) with the Morlachs (neolatin population of the internal Roman Dalmatia, assimilated by the Slavs from 9th to 14th century). Please, go to [38] on the History of Dalmatia, and to [39] on the Italians in Dalmatia, from an Italian point of view.

Anyway, I believe this is not the place to discuss this topic (to discuss and decide if Dalmatia is Italian or Slav reminds me the "neverending" bizantine discussions about the sex of the Angels...), but to decide about the deletion of the article "Dalmatian Italians". And I strongly support the opinion of Giovanni Giove. Regards.--Brunodam 02:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice try Brunodam, but no, I didn't confuse the Dalmatians with the Morlachs. Morlachs were the most possibly the descendents of Illyrians too, but you must know that there were many different Illyrian tribes in the western Balkans, historian A. Stipčević noted around 70 tribes! Some of these tribes were of nomadic culture. Morlachs were isolated Romance speaking shephards and nomads in the mountains of Dalmatian inland in the early Medieval. Zenanarh 16:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Zenanarth, there are many books about the Morlachs. They were not an "isolated" group of romance speaking sheperds, but a huge community (during the Middle Ages) in the mountains of internal Dalmatia, Bosnia, Herzegovina and Montenegro. See my map on Commons (Image:Copy (2) of Bosna.jpg|thumb|300px|left|The Vlachs of Herzegovina and Montenegro during the Miggle Age (in red colour)). If you are interested for more information (even from Slav authors), please go to my Blog (brunodam.blog.kataweb.it/) on the Vlachs in the Balkans. Regards. --Brunodam 02:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You are really funny guy if you think that I've confused Morlachs from the mountains with Dalmatians in the islands, cities and its surroundings, that's all. Concerning the population of Dalmatia in the Medieval, they were culturally "isolated". And they were last Slavized when it already had happened to others (Dalmatians). For example in 10th century the population of the islands were Slavs, around 70%. In 13th and 14th century the names found in the documents in the cities were almost all of Slavic format. Venetian and Italian names recorded in the documentation up to 15th century were only merchants in transition.Zenanarh 13:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

We are totally out of the topic, Zenanarth. Let's go back to the approval or denial of the article "Dalmatian Italians", which I approve. And sincerely I wonder how - with the lack of original documents and precise data from the 10th century, a lack that every serious scholar complains - you seriously claim that "around 70%" of the population of the dalmatian islands in that century was Slav......Be careful with the manipulations done by the dictatorship propaganda during the Mussolini and Tito years: many Italian books of the fascist era were manipulated in their data and information, but even many Yugoslav books suffered the same problem during the Tito era. Unfortunately, this is going to be my last reply to you, because of work. My pleasure (to deal with a "normal" -as you wrote- Croat). Ciao. --Brunodam 14:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right we're out of topic. Let's end it. BTW there is no lack of original documents. It exist in historical archives in each of the city we're discussing of. Cheers. Zenanarh 06:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I propose. Perhaps Giovanni Giove and Brunodam can agree to rename it "Italian Culture in Dalmatia" or "Italian historic influence in Dalmatia", or something like that. Noone is denying the influence of Italian (Venetian) culture in Dalmatia. If we can reach some consesnus on this issue, I'd be happy to assist in greatly expanding the article. (I also hope they might be persuaded to start the Italians in Croatia article, about the significant Istrian national minority.) DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if I support the expansion of the article "Dalmatian Italians", I agree with you about the future creation of the articles "Italians in Croatia" and "Italian Culture in Dalmatia", in which we can share friendly cooperation (hopefully in the "spirit" of the European Union). Regards--Brunodam 02:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Expand 3. We are here to decide about the possible deletion of "Dalmatian Italians", not about an "infinite" discussion to define if Dalmatia is Croat or Italian. So, my decision is to support - with Giovanni Giove - to maintain and expand the article "Dalmatian Italians".

I support even the creation of the articles "Italians in Croatia" and "Italian culture in Dalmatia", that are related to a nation (Croatia) that has a huge part of the Dalmatian coast, but not all.

I want to remember that Dalmatia goes geographically from Trieste (Italy) to Scutari (northern Albania) and historically from Istria to the coast of Montenegro. Because of this, actually there are two countries involved with the Dalmatian Italians: Croatia and Montenegro. So, I believe the article must be expanded, with the inclusion of an historical and geographical section if we want to make a good "neutral" and impartial wikipedian article.

Finally, allow me to repeat (for the last time, because I have too much work and cannot partecipate in Wikipedia for a while) as Mariokempes wrote: "I say no to deletion... but let's stay neutral!

Regards.--Brunodam 02:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete or Rename. Brunodam, we are talking about the modern region of Dalmatia. Moden Dalmatia does not span from Trieste (although it does encompass the Bay of Kotor and the Montenegrin coastline), and it does not include Istria or Rijeka (Fiume). In Roman times Dalmatia was pretty much the size of ex-Yugoslavia, in medieval times it was just a narrow strip of coastline, now it is southern Croatia and (parts of) littoral Montenegro. Italians no longer constitute a national minority in this area. In other words, there are no more Dalmatian Italians, the Yugoslav era (and Italian participation in WW2) unfortunately erased them.

I will repeat my proposal: would you consider adding the word "historic" into the name of the article? DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, DIREKTOR, but I disagree with your there are no more Dalmatian Italians. Even if only a few hundreds, they are represented by the 'Comunita Italiane in Croazia'. Rina Villani (president of the 'Comunita Italiana di Zara') has been recently elected in the 'Zupanija' of Zara/Zadar as you can read in their magazine "Il Dalmata" here [40]. By the way, in the same first page there it is the interesting article "Rivoluzionare la nostra Storia". Of course (but you probably know about) there it is the website of the Spalato section of the Comunita Italiane here [41]. Finally, let's start soon writing on the article "Dalmatian Italians". Later, we can start the article on 'Italian Culture in Croatia' (or Dalmatia) with the addition of the word "historic" on it, if you like.Regards--Brunodam 02:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep Italians in Dalmatia are a historic (and present, in Trieste and those 30000 in Istria) ethnic group of obviouus encyclopedic noteworthiness (relative to Dalmatia#Venetian Dalmatia, Republic of Ragusa (Dubrovnik), and Ottoman conquests, republic of Ragusa, Italia irredenta, Istrian exodus, and more).--Victor falk 14:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Trieste and Istria are NOT part of Dalmatia. Look it up. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep and expand for reasons I stated above (in case my vote was not clear). Whether to call the group "historic" is in itself a subject for the article- no need to put it in the title. Mariokempes 16:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete or Rename 2. Italians simply are not present in Dalmatia as a national minority (Istria is NOT Dalmatia). Wether or not the group is historic (i.e. in existance) cannot be considered less important, since the current name is very misleading in a way that it creates the illusion of a national minority within the region (as appears to have been Giovanni Giove's intent). The historic and cultural presence of Italians in Dalmatia is a noteworthy subject, no doubt, but such an article must be named appropriately. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Direktor, I'm not concerned about GG's intent. That is not the issue, and if we can keep neutral in the article that aspect will be mitigated. The question is NOT one of "national minority" or "historic presence" either. It has become obvious to me these are ALL aspects that need to be reflected on and covered in the article. What I have learned from these comments is that "Italian Dalmatians" exist- whether in reality or in a collective memory (it really doesn't matter). This makes the topic worthy of an encyclopedic article. You yourself say "historic and cultural presence of Italians in Dalmatia is a noteworthy subject" and that even though "there are no more Dalmatian Italians", I infer you are a Dalmatian with some Italian roots. Finally, there are thousands of living Italians that consider themselves Dalmatian, even if they no longer live there. Like I said before, many have Croatian surnames but they still consider themselves to be Italian (and are full Italian citizens). Beyond a shadow of a doubt this article is a keeper! Mariokempes 17:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep and expand . Mariokempes, I agree with you. Only in Rome there it is a suburb called "Quartiere Dalmato" where many Dalmatian Italians went to live after their exodus from Zara and Dalmatia. Even today there are in this Quartiere nearly 2000 of them, born in Dalmatia before 1945 and still living. And they are closely related to the 300 Dalmatian Italians still living in coastal Croatia today. Only in Zara there are nearly one hundred! Please, see the photo of a group of them here [42], on Pag 7 of the "Il Dalmata" of March-April 2007, while they celebrate at the Italian Consulate in Spalato/Split. As you can see, Dalmatian Italians still exist. Regards --Brunodam 02:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not concerned with GG's intent either (I just mentioned it by the way), and believe me, I am thinking in a neutral way. This matter is far more important to me than anything Giove might have done. Anyway, I think there may be the problem with your reasoning. While we basically agree on the facts we do not draw the same conclusions. Please explain what you deem is wrong with this train of thought.

PRESENT: There are no more Dalmatian Italians.

HISTORY: Italian cultural and historic presence is noteworthy. So much so that today there are Itlaians who consider themselves Dalmatians. This must be viewed as a reprecussion of the historic events in an article that explains them. Not as a modern cultural and ethnic phenomenon. The modern Italians of Dalmatian ancestry are not an ethnic group (with its specific culture).

In short, this article will not be on modern Dalmatian Italians as an ethnic and cultural phenomenon, since it sadly does not exist. It will undoubtably end up an article about Italian cultural and historic presence in Dalmatia (as well as its modern-day reprecussions, such as Italians of Dalmatian ancestry), since that exists. The name of the article should reflect this, anything else would be misleading and would not be the most accurate name for the content we will include. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Direktor, I will not be pulled into taking sides based on your reasoning because I feel it is "just one side of the coin". That is the beauty of Wikipedia- all valid viewpoints can be included. By deleting the article, the "other side" is shut out. There will no doubt be neutral editors (of which I consider myself one) to make sure a balanced representation is maintained in an expanded article. On thing I must respond to however, you say " There are no more Dalmatian Italians". Not true. They may be few, but they are still there. There were many, many more less than 50 years ago. Also, you yourself admit you are "living proof" of their existence. The fact that the Italian cultural and historic presence is noteworthy and there are still today Italians who consider themselves Dalmatians is a unique modern cultural and ethnic phenomenon that merits further mention in an expanded article. Unfortunately, as long as the article remains a "one liner" (with limited, biased links) it will have little value... START EXPANDING! Mariokempes 17:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand you value your neutrality, but unconditional neutrality and total egaliatrianism are absurd. And I AM NOT biased here in any way, but am following logical reasoning. Dalmatian Italians (unfortunately) no longer exist as a specific cultural and ethnic group. These are Italians with Dalmatian ancestry that no longer differ from their current local culture (they are not recognised as a seperate ethnicity by the UN, look it up, FFS!). The only aspect of Dalmatian Italians that we can possibly include is the historic cultural impact on the region. This is what the article will inevitably be about, and it is required that we give it the name that explains its contens in the very best way. In other words, the title "Dalmatian Italians" is a much wider category than the text will cover. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, allow me to remember that in our western contemporary society 300 persons have the same rights of 300000 people: since the Dalmatian Italians EXIST, they have the right to be taken in consideration for a wikipedia article on them. The problem that you are creating around the name ethnic group has nothing to do with the approval or denial of the article "Dalmatian Italians", since they are ethnic Italians, like the Lombard Italians or the Neapolitan Italians. The UN does not recognize a specific ethnic group called "Toscan Italians" or "Romagnan Italians", so what is the problem here? Anyway, here it is my answer to your questions:

PRESENT: there are 300 Dalmatian Italians in Croatia and 500 in Montenegro. You can see a group of them (members of an Italian Choral of Zara) in the photo on pag. 7 of Il Dalmata of March-April 2007 ([43]).

HISTORY: OK. Let's start an additional article about Italian cultural and historic presence in dalmatian Croatia.

I hope this long long long discussion will end soon. Regards--Brunodam 18:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's your problem, Brunodam: The article can be about three things.

1) A historic event (cultural impact, presence, etc...), wich exists, but such an article should be named accordingly and without sugesting anything else, to make Wiki as useful as possible.

2) A national minority. (there is none)

3) An ethnic group. (there is none)

While I heartily support the European Union and its values, the existance of an entire seperate enthnicity (and culture) will require more than that reference to confirm (take a look at the Istro-Romanians, for example). You are right, the number does not matter, but cultural distinctiveness does. As things stand, Dalamtian Italians are neither a seperate ethnic group nor a national minority (there are 30,000 Italians in Croatia, but they live in Istria and Rijeka, or Fiume as you call it). Basically your 300 people are probably migrants, and are in any case not an ethnic group. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, I have too much work again, but anyway I want to write you my last message on this topic. You write that 300 Dalmatian Italians are "probably migrants", but this is a mistake. They are a community made mainly by "survivers" of the exodus after WWII. May be you did not read well the articles on Il Dalmata of March-April 2007 ([44]). Just click on the blue marzo-aprile 2007 issue to see the photo of the members of the Italian Choral of Zara. Anyway here it is a small list of living and renowned "Dalmatian Italians":

Rina Villani, president of the Comunita italiana of Zara
Adriana Grubelić
Simone Filippo Stratico
Tullio Crali
Ottavio Missoni
Renzo de'Vidovich
Giuseppe Lallich
Emilio Marin
Secondo Raggi
Franco Ziliotto
Waldese Coen
Bruno Cervenca
Franco Luxardo
Giovanni Francesco Fortunio
Francesco Rismondo
Girolamo Luxardo

According to declarations done by Rina Villani there are now more than one hundred of them only in Zara/Zadar and they call themselves Dalmatian Italians in their reunions. It is clear to everybody that they exist, so why don't allow an article with their name???? ......It starts to seem illogical to me all this refusal (unless it is centered on nationalistic issues, that should be out of Wikipedia).......Anyway, I believe it is time for an Admin to decide against or in favor (looking at the opinions of the wikipedians in this talkpage) and I totally agree with Giovanni Giove, Mariokempes, Viktor falk and some others to KEEP AND EXPAND the article 'Dalmatian Italians'.Regards.--Brunodam 01:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Brunodam, what is this? These people on the list are descendents of some Dalmatian citizens from the past. A half of these surnames are typical Croatian surnames: Grubelić, Kralj, Vidović, Lalić, Marin, Crvenica. Stratiko was a Greek family which came to Dalmatia from Crete in 17th century. They were both Slavized and Italianized. These people should be called "Italian Croats" and not "Dalmatian Italians", if using the same logic! Something is absolutely wrong with your Italian POV kind of thinking. Falsificating of Dalmatian history, people and culture this way will not work, believe me. Zenanarh 14:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I took these names from the italian wikipedia (article:Dalmazia). Anyway even we Italians can say that Marin -as an example- is a "croatization" of the italian name Marini (from marinai=sailors).......We Italians consider "Italians" even people with not typical italian names, like Cavour (a french name) and no serious scholar has ever accused us of "falsification" of French history for this (count Cavour, the clever creator of Italian unity, was a descendant of a noble French family) ......Now there it is even an article, in the italian wikipedia, named "Dalmati Italiani".Regards. --Brunodam 15:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Marin doesn't come from Marini. Chakavian Croatian format of the Hebrew name Maria is Mare. If you are (engl.) "the son of Mare" then you are (cro.) "Marin sin" - in short: Marin. Many Croatian surnames in Dalmatia were developed in the same way: Milin (the son of Mile), Mikin (the son of Mika), Dorkin, Pajkin, Pavlin, Antišin, Dragin,... These surnames are specific Croatian surnames from a few villages in the islands of the Zadar district. Zenanarh 08:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

So, we deal with "Croats who think to be Italians" (BTW your analysis about the names is no so correct as you can think). --Giovanni Giove 14:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear ignorant, in this case we are dealing with Croats who have Italian passport and live in Italy in the moment, but obviously they are conscious of their Dalmatian (Croatian) ancestry. These people are only some individuals, immigrants to Italy from these Croatian families. What do you know about Dalmatian surnames? Names? Anything?

You people still don't get it, do you? I'm a Dalmatian, DIREKTOR is a Dalmatian, Kubura is a Dalmatian. You are arguing with Dalmatians about Dalmatia! Almost all of your statements are based on wrong information. Brunodam previously wrote that there is a lack of original documents, which is a great joke, since Dalmatian cities have really rich archives of original documents, especially Zadar and Dubrovnik. The point is that Italian historiography didn't use references based on the original documents, so we have fight now over almost every Dalmatia related article in Wiki. True is that there is a lack of Italians in the original documents. Zenanarh 08:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not allowed to vote this subject. The existence of the present article can not be discussed. Italians in Dalmatia were a matter of fact for centuries, and the *opinon* of few Croatian users that claim they were "Croats who thought to be Italians" can not deny this fact. Italians in Dalmatia still exist, even if reduced to a very small community. There are sourced evidences in the article. For these reasons the article shall be mantained and expanded, regardless to the result of the present votation. The Croatian users may insert their own POV in the expanded article.--Giovanni Giove 13:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Take it easy Giovanni, I am not advocating unconditional deletion. I just think the name should be changed a little, that's all. To put it theatrically, I am living proof of the historic and cultuaral presence of Italians in Dalmatia. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The article shall be mantained with the same title, regardless the result of votation. There are an amount of Dalmatians self-declearing Italians; that shall be enough. The opinion of few Croatians user (I do not mean DIREKTOR), who talk about "Croats who think to be Italians", has no value. On the contrary I could organize a group to vote for the claim that ... Croats are "Serbs that think to be Croats". Would you like the idea?! --Giovanni Giove 14:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete or modify per arguments by Kubura & Direktor. --Dr.Gonzo 19:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy close per the nominator's (DIREKTOR) reasoning above. To quote, 'I am not advocating unconditional deletion. I just think the name should be changed a little, that's all'. AfD is not a place to resolve disputes. Nuttah68 20:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep & Expand 2: A "speedy close" would be nice; however, Italian Dalmatians do definitely exist so a name change to suggest an historic only role would be misleading. This is NOT "about a fictitious entity"... as was originally posted by the nominator. There are still self-described Italians living in Dalmatia today... and many thousands more which consider themselves "displaced" Dalmatian Italians living in Italy and abroad (see [45] for a simple example). Contrary to what Direktor, GG and others may suggest- I don't see this article as one about a unique "ethnic" group. There is obviously much more to it and let me reiterate... "Italian Dalmatians" exist- whether in reality or in a collective memory (and again, it really doesn't matter- hopefully an expanded article will elaborate on this aspect). Mariokempes 23:43, 1 October 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, as the references provided in the comment by Fram are sufficient to establish the notability of this company per Wikipedia's general notability guideline. John254 01:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mad Catz

The "article" sounds like an "About Mad Catz" section that can be read on the website. It doesn't list any products, nor does it talk about the company's problems and issues. It really just sounds like a copy-paste description of the company.

(It actually is plagiarism. Check out this web site which contains the article's text. --Superkirbyartist 00:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep - Definatly notable company, I have rewritten the article with sources, still could use some work - Fosnez 11:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Just needs a re-write, but it is notable. --Endless Dan 13:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, pending demonstration of notability. All the article has right now is a patent application and three slightly different, very brief, news releases on the sale of Joytech. That's not enough in my book; per Wikipedia:Reliable sources, we need articles about the company, not about a transaction involving the company. If they truly are notable, it shouldn't be hard to find information about them. (Also note that the article includes no vital information on the company itself; where are they headquartered? Who owns them? What is notable about their products?) Powers ^T 13:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Weak delete until notability is established. Also, someone should look into the possible COPYVIO mentioned above. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Needs a lot of work and more sourcing, but they've been one of the major producers of third-party game console accessories, especially controllers, since the 16-bit era. Pinball22 16:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep. This article needs work... furthermore, people need to know about this company. Why? <remove what could be considered slander - Corvus cornix 20:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)>, so that info has to be added here, with sources, of course. (Sorry for the edit, I forgot to sign this.) Kitsune Sniper / David Silva 20:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- WP:USEFUL is not a proper keep criterion. Corvus cornix 20:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

*Keep, obviously, as one of the main companies in its genre. Their products get reviews in Forbes[46], get a fairly long mention in CNN's 2001 E3 review[47], their deal with Disney is reported on in the San Diego Tribune[48], their new controller was reviewed in the New York Times[49] and the New Scientist[50], quarter results are given in the Wall Street Journal (apprently unavailable online, this one), and finally (as not to exhaast you), when Business Wekk wants info on controllers, they logically turn to the major companies, including Mad Catz[51]. These all come from the first 70 of more than 1,000 Google news hits for the company, so I think it is quite notable and reliable sources (in the mainstream press, I haven't even started on specialized magazines) were fairly easy to find.[52]. Fram 14:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

- Great, add all that to the article. =) Powers ^T 15:04, 26 September 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 Master of Puppets--JForget 23:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Damage, Inc.

Previously prod'ed, this song doesn't have any sources out there demonstrating its independent notability - aside from being a Metallica song from "Master of Puppets." BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge to album article. Contains some useful information, but in the context of the entire album; thus that content belongs on the album's article. Needs references, though; the YouTube clip is a primary source and therefore not sufficient. Powers ^T 13:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, unless sources asserting notability are provided. J Milburn 16:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
delete Songs which lack independant sources about THEM should be redirected to the relevent albums, per wikipedia guidelines. With only a few exceptions, non-single tracks from albums usually lack the references around which to build an article, and this seems to clearly fit that mold. If enough independant source material can be provided, this may be keepable as an article. But not as it looks now. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to album Songs of notable artists which, by themselves, lack reliable sources don't necessarily have to be deleted. They can be redirected to the proper music album for reference, since people might search for them in Wikipedia or in other search engines. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 21:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- In response to your edit summary comment that the songs should've been mass-nominated: I considered doing that, but decided against this time round. There may well be a song or two in the batch which turns out to be notable, in which case a mass-AfD would've become a trainwreck and probably closed prematurely. If I do another album in this manner, I'll certainly consider a mass-AfD. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to album Per Mtmelendez -- ALLSTAR ECHO 06:16, 25 September 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. CitiCat ^♫ 04:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Konzackism

Contested prod. This is a neologism apparantly invented by a games researcher Lars Konzack (who himself is not outstandingly notable), and apparantly not used by anyone except him. Only sources are a book written by him, and his personal blog. Deleted as violation of WP:NEO, WP:NFT, WP:OR Darksun 09:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete for all those reasons above. A vanity neologism created by Konzack, who also happens to be the creator of the nominated article. A total of four hits (not unique, total) on google, two of which are back to Wiki, and two of which are to his personal blog... Yngvarr (t) (c) 10:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - neologism, and copyvio as it appears to be spammed from Konzack's blog. DWaterson 11:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, word not in widespread use, as evidenced by its lack of use on Konzack's own article. Powers ^T 13:22, 24 September 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. Daniel 01:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flying Blue

It appears to me that this article is in violation of WP:NOT#INFO, in addition to WP:V, as I can't find reliable, third party sources which give this FFP notability in an encyclopaedic context. It should be noted that the tendency is for airline articles to mention these FFP in the main article, rather than a stand alone 'travel guidish' article on programs which aren't notable on their own. Russavia 09:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete as spam, it is just an advertisement. If any relevant info actually exists, it might be added to the airline articles in question. Yngvarr (t) (c) 10:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep per commnents at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EuroBonus (Google News). —Preceding unsigned comment added by AA (talk • contribs) 10:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 10:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep, I'd think that frequent flyer schemes are slightly notable, and there's no difficulty in finding third-party sources via google. DWaterson 11:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment One might be able to find tens of thousands of hits from google, but how many of them provide are non-trivial, third-party sources which provide notability in the context of WP:FIVE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russavia (talk • contribs) 16:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The Google News link above points to articles from Financial Times & International Herald Tribune. Unfortunately, it's in the archives which requires a subscription. → AA ^(talk) — 16:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment As per below, the Financial Times and IHT also have travel sections and it needs to be demonstrated that the coverage which is given is not trivial - mere hits on google and/or google news do not demonstrate notability. --Russavia 03:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand about ghits and I'm not counting them but the relevant links point to subscription-based content and therefore, it is not demonstrable whether it is trivial or in-depth coverage (although the summary would indicate more than just trivial). → AA ^(talk) — 09:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- → AA ^(talk) — 11:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Frequently flyer program for two major international carriers. Just a 1 second G-search and I found an International Herald Tribune article which writes more than trivial coverage on this topic. [53]. The Financial Times also appears to have several articles about this topic, but hpyerlinks are for registered members only. --Oakshade 01:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)--Oakshade 01:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment, the article you have quoted is a Dear Abby type travel Q&A column and is trivial coverage as the main subject of that article is not the FFP in question, and it is not in-depth coverage. --Russavia 03:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Response - WP:CORP states very clearly its definition of "trivial coverage" ; "... such as (for examples) newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories.". The coverage in the International Tribune is none of the above.--Oakshade 03:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Counter-response The operative words in that definition are for examples, it is by no means an exhaustive definition. Additionally WP:CORP#Products_and_services states, Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy.; neither article is too large which require this wikivert. Also, if that article establishes notability for Flying Blue, does it also establish notability if one were to start up an article Routes from New York to Andorra? That's a serious question by the way --Russavia 05:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

What in the International Herald Tribune article is remotely anything like meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories? You're taking the "for examples" to completely invent your own guideline. And per WP:CORP#Products_and_services, there's too much topic specific content in the aritcle to be merged into the already arguably too-long Air France and KLM articles. --Oakshade 05:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Trivial in the sense that it is not in-depth coverage of the subject, but a single paragraph (i.e. a quick (incidental) mention, i.e. trivial). From WP:CORP, Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. 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. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. A single paragraph in a newspaper (of which I am not doubting WP:RS) does not establish notability of Flying Blue in an encyclopaedic context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russavia (talk • contribs) 05:36, 1 October 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 topic probably passes WP:N, per AA, but the article does not cite a single source and therefore fails WP:V. Sandstein 22:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Airpoints

It appears to me that this article is in violation of WP:NOT#INFO, in addition to WP:V, as I can't find reliable, third party sources which give this FFP notability in an encyclopaedic context. It should be noted that the tendency is for airline articles to mention these FFP in the main article, rather than a stand alone 'travel guidish' article on programs which aren't notable on their own. Russavia 09:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete as spam. Yngvarr (t) (c) 10:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep per comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EuroBonus (Google News).. → AA ^(talk) — 10:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- → AA ^(talk) — 11:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete as spammy PR exercise. --Gavin Collins 13:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 13:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. There is no attempt to establish notability. Google hits are not notability. Vegaswikian 23:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

How about non-trivial coverage [54] & [55]? These are on the first page of the google link I posted above. → AA ^(talk) — 09:34, 2 October 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 per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Budi Mulyawan Suyitno

He is only a director general in the Indonesian Transport Ministry. It fails WP:BIO to have its own Wikipedia article here. — Indon (reply) — 09:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete No assertion of why the subject is important. No sources independent of his job.--Sethacus 15:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment article was created by me on a subject I felt might be notable. I'm of the opinion that the Director General of Aviation is certainly quite likely a notable position to hold, it's certainly an important job, especialy in a place like Indonesia, that's currently trying hard to reshape it's transportation infrastructure. I'll leave it to others to hash out whether he actually is notable, though - borderline notability politicians aren't really my subject matter. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- I know you created the article on a really good faith. However my knowledge about Indonesia tells me that the subject is just an ordinary state employee. Director General is not a political position, but ministry is. — Indon (reply) — 17:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  - Got ya. This is why it helps to have someone on hand who knows about the country in question. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Fails WP:BIO notability for politicians. --Sc straker 14:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Civil servant, an important one, but NN. Tiptopper 13:28, 30 September 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. Consensus seems to be that each song is notable, but only in the context of the album. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hit the Lights

Contested prod, based on the fact that this song was (apparently, although no citations are provided for this claim) the first ever Metallica song. I'm bringing the discussion here, since there seems to be a lack of sources establishing notability at present. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep - It is the first Metallica song[56], which I believe is enough to justify keeping it. --Bongwarrior 09:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Being the first song probably bears mentioning in the article about the band. However, it does NOT yet appear that people outside of wikipedia have written enough material about this song for us to use to build an encyclopedia article around. Thus, it should be deleted. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, unless sources showing notability are found. J Milburn 18:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to album Songs of notable artists which, by themselves, lack reliable sources don't necessarily have to be deleted. They can be redirected to the proper music album for reference, since people might search for them in Wikipedia or in other search engines. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 21:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment This should not be redirected to the album, as there is a Hit the Lights (band) as well. (I have no opinion about the mass deletion of Metallica songs, which I think is silly and could easily be sourced, but am not at liberty to do the sourcing right now, which means they'll probably all be gone by the time I can do it.) Chubbles 22:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
~~Rename and Redirect to album~~ Disambiguation page to all instances with Metallica's Hit the Lights redirect to album -- ALLSTAR ECHO 06:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Move to Hit the Lights (song), convert then the article into a redirect to the album and Hit the Lights into a dab page, disambiguating links there. This way we keep all stuff and the links and if someone sees a case the song can be fleshed out into an article once more. Example: Metal Militia. We shouldn't go through the deletion loop in such a case, but only after we can't agree whether redirect or article. --Tikiwont 15:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Disambiguate and point to the album on which the song can be found. Unfortunately there isn't a notability guideline for songs so it seems that every song that was ever released on a notable album will eventually have its own article. Even if that article just states the length and what album it was released on. Though I'd like to stem the tide wherever possible. Dismas|^(talk) 17:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, there IS a notability guide for songs. Its called WP:N. It says that any subject (and songs are not exempt) is only notable if there are multiple, non-trivial references in reliable sources. All individual notability guides center around this point anyways, and any hypothetical "song" guide would have this as its first principle. This article does NOT qualify, and thus should be redirected back to the album. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Rename and Redirect to album Tiptopper 10:24, 1 October 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. Although I feel a disambiguation is useless as it's already fully covered in Orion, feel free to make one if you disagree. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 01:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orion (song)

Contested prod, with the rationale for the contest being that this song (an instrumental by Metallica) is "generally considered Cliff Burton's signature composition". Given that there are no sources providing evidence for this or anything much else, I'm bringing it here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete, unless sources asserting notability are provided. J Milburn 16:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
delete Songs which lack independant sources about THEM should be redirected to the relevent albums, per wikipedia guidelines. With only a few exceptions, non-single tracks from albums usually lack the references around which to build an article, and this seems to clearly fit that mold. If enough independant source material can be provided, this may be keepable as an article. But not as it looks now. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to album Songs of notable artists which, by themselves, lack reliable sources don't necessarily have to be deleted. They can be redirected to the proper music album for reference, since people might search for them in Wikipedia or in other search engines. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 21:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment redirection may be problematic - this is not the only song of that title by a notable band (Jethro Tull, for instance, have a song called "Orion", on the album Stormwatch). Grutness...wha? 01:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  - Hmm. Then perhaps a disambiguation page to both albums. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 01:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- I was about to suggest the same thing but got an edit conflict :) There may be others of this title as well. Grutness...wha? 01:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Disambiguation page to all instances with Metallica's Orion redirect to album -- ALLSTAR ECHO 06:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep The song was played at Clfiff Burtons funeral and is a well known rock instrumental that has been playe live and on the local rock radio station here and is worhty of it's own page. Why is this even up for deletion? The article clearly aserts notability it just needs proper sources and should have been tag as unsourced, not put up for deletion.--138.192.78.248 02:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep It's one of the most well-known songs on the album, and with it's unusual basswork and significance to Cliff Burton's death I think there's enough reason to keep it, if someone will source it. --Benjamin Sheffield

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Though there is an argument that other Metallica songs exist on their own, this does not actually make this particular song notable enough for it's own article. Perhaps an example might be helpful here. John Keats, a principle poet of the Romantic movement, wrote many amazing poems, however not all deserve their own article. The article La belle dame sans merci is worthwhile having an article for, but it would probably not be reasonable to have an article on his poem "To a Cat", though it might be worthwhile mentioning it in the article John Keats. A similar principle exists in this case - the song is not notable enough for it's own article, but in a wider body of work (the album Kill 'em All) it is quite appropriate to provide information about it. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seek & Destroy

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Seek & Destroy

I prod'ed this on the grounds that there are no sources establishing its notability (aside from the fact that it was performed by Metallica, who are of course themselves notable). The prod was removed with the rationale that "this is one of Metallica's oldest and most frequently performed songs". Given that there are no sources indicating this - or anything else - I'm listing it at AfD. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete, unless sources asserting notability are provided. J Milburn 16:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
delete Songs which lack independant sources about THEM should be redirected to the relevent albums, per wikipedia guidelines. With only a few exceptions, non-single tracks from albums usually lack the references around which to build an article, and this seems to clearly fit that mold. If enough independant source material can be provided, this may be keepable as an article. But not as it looks now. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep - I'm not even a Metallica fan, I just found this page through Recent Changes. Since all of Metallica's songs have their own articles, this one should be no exception. Other artists who have articles for nearly all of their songs include Nirvana, Led Zeppelin, and The Beatles. I'd say that since Metallica has sold enough albums to be in this range, this article should be kept, or, if decided against, a redirect to Kill 'Em All. There is no reason to completely delete this page. -- Floaterfluss ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Reply: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid arguement. Merely because other substandard articles, which of their own right should also be deleted, exist on wikipedia does NOT mean that external, reliable sources magically appear. Without enough reliable sources, we cannot build a proper encyclopedia article in line with wikipedia policies and guidelines. As such, this article should be deleted. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep or merge and redirect without deleting as this song is relatively well-known and is from a major rock band. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment: If these songs are important and well known, how come no one has written about them in reliable sources? J Milburn 18:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to album Songs of notable artists which, by themselves, lack reliable sources don't necessarily have to be deleted. They can be redirected to the proper music album for reference, since people might search for them in Wikipedia or in other search engines. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 21:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
delete or merge/redirect per noms above, this doesn't need its own page.JJJ999 02:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to album per Mtmelendez -- ALLSTAR ECHO 06:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Other stuff exists is a valid argument because it establishes precedence. And this is an acclaimed and popular song ^[1] by one of the most popular bands of our time.

^ Martin Popoff. The Top 500 Heavy Metal Songs of All Time. Ecw Press.

Loom91 06:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

- All that other stuff existing establishes is that other stuff exists. It could just as easily show that nobody's AfD'd the other stuff yet. It could also just as easily show that all the other stuff that exists is of a substantially higher standard than the stuff which is being discussed. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge with album These song stubs should be merged in with the article about the album. if they get big enough then they should become their own article again. Vandalism destroyer 05:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep They play this song all the time on the local station 93X KXXR here and I am sure they do on many other rock radio stations. Metallica probablly plays this live on pretty much all of their shows and by all acounts this song is a heavy metal classic.--138.192.78.248 02:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- The problem with "probably" and "by all accounts" is that they need to be backed up by sources. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  - In addition, note that the "AMG Top Track Pick" is only in relation to this album. There's no assertion that it's significant in relation to the rest of the band's songs. Just that this one has a tick next to it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:15, 28 September 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 per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Starmetal (Exalted)

Fictional meteoric metal in a ~~video~~ roleplaying game, used to make fictional weapons. Non-notable, in-universe, basically uninteresting even within universe. Thx to Gavin Collins for discovering this area. SolidPlaid 08:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 12:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Transwiki if anyone's interested. If not, NN and no WP:RS - delete or merge back to article on game. MrZaius^talk 10:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete as article lacks any secondary sources to demonstrated notability. --Gavin Collins 08:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete nearly per nom; Exalted's not a video game. Percy Snoodle 16:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment is there a reason why Orichalcum (Exalted), Soulsteel, Moonsilver (Exalted) and Jade (Exalted) aren't sharing this nomination? Percy Snoodle 16:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  - This is a test case. I prodded Orichalcum (Exalted) to see if anyone cares. It would be easer to prod a lot of the Exalted dreck, reserve the AfD process for controversial prods. But I needed to see if there was a cadre of Exalted editors who would remove prods or participate in the Afd process. SolidPlaid 18:12, 27 September 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--JForget 23:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bang Bang (Dublin)

Lacks notability, possible hoax? THobern 08:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Seems to be real[57] [58]. I dunno if he's notable, suspect he would be if the internet had existed back then. SolidPlaid 09:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep, the article is well-written, it seems everyone in Dublin knew who this guy were, and he is mentioned in sources. Keep Wikipedia weird. 96T 13:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Bang Bang was real and not a hoax, but alas he is not well known now that he is dead over 30 years. You will need to be over 40 or 45 to remember him, so many internet savvy editors will not know him. Cheers ww2censor 13:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep - not a hoax, notable enough to be mentioned elsewhere. --sony-youth^pléigh 14:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep He seems to have been a notable and fondly remembered gentleman. --Victor falk 01:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Definitely not a hoax and should not be deleted. Referred to in many plays and stories about Dublin of the early part of the 20th century --dmrtn 12.47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep: Everyone "of a certain age" in Dublin remembers Bang Bang. As noted above, he died before the internet age hence the lack of Google results. Scolaire 13:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 10:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)--
Keep I'm not of the certain age, arriving on the planet around the end of Bang Bang's gun-totin' phase, but again, per above, Bang Bang was a well-known character that is possibly remembered more in oral history rather than print. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:15, 25 September 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 per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Methus

Fictional construct. Non-notable even within the Andromeda (TV series) universe. Fails WP:Reliable Sources, WP:Notability. Only 565 ghits. Page has been tagged for context and for references since 2006. SolidPlaid 08:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete, a complete lack of real-world information, and it's very unlikely that we will get such information, or that it would even deserve more than a tiny mention on some other article at most. -- Ned Scott 05:50, 27 September 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 per discussion below. If anybody wants to transwiki this stuff at some point, just let me know, and I can get you a copy of the deleted articles. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Primordials (Exalted)

Fancruft or Original Research? Either way, notability not proven.--Gavin Collins 08:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 08:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)--
Delete - This game seems to have many, many pages. All of them seem to be written in-universe. Somebody should take a hard look at the most peripheral of the pages. SolidPlaid 08:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom, along with most of the rest of Category:Exalted. DWaterson 22:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Transwiki if anyone's interested. Someone's obviously gone to a great deal of trouble - would make a lot of sense to just move 'em elsewhere. MrZaius^talk 10:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, I agree with the nominator's arguments. DWaterson has the right idea, too. --68.163.65.119 16:00, 25 September 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, as many (but not all) of the references provided in the external links section are sufficient to establish the notability of this subject per Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Additionally, the existence of many acceptable references related to this subject specifically implies that it would be possible to write an article on this subject without recourse to original research. Article content problems, such as asserted presence of original research and/or non-notable material, as well as insufficient content utilizing the sources provided, are to be resolved editorially, not through the deletion of the entire article. John254 02:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] September 11, 2001 attacks in popular culture

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/September 11, 2001 attacks in popular culture

This article needs to go. I don't see this as a good article for an encyclopedia. It is extremely lengthy, and some of the items are, to put it mildly, mundane. The attacks will be in the media for many years. What are we going to do? Add every single one of them? Where does it stop? imagine what the page will look like in 2015??? It is ridiculous. This article is an example of indiscriminate information getting an article. Fighting for Justice 08:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge then delete Merge to List of audiovisual entertainment affected by the September 11, 2001 attacks, then delete seperate article. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 06:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Confused There is a debate over there too. In any case, merge then delete per ALLSTAR. All unreferenced material should go. -- Kl4m ^{T C} 15:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion from the other location follows.

Keep but trim, the 9/11 attacks are permanently ingrained into the American Psyche. There should be a list of notable ones here. Fosnez 11:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep. The answer to indiscriminate addition of information is NOT indiscriminate deletion. The page needs to be pared down some, but the page should be kept. --Roehl Sybing 12:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I know there's a bias against "...in popular culture" articles and a movement to remove all of them, but in this case 9/11 had such a polarizing impact on American and world popular culture that it is completely justified. Content issues can be handled at the article level. 23skidoo 12:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

- Delete- this has nothing to do with pop culture, it is just an arbitrary list which could include an inexhaustible # of random things.JJJ999 04:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep. Apparently some articles about films and songs inspired by 9/11 wound up in this article. This is valuable encyclopedic information. It's better to have too much popular culture than not enough of it. Shalom ^Hello 13:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete like all the in pop culture lists that are just a random, mainly unsourced, collection of trivia. Lugnuts 17:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Citation Citation Citation ... need I say more? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 19:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, virtually unsourced, violates WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:TRIVIA. Corvus cornix 20:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 22:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Reluctantly, because a good article could be written, but this one appears to be a trellis on which to put the ever-expanding list of references to 9/11. There will be, for many years to come, new references to September 11, 2001. This one suffers from IPCitis. Unfortunately, this article wants to be everything... films about 9/11, depictions of the WTC, revisions of films in response to 9/11, mentions of 9/11 in other films. Sorry, 9/11 deserves better than an IPC album. Mandsford 00:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Total trivia, yes, a lot of things were affected/influenced by the events, and the attacks have their own article, as well. Every major event has been referenced/influenced in "popular culture" and there is no need for a laundry list page like this. Dannycali 03:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep and deal with problems by editing. the claim above that all such sections violate WP policy is not supported by consensus. The claim theat material here needs citations can be dalt with by citing it. since the subject of references to 9/11 in popular culture is important, then the article is justified in WP. DGG (talk) 03:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep and add references. The article involves the cultural effect of a major influence and can be improved. Too important to delete and does not violate any policies. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep The topic itself is notable and verifiable, with whole books devoted to it, eg [59] and [60]. I think that the article is best fixed by trimming and sourcing the existing version rather than deleting it and starting from scratch. Bláthnaid 19:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Those books are not about the subject in question. They are mainly about how things have changed since the events. This article is about various mentions of the events in TV/Music, keep that in mind. Dannycali 18:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

My view of the article is that it should be about how 9/11 changed popular culture as well as mentions of the events. That would provide the context needed to turn the article from a list of mentions to an encyclopaedic article, IMO. Bláthnaid 21:37, 27 September 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). WODUP

[edit] Jean Carver Chance

Prod disputed. Individual's claim to notability is GIVING OUT awards rather than having received one. Sources in article are not independent and show an accomplished but unnotable academic career. As is, article fails WP:BIO. Dhartung | Talk 08:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Shalom ^Hello 13:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. No sources independent of her job. 1 journal entry, cited by 5.--Sethacus 15:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
There's absolutely no context here, so I've nominated it for speedy deletion. Note that the prod contester is a likely sockpuppet of a currently-blocked user. Cmprince 03:36, 25 September 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 per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Early Years

This article is an in universe description of a fictional era used in a Star Trek type role playing game. This article does not demonstate notability under WP:Fiction, as the extensive plot summary does not compensate for the lack of reliable independent sources.--Gavin Collins 07:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - No outside sources. SolidPlaid 08:44, 24 September 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 per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WearIT@Work

Abstruse article which seems to be talking about something, though for my life I can't determine what. superβεεcat 07:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep, but rewrite probable copyvio (source not found online). WearIT@Work is an EU-wide wearable computing promotion that seems to have attracted some press so a sourced article is possible. --Dhartung | Talk 08:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - or rewrite. Partially copyvio from [61] ~Cr∞nium 15:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
DeleteIT@Wikipedia. Partial copyright violation. It hurts my eyes. Burntsauce 22:00, 24 September 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 keep; good faith mistaken nomination. (Non-administrator closing) -- Spawn Man 02:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RAI Radio3

Article doesn't assert notability and its only use may be to advertise the radio station. It sounds just like most other, NN radio stations which we hear every day; ones which shouldn't be included on the site... Delete - Spawn Man 07:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep nationally broadcast radio stations are notable. Darksun 08:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Snowball, what next BBC 3 for deletion?! --Victor falk 12:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Withdrawing - Sorry, I wasn't aware that it was actually national radio (It should be mentioned in the text, not just the small info box), nor that national radios were important. My msitake, sorry for the time-waster. :) Spawn Man 02:52, 25 September 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 ewww. --Core desat 01:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caught fish fetishism

Non-notable. Neutrality^talk 07:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Weak delete - No google hits for "Caught fish fetishism", and only 9 for "Fish fetishism", but given the references in the article, the subject could be notable. However, by the way the article is written, it doesn't really assert notability etc. So a weak delete due to the possibility of the topic being notable, but if someone can prove to me that it's not, I'll vote plain old delete or vice versa if you can prove it is notable. Cheers, Spawn Man 07:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Everything is a fetish for someone. Explored in The Simpsons with Troy McClure, but no real fish fetishists emerged. SolidPlaid 08:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. It may be a hoax, since it doesn't appear in the contents of The Encyclopedia of Unusual Sexual Practices (though it may have another name). I don't have the book to check if it appears or not... keep meaning to get around to getting a copy. Darksun 15:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, though it's worth noting that just about any form of sexual fetish is possible. The human mind is weirder than you think. Grutness...wha? 00:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment I've never heard of it and couldn't turn up any ghits, but I'd hate to delete. Can't someone find sources? Perhaps someone... familiar with the subject? Ichormosquito 03:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Nothing on Google, no sources/references. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 06:31, 25 September 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 per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lesser Men Productions

Non-notable. Neutrality^talk 07:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 08:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable company. Keb25 09:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, little independent coverage, just one link to the page. Only involved in the production of one minor film. shoeofdeath 17:26, 30 September 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 - Nomination withdrawn without delete opinion. (Non-administrator closing). --Tikiwont 07:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smooth coarea formula

I'm not sure to do with this one, mainly because I'm not familiar with the content - It reads likes it's an essay or a copy vio, and it doesn't assert notability. It also doesn't explain to people who are not familiar with the context what the article is about. For now I'm Neutral, but if there's any good opposing/keeping arguements, I will change my vote. Thanks, Spawn Man 07:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep unless determined conclusively to be non-notable or something - assuming it was created in good faith, this article needs expansion. To me, it looks like a stub. I don't think we need to delete stubs due to lack of content. Also, I don't think it reads like an essay or copyvio. I think that's just how it winds up sounding because it's a math stub. --Cheeser1 13:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep why delete? seems like a sensible enough claim to me. if folks decide somehow this doesn't deserve its own page, one can always try merge/relocate elsewhere. has the original contributor been notified of this? Mct mht 15:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

He now is. --Victor falk 16:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep, per Mct mht and Spawn man. --Victor falk 16:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The nominator gives no reasons for deletion at all. The article begins by saying "In Riemannian geometry...", with a link to that article, and that sets the context for the lay reader, telling them that mathematics is what it's about. It has as much assertion of notability as is typical in tens of thousands of Wikipedia mathematics articles. I am puzzled about why this was nominated. Michael Hardy 23:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- See my comment below - Spawn Man 03:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment The nominator said "It also doesn't explain to people who are not familiar with the context what the article is about." That problem was fixed by a later edit. Now that that's done, there seems to be no further reason to think about deletion. Should this go to "speedy keep"? Michael Hardy 23:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This may be premature, but perhaps speedy keep applies per WP:SNOW (based on your reasoning, and the fact that nobody, even the nom, thinks it should be deleted). --Cheeser1 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep. See info now on article talk page. (But I shouldn't have had to work that hard.) --KSmrq^T 01:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment - The reason why I nomianted was because it 1) Read like a copy vio, and 2) Did not assert notability. People seem to be confusing the version as I first saw it ([62]) to the version now, after someone's edited it. So my claims were founded to begin with, but someone's done a good job of writing in some info/context, so I see no reason to delete (I didn't in the first place...). So yeah, I'm not stupid, it's just that someone's edited the article since I'd nominated. Cheers, Spawn Man 03:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep - Article now meets all inclusion criteria since it was nominated. Spawn Man 03:09, 25 September 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 per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lindy J. Hoyer

Lacks notability. Neutrality^talk 06:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete No sources independent of her job. Very few (6) news sources total, anyway. Article is the sole contribution of what appears to be a high school student in the subject's area--Sethacus 16:13, 24 September 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. --Core desat 01:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Oschefski

It is HOAX. No tracks in historical sources, look at pl:Oblężenie Krakowa (1655) there is nothing about such person. He was mantioned in Siege of Kraków (1655) but no sources available for this statement. Polish surnames are written with end "wski" instead of "fski".Rklisowski 07:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Nothing found in Google Books to substantiate claims. --Dhartung | Talk 07:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is entirely true, and the information is present in a history magizine, published in January of 2001. The magizine is called History of Poland. Copies of this magizine are rare to come by. Some Polish last names have been ended with fski instead of wski. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlsonford (talk • contribs) 13:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: the above editor has been blocked indefinitely as a vandalism only account. ^Khukri 14:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Based on his contribs, it looks like a kid. Since his entry on Siege of Krakow in 1655 was more or less correct, assuming good faith it is possible there this entry is also correct - but on the other hand, no serious magazine would maim Polish name like this (maybe the entries where created from memory? Sigh). But as it stands, this entry has little encyclopedic value unless properly referenced and corrected.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. HOAXBEGONE. Burntsauce 22:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is true though, it was taken from magizines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles56789 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Charles, you had better start listing all these magazines in the article. --Malcolmxl5 02:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Article "Szwedzi w Krakowie" (Swedish in Kraków) published in June in polish "Mówią Wieki" (internet version - excuse me it's in polish) does not mention anything about such person. Voted article says that Oschefski stopped the siege but army of Karl X Gustav conquered Kraków so article is not true. - Rklisowski 11:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete unless referenced (with proper information per WP:CITE - if it is magazine, it should have ISBN, data and place of publication, article should have an author, etc.). At best, it's a poor transliteration of Polish name (Dawid Ozewski?).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Unreferenced, as per Piotrus. Visor 22:05, 26 September 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 all. @pple complain 14:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Back Like Cooked Crack

Over the past month, I've had dozens of mixtapes deleted. The only reason these are here is because the PRODs were removed without explanation. There are no in-depth sources to establish notability and fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. Spellcast 07:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC) Spellcast 07:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

delete all per WP:MUSIC. Also, it should be noted that there does not appear to be any material outside of wikipedia written about these albums. As such, there is nothing to build an encyclopedia article around. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete all. Jayron32 has the right idea, I'd only be duplicating his statement. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete all for the same reasons as per my comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Art & War. A1octopus 16:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete all as non-notable. If someone turns up evidence for notability that meets WP:MUSIC for any of these, I'll reconsider. --A. B. ^(talk) 04:52, 29 September 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 01:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Norval C. White

Notable? Neutrality^talk 06:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep Oh, I believe so.. The AIA Guide to the Architecture of New York City,which he co-wrote, is a highly influential book in the field of architecture, cited on numerous occasions. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. I'll be expanding this.--Sethacus 16:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. In addition to his architectural historian role, White was a key founder of the movement to save Penn Station from the wrecking ball[63]; although they failed with that objective, this is regarded as the germ of the modern movement for historic preservation and adaptive reuse of historic buildings. --Dhartung | Talk 20:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Note, moved to Norval White, but should not affect AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 20:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep. No actual reason has been stated for deletion by the nominator. Don't be so lazy. Burntsauce 21:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. A truly brilliant architect and architectural historian, the field will forever be in his debt. The pre-eminent authority on the architecture of New York City (read his text on the WTC Twin Towers....and realize that the incomprehensible human tragedy was about those victims and had little to do with the change in the skyline.) Gordito666 05:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep, agree with Burntsauce (lazy, lazy, Neutrality - for shame!!! :p ). Neil ム 12:35, 25 September 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 moot as already merged. GRBerry 01:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oracle HRMS

Notable? Neutrality^talk 06:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's notable, being the HR portion of Oracle's Application suite which is one of the big two ERP products being used by many corporations. The article is a just a stub but that's no reason to delete it. Colonel Warden 07:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge into Oracle E-Business Suite and redirect. There is not sufficient content to merit a separate article, and I can't see much scope for expansion of the article in the near future.--Michig 12:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 07:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Merged by Neutrality into Oracle E-Business Suite.--Gavin Collins 16:24, 29 September 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 by Neutrality (talk · contribs). The deletion log doesn't list the deletion criterion but A7 looks like a good enough fit to me. —David Eppstein 06:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Face Day

Deletion nom:Contested speedy. Probably WP:SNOW deletable, but I brought it here since the article creator refuses to let the issue go. This is a made-up holiday put together by the article creator and his buddies and this article has no business belonging at wikipedia, per WP:NOT for stuff you and your buddies make up. Borderline patent nonsense. Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

KEEP I'm being adamant about this because 10,000+ people recognize this holiday. So I have 10,000+ people all sitting around me giggling and laughing while I type this? That doesn't even make any sense. This is far from made up, and has been going on for approxmiately 10 or so years now.I AM AWAY FROM MYCOMPUTER UNTIL THE 27TH. I AM PRETTY SURE I HAVE AN ARTICLE ON ABOUT IT ON MY COMPUTER. I ASK IT STAYS UP ATLEAST UNTIL THEN.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Helpingspreadtheword (talk • contribs) --Helpingspreadtheword 06:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

So, simply provide a newspaper account or other reliable source where these 10,000 people are noted. So far, we have a made-up article about a made-up holiday whose only claim to notability is that you made up the fact that 10,000 people supposedly celebrate it. If you can provide a source that establishes this as a verifiable fact, PLEASE DO SO. If 10,000 people are doing something then SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE has written it down before now. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

KEEP I'm not so much for this page as I'm against the reasons for deletion. I find you're reaching for reasons to remove this due to your personal ignorance of it. I agree that it requires citation (particularly in the origin section) but give it a week or two to get user input. Isn't that what Wikipedia is all about? User input into articles? Diescumdie
Delete : a google search provides no hits that I can find that deal with this as described by article. Appears to fall under WP:MADEUP. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 06:32, 24 September 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 per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fight Fire with Fire

De-prod'ed without comment. This is an album track on a very notable album by a very notable album. However, the notability of this particular track in accordance with the applicable guideline isn't established. The "References" section is in fact entirely blank, as one example of the lack of notability here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete, unless sources asserting notability are provided. J Milburn 16:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
delete Songs which lack independant sources about THEM should be redirected to the relevent albums, per wikipedia guidelines. With only a few exceptions, non-single tracks from albums usually lack the references around which to build an article, and this seems to clearly fit that mold. If enough independant source material can be provided, this may be keepable as an article. But not as it looks now. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep - As there are no concrete guidelines regarding the notability of songs, I suppose we have to sort of feel our way around. In my estimation, any Metallica song is notable enough to warrant keeping. There is enough easily verifiable information in the article to qualify as a valid stub. No references? WP:SOFIXIT. AfD is not cleanup. --Bongwarrior 00:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- As in the nomination here, there is a set of guideline criteria I'm using. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  
  WP:MUSIC mentions some proposed guidelines. If and when they are agreed upon, several of those criteria can easily be met by virtually every Metallica song you have nominated. --Bongwarrior 00:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  - - If that's the case, then feel free to demonstrate the fact. As it is, this is a song which wasn't released (therefore didn't chart) and doesn't seem to have third-party sources readily available and providing non-trivial coverage of the song. I'm more than happy to be proven wrong on this count, but simply saying as much doesn't demonstrate anything. Additionally, the fact that Metallica and this album are both notable doesn't confer notability on this or any other song automatically. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  - Response to bongwarrior: The problem is not that the songs have references that are not being used. If that was the case, I would be voting for keep with you. The issue is not a SOFIXIT issue. The problem is that the references do not appear to exist at ALL; as such, there is no material to build an article around. Therefore, the song should be redirected back to the album. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete All the written content is OR in my opinion. LuciferMorgan 15:46, 30 September 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 per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tactical manipulation of instant-runoff voting

This article does not cite a single source, and presents a series of contrived examples without any indication that such situations are likely with typical numbers of voters. I believe that most of these contrived examples do not hold because they become less likely with larger numbers of voters. This was originally created as a POV-fork of Instant-runoff voting which cites references contradicting it, denying the susceptibility of IRV to tactical voting. ←Ben^B4 05:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

delete - as nom. ←Ben^B4 05:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
delete - per nom. --Victor falk 12:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
IRV is very susceptible to manipulation, but we have a better article for that: Instant-runoff voting. Delete POV fork. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:53, 24 September 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. Actually, it was speedied twice, by C.Fred (talk · contribs) and Neutrality (talk · contribs). C.Fred gave G10 (attack page) as the reason. —David Eppstein 06:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canada syndrome

Deletion nomination: Probably hoax page. Reads like mostly nonsense, a google search turns up a similarly named syndrome (Cronkhite-Canada Syndrome) which has nothing to do with what this largely incoherant article is about. Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete : per nom; clear hoax. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 06:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete : per nom; Aww, I wish I could "appreciate awesomeness". Delete this crud.Arendedwinter 06:44, 24 September 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 by Antandrus after blanking by (I presume) the original author. Non-admin closure. --Bongwarrior 21:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iram collantes

Deletion nomination Article is about a non-notable production assisstant who has worked on a few notable films. Fetching coffee for a famous director does not make one notable. Delete per WP:BIO and WP:N. Maybe also a autobiographical article, but I am unsure about that.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. per nom, no notability within alleged, badly formatted filmography. Mystache 05:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Probably autobiographical; borderline résumé. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 06:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete. Autobiographical. Non-notable.--THobern 08:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by THobern (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by DragonflySixtyseven (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) at 04:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC) with reason "notability not asserted". Non-admin close. cab 05:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stella de Dios, MD

Probably nn doctor. OSborn^arf 04:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete and WP:SNOW... Well below threshold levels for notability per WP:BIO and WP:N and WP:PROF. Also probably a autobiography. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Would this not qualify for speedy deletion as nonnotable bio? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete I was about to speedy this one but noticed it was tagged. (And in any case get rid of the MD please.) Raymond Arritt 04:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: Looks like someone speedied it already... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:04, 24 September 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, default to keep. The overlap with Business ethics is probably grounds for a merger, if there is consensus for that, not for deletion. Sandstein 23:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Organizational Ethics

Possibly nn subject, rather incoherent page. Possibly redirect to Organizational behavior or similar? (contested? speedy) OSborn^arf 03:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete or re-direct the title only to Compliance and ethics program. This was speedied once today already, I believe, and back again unchanged. The lack of references makes it WP:OR; the topic area is already well-covered by well-written, well-researched and thorough articles at, among others, Compliance and ethics program, Social responsibility, Philosophy of business and Business ethics. Accounting4Taste 04:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge/Redirect to Organizational studies.Mystache 05:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- On second thought, Keep it. The subject is notable enough to where a redirect will just result in a section being written on it and eventually spilling back over into an article. The subject is notable, but the article is just badly written. If kept, tag for cleanup/rewrite. Mystache 05:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 08:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Perfectly good article, minimal spam/POV, reasonably well sourced. I've added another text book cite, which I use for my Business ethics course. Needs some in-line cites, but that can be added later, and a re-write for ease of reading. Bearian 21:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep. Subject is quite notable even if article fails to fully assert that, Organizational Ethics is taught in business colleges. Regardless there are plenty of reliable sources that can help flesh this article out including Ethics Resource Center articles, Bauers Establish Professorship in Organizational Ethics and Governance, Business and Organizational Ethics Partnership, Organizational Ethics and the Good Life and Medical Ethics Meets Organizational Ethics. Benjiboi 11:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete as article is a content fork from Business ethics. The title a non-notable buzz phrase, variations of which might include Company ethics, Corporate Ethics, Enterprise ethics etc. --Gavin Collins 16:51, 29 September 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 – no reliable sources given, and we can't visit the article's creator to look at his dog. Fewer than 20 online references of any kind refer to this breed, unlike other mixed breeds of dogs. - KrakatoaKatie 09:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pyrapoo

Page deleted via prod, restored automatically after request at DRV. Initial feedback at DRV was that there may be no reliable sources for this. Is it real, or is it a hoax? If real, is it notable and encyclopedia worthy. You decide. GRBerry 02:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete The issue is not that the breed is a hoax, but that there are no reliable, published sources which give significant coverage to the topic and can be used to verify both facts and notability. VanTucky ^Talk 02:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge any verifiable information to poodle hybrid. humblefool ® 02:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Have added several links to external sources in the "see also" section —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjnero (talk • contribs) 14:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, none of the links you added are to reliable sources according to Wikipedia guidelines. Answers.com is not acceptable. VanTucky ^Talk 23:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. Answers.com is a Wikipedia mirror, showing a copy of our articles. The others are also not reliable sources. GRBerry 23:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Added additional links to external sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjnero (talk • contribs) 17:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- We need reliable sources. Neither of the two new is. One is not a reliable source, as it is user generated content (yahoo answers). The second was yet another Wikipedia mirror, so has been removed also. GRBerry 18:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Well there are obviously no sources that are acceptably reliable per your definition. I don't know how else to prove that a pyrapoo is an actual dog with the characteristics that I have described in the article. If you want to come see my dog you can. If this is the criterion that is going to be applied to hybrid dog breeds, then there are numerous other entries that should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjnero (talk • contribs) 23:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete can't find a verifiable source. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:17, 30 September 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. Carioca 00:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jeff Hoard

No indication given that this blogger is notable (except for being on AOL); no sources. NawlinWiki 02:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. WP:NN, no WP:RS provided, it has WP:OR issues, and it is borderline WP:POV and WP:ATTACK. --Evb-wiki 02:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Evb-wiki; all assertions verified. Someone doesn't like this person and put up a WP page on them to warn conservapedia types off. Alba 02:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, not worth Keepin' VoL†ro/\/Force 03:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Since reliable sources could not be found on the internet. If he's a famous blogger, you'd expect mentions in the national magazines (and therefore their websites), but none could be found by checking the search engine. This also suggests he hasn't made any significant achievements or awards, and that doens't help him in satisfying WP:BIO.--Alasdair 04:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Per above. • Lawrence Cohen 13:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete NN. Tiptopper 12:46, 29 September 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. Carioca 00:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reardonesque

Unverifiable through reliable sources, doesn't seem to be a notable neologism. Nothing useful from Google. Wafulz 02:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete no sources showing notability of this neologism, even in the rock climbing community. NawlinWiki 02:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and NawlinWiki. Perhaps people are using the term, but it doesn't seem to have caught on.FlowerpotmaN·(t) 03:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, WP:NEO that fails WP:V and probably speedyable as WP:ATP. --Dhartung | Talk 03:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Since it's probably made up in summer 2007, it's definitely a neologism that is WP:NFT. In fact, it's currently used only in forums, as I check, so it's not widespread enough to be metioned by reliable sources like newspapers.--Alasdair 05:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. --PhilipO 21:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Not a common neologism and no evidence of widespread usage --User:Allezlesrouges —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 23:24, 28 September 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. Consensus is that topic does not meet the general notability guidelines. Jreferee t/c 04:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Ropp

Very poor sources are bothersome. I've been unable to pin down what these specific "awards" are exactly. I'm slowly suspecting this is either autobiographical or promotional in intent. Am I being too hard on this article? I don't think so but that's why I'm going through AfD to get a sense of what others think. Pig^man 02:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

delete No reliable sources to back up nebulous claims, he can come back when he's properly WP:N documentable. Pete.Hurd 02:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete doesn't appear notable, no sources to show notability. NawlinWiki 02:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete this quite-obvious piece of self-promotion. "teen idol and grand auteur of independent movies"? Please. humblefool ® 02:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete A7, none of the sources I checked assert notability. He's won a few minor film festival awards, but nothing else. His fan club appears to consist of one person, and either he himself or said fangirl are almost certainly User:Indiefilmreport, who is the near-exclusive editor of this article and has worked solely on this article. I can't quite prove WP:AUTO but it's a good bet. Alba 03:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment; This isn't a speedy, since "known for making popular; record breaking short films" and "holding movie records throughout the entire Southwest and most of the Midwestern United States" are assertions of notability. Not that I care if it gets speedily deleted, if I did I'd remove the tag, but A7 is for subjects that don't assert notability, which this does, even if it's untrue. Masaruemoto 04:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I find myself mulling over the ethics and protocol for Speedy in cases like this. Obviously I decided to do AfD rather than speedy because I wanted other opinions. Does the fact that an article makes assertions of notability mean it can't be speedy deleted? IOW, if I check the references and links and find no evidence of actual notability by Wikipedia standards, would it be proper to put it up for speedy rather than going through AfD? Or is it always and only for immediately obvious problem articles? (Immediate and obvious to an Admin who would have to make the actual deletion judgment, that is.) I think I know what the answer will be for most editors but I'm curious for feedback on this point. --Pig^man 13:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

- The criterion for CSD A7 is No assertion of importance/significance... This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources. No article that makes an assertion of notability can be speedied as A7, Alba tagged this because the sources don't assert notability, but it's whether the article itself asserts notability that is the important thing. Masaruemoto 02:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  - Thanks for the input, Masaruemoto. It may have seemed obvious with the exact phrasing of CSD A7 but I guess a part of me figured I might be able to make the judgment of actual notability. This belief obviously circumvents consensus opinion when there's any question about the notability. Bad Pigman, no cookie. Lesson learned I think. Pig^man 18:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
comment*Ok, I understand the harsh criticisms of the article I posted. I can tell however, that the editors of this article only care about filtering non legitimate articles to maintain the reputation of Wikipedia. I appreciate that. To the comment by (humblefool) “” this quite-obvious piece of self-promotion. "teen idol and grand auteur of independent movies"? Please.”” First off humblefool, no disrespect, but you need to know what “Auteur” means in context to a filmmaker. au•teur a filmmaker whose individual style and complete control over all elements of production give a film its personal and unique stamp.

Since Adam Ropp (as verified on IMDB) is the Producer, Writer, Director, Actor, Editor, Sound Editor, Cinematographer, Set builder, Prop Builder, Grip and Casting Scout on his movies I would say that he more than qualifies as a GRAND AUTEUR. Facts are facts. Fact: That is what “Auteur” means and Fact: he does those things! He is a Grand Auteur. As for “Teen Idol”. If you visit his fan site created by a “Teen” in Irving Texas you will see on the “message forum” that there are literally hundreds of “TEENS” with hundreds of different IP Addresses “IDOLIZING” him! Just because he’s not FAMOUS to all teens does not mean that he’s not a teen idol. When hundreds of Teens write poetry and talk about raping him in his sleep I would say that he’s a “Teen Idol”. For the overall general “nobility”. I really don’t understand how the hands down #1 Movie Site on the planet is not a “noble” source for a filmmaker? The Internet Movie Database WILL NOT allow facts to be published on their web site if the content is not proven to be true with high standards. You need to go read the IMDB criteria rules for trivia entries. No content can be applied unless it’s proven through no less than 3 National legitimate sources. On IMDB it clearly states “Is the only filmmaker in the Midwest to win 9 best pictures with one movie”. Here’s the direct link to the page with that fact. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1459997/bio I really do respect your concerns, but if this is still not good enough then what is?? Indiefilmreport 20:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)indiefilmreportIndiefilmreport 20:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

- IMDb has no such criteria for trivia, you're just making that up. Masaruemoto 02:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete; non-notable. Masaruemoto 02:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment I'm particularly irked that Indiefilmreport just recently removed the AfD notice from the article. I reverted and offered a stern word on their user talk page. It doesn't directly affect the conversation here on the merits of the article but I thought it worth mentioning. Pig^man 01:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep. There are sources out there, and he's on IMdB, which is not reliable but counts for something. Please don't bite the newbies, and don't assume it's a female fan. :-) I've placed all the revelant tags on the article and given notice to the editors who have taken "ownership" of the article. I'll look for better cites Bearian 14:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I found 571 Ghits, the first is IMdB and the second is WP, but many are good cites. See [64]. I added content and cites. Bearian 15:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Fails WP:BIO for Creative professionals. --Sc straker 03:30, 29 September 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. No improvement was made to the article since its nomination two weeks ago, plus it fails WP:CORP. KrakatoaKatie 09:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EHL Junior Enterprise

Questionable notability. I'm reluctant to speedy. Maxim_(talk) 00:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

KEEP I agree a speedy-delete is not appropriate. Any organization that can keep 20 thousand young people occupied deserves reasonable consideration to have a Wikipedia article. The three external links are verifiable and Google gives 109,000 hits for "Ecole hôtelière de Lausanne". Truthanado 00:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete original research and no evidence of any notability.--Sefringle^Talk 03:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete not quite a speedy IMHO but certainly doesn't pass our current standards for corporations/organisations. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Please do not delete the page "EHL Junior Enterprise". The link is currently under construction and will be completed in the course of this week. Regarding the importance of this webpage: the EHL Junior Enterprise is the first non-profit junior enterprise within the hospitality industry worldwide. The organisation offers students the opportunity to convert their knowledge into know-how by collaborating with exterior clients. It is therefore of immense value to the students of the EHL - Ecole hoteliere de Lausanne (Hotel Managment School of Lausanne), to be represented by wikipedia.org. (Ehljunior 21:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC))
Keep for now. Definite WP:COI issues here. The article in its current state has no independent citations to establish notability; however, given the sheer number of people involved (if true) there may be some notability here. I say give Ehljunior time to improve the article. If s/he can't come up with some independent sources, renominate it. Cap'n Walker 14:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat ^♫ 01:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment The school seems clearly notable. The Junior Enterprise is another matter. We need good references the explicitly discuss JE. MarkBul 02:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete EHL by itself is notable, and Junior Enterprise by itself is notable, but nothing seems to make the combination thereof notable. Alba 03:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete I agree with the above. A large organization such as Junior Enterprise may be notable, but a single chapter thereof is not notable. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge/Redirect to École hôtelière de Lausanne. While the program isnt notable on its own behalf, it makes sense to include the information on the school's page. Mystache 05:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- On a second read, I'll also consider a keep if they can source the comment about being the first worldwide junior enterprise. Mystache 05:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  - As such, it may deserve a sentence or two note in both the École hôtelière de Lausanne and Junior enterprise articles, but there is still not enough to hang a stand-alone article on this single chapter. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete, fails WP:ORG. Individual chapters of organizations are almost never individually notable. --Dhartung | Talk 07:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge per Mystache. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:57, 24 September 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. CitiCat ^♫ 03:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harriet Stokes

Non-notable except for being sorta-transgender, which doesn't qualify for WP:N or WP:BIO. No sourced found. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete or Merge with Eonism -- although that term is not commonly used, I understand. I think that article is where historical cases of living as the opposite sex should end up, unless someone has a better suggestion. Transvestism? I agree that no sources can be found, so this particular case may be better off deleted. Accounting4Taste 01:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment There is room for an article on the phenomenon of people secretly living cross-gendered - particularly historical expamples - but Harriet probably doesn't need her own page. Merge into Eonism for now, and look for a better name. MarkBul 02:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Harriet's not a good example, you're right. I think Jeanne Baré is a better one. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia isn't News of the Weird for the 19th century, either. Not a notable case. --Dhartung | Talk 03:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete and do not redirect per Dhartung. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete – NN. Humorous anecdote, about the hat and all. Tiptopper 16:36, 29 September 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 or merge. Please pursue any further merge proposals through the editorial route. Daniel 01:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Winzapper

Contested WP:SPEEDY, nominating at the author's request. I can't find any WP:RS on Google that this software has been reviewed, and thus it is not notable by our standards. shoy 01:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Its release was an important event in IT security, causing log manipulation via selective event deletion to change from being a theoretical risk to a practical one. Stayman Apple 02:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep as plenty of third-party sources have been added since listing. Alba 03:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sources 2 and 4 don't mention the product specifically at all. Source 3 seems like a press release, and thus is not an independent source. Source 5 seems like a blog, which does not meet our criteria as a reliable source, see WP:RS. shoy 11:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I looked around for some reports of Winzapper actually being used in computer intrusions (e.g. by searching for +arrested +Winzapper) but found nothing. There may not be enough information out there for the article to grow much more. If that turns out to be the case, I would not be opposed to merging it with Security Log. There is some pertinent information here that is not in the Security Log article. Stayman Apple 12:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Given arguments now in operation, I now vote for merge and redirect to Security log. Alba 21:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep, seems notable and new sources have surfaced. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, John254 23:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong delete. There are no reliable secondary sources cited, and the concept that log files are vulnerable to those with high level access (authorized or not) is basic security knowledge in any operating system. That is why log files are inadmissible as evidence in court, unless the logs were hard-copy printed in real time as the events were logged, and then only the original printouts are admissible. Any user with root (or equivalent) permissions on a system can change anything. This seems like a simple promotional article. It may be just notable enough to be mentioned in Security Log, so a merge might be appropriate. - Crockspot 00:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I think we should include the info about admissibility in court in the security log article. Do you have any other sources relating to that? Captain Zyrain 13:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. No reliable second sources? What about the Forensic Footprint article? http://forensics.8thdaytech.com/winzapper-forensic-foorprint What about the Microsoft Security White Paper? http://www.seifried.org/security/os/microsoft/windowsnt.html Captain Zyrain 12:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  - What about them? Frankly, they both look like blogs to me, which are generally not reliable sources. shoy 18:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  - shoy is correct, neither of those is a reliable secondary source. They are both self-published sources. - Crockspot 19:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
    - OK, what about the Hacking Exposed ref (just added to article; http://books.google.com/books?id=UVchzZjT-jcC&pg=PA228&lpg=PA228&dq=winzapper&source=web&ots=EnWURte1ct&sig=iCwKQHMmQqC1rMwMM6SODUZ0ZIc ). Also, Winzapper is mentioned in Certified Ethical Hacker courses (e.g. http://www.onlc.com/outline.asp?ccode=SCEH41ONLINE ). Plus it was covered in Sys Admin (just added to article; see http://www.samag.com/documents/s=9366/sam0104o/0104o.htm ) Captain Zyrain 19:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
      - The last link does not even mention winzapper. There is no notability guideline for software that I can find, but all the other notability guidelines require that the subject be the subject of non-trivial publications. These are just mentions, and would seem to be trivial to me. If there was an article or two that Winzapper was the main subject of, in a reliable magazine or trade publication, that would help your case. But I am still not convinced that notability is established for a stand-alone article at this time. Sorry. - Crockspot 20:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
        
        Oops, my bad, I gave the wrong link before. I have corrected it[65]. Captain Zyrain 20:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Per above, specifically the fact that there are no secondary sources. I agree there may be a few sentances that can be put into Security Log, but not much. - Rjd0060 00:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Refactor all non-overlapping information to Security log. Winzapper has significance as a proof-of-concept tool, plus it is still apparently "the only shrink-wrapped tool that you can use to selectively delete events from the Security log" (per http://www.ultimatewindowssecurity.com/ebookChapter2.html ) Captain Zyrain 12:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - As noted in other AfD discussions, lack of reliable sources is indicative of notability issues. /Blaxthos 00:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. We have at least two sources that meet WP:RS, one a book in the Hacking Exposed series and the other an article in Sys Admin. But the info has already been refactored to Security Log anyway so it's kinda moot at this point. Captain Zyrain 00:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as free utility software is as about as notable as a paperclip. --Gavin Collins 15:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- If that were true of free utility software as a whole, then GIMP and Pine (e-mail client) would be deletable as well. Captain Zyrain 17:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Keep in mind that Wikipedia does have an article about Paper clips. (So that's a poor rationale for deleting this article.) Rray 00:18, 2 October 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 01:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lil iROCC Williams

Very short article. Only notable for charting in Billboard. Tasco 0 01:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: not relevant, but the creator quickly started adding information after the speedy deletion tag was added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasco 0 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep I dislike rap and try to avoid religious music as much as possible, but having a record on the Billboard charts and being a nominee for a major industry award certainly makes one notable. The article also includes third party sources on the subject. I fail to see how this was even considered as an AfD. Kinston eagle 01:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Article meets WP:MUSIC on three points: charting, award & inclusion in a compilation. The article may be brief, but it's certainly long enough to provide full context and enough information for inclusion. --Moonriddengirl 02:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep, despite my hatred of rap and Christian music, the Billboard charting and award nominations are enough on their own, not to mention the many good sources cited. Oh, and the article's well written to boot. J Milburn 18:49, 24 September 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. NawlinWiki 02:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Experteering

Wikipedia is WP:NOT for neologisms. shoy 00:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete Nologism with no (zero) google hits. That's a rare thing. I also noticed that the article was created by the person who "coined" this term. The corpspeak turns my stomach :P Yngvarr (t) (c) 00:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete, per nom. Also note that this appears to have been a back-handed vanity/advert article. Into The Fray ^T/C 01:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete. I agree with Yngvarr and Into The Fray, distinctly WP:COI to create an unnecessary (and ugly) portmanteau term and then to try to popularize it as a kind of self-advertisement. Accounting4Taste 01:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete per above. M.^(er) 02:43, 24 September 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 homeboy. Singu larity 22:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Homeslice

As far as I can see, this is a non-notable neologism. A speedy tag was removed here (perhaps correctly, we'll see), but there's no reason to keep the article. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 00:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete - there's no assertion of notability, Wikipedia is not a dictionary (urban or otherwise). Into The Fray ^T/C 01:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to homeboy, which has the same meaning. Chubbles 01:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedily transwiki and redirect per WP:DICTDEF. Alba 03:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect per Chubbles. I have also proposed a merging of Homie and Homeboy as this AfD brought this redundancy in information to my attention. LaMenta3 03:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete as this one liner is going nowhere notability wise. --Gavin Collins 08:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:NEO and it's also a dicdef. Pablo Talk | Contributions 08:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
What Redirect was made for. SolidPlaid 09:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:02, 24 September 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 google scholar search, sources seem to exist. Nonadmin closure. The Evil Spartan 00:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kicad

This open-source program may be great, but with no sources other than its own site, there is no reason to suspect it is notable. Dicklyon 21:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep and expand I don't see obvious good sources to link to, but a cursory google examination shows that this program has been around a while and has been extensively ported. It should pass notability as soon as a *nix guru can find a good WP:RS for it. Alba 03:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
This may help. L'omo del batocio 12:20, 24 September 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. DS 02:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Montauk We Hope

Non-notable bike race, no sources, nothing at Google news, only 32 Google hits, and a large number of those hits appear to be just the string of characters "Montauk We Hope" in a list of SEO keywords. Seems more like an advertising gimmick for Tritec Real Estate Co. Corvus cornix 21:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable bike ride/fundraiser. Big chunks of the article are a copyvio from [66]. Total ridership appears to be in the ~300 range, certainly not notable unless there has been a disproportionate amount of media coverage. bikeable (talk) 00:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. Into The Fray ^T/C 01:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, nonnotable local event. NawlinWiki 02:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Maybe a COI, sounds like an advert and NN. Possible OR too... Spawn Man 04:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom, copyvio and COI. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 20:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete as not notable. Verifiably untrue summary statement, this is a small ride. I'll get the cites. Bearian 21:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The Hudson Ride is the fastest growing bike ride [67] and the Bike New York (a/k/a 5 Boro Bike Ride) [68] is much larger than the Montauk We Hope with 1,200 rides every year. Even the AIDS Ride is bigger than this and growing faster. [69]. This is just plain wrong, and should be stricken from WP. Bearian 22:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I have added verify and hoax tags to the article. Bearian 22:11, 24 September 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. —Moondyne 13:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] High-speed rail in Australia

This is original research, there is no current proposal for high-speed rail in Australia, although there have been proposals in the past, not discussed here, which might be the basis of an article someday. Grahamec 08:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 09:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete as hoax and OR :: maelgwn - talk 10:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete per Maelgwn. —Moondyne 10:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete per WP:OR. Keb25 10:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete - complete hoax. The only high-speed rail in Australia is the Tilt Train in Queensland, and there have been proposals for a VFT between Sydney and Canberra and Sydney and Melbourne. On the Nullabor? I don't think so. JRG 11:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete and speedy close as hoax. The only high-speed train Australia has got atm is QR's Tilt train in Queensland. As for elsewhere, it is crystalball-ism at it's finest. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 12:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete A lot of garbage. The Fulch 12:59, 24 September 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] Kurdish-Israeli relations

The result was delete. I am making the decision to delete this article because "relations" articles are clearly only for country-to-country diplomatic relations. While the Kurds are a definitive people group, they are not actually a country. I note also that there is some precedent here for deleting similar articles - as pointed out by User:White Cat, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurdish-Chinese relations. Therefore, I am deleting this article. There might be scope for another article that deals with the way in which Kurds and Israeli cultures relate with each other. However, before creating such an article, I would strongly suggest that the purpose of the article be spelt out in the lead section so everyone knows the article's scope. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

As per same reasons on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurdish-Chinese relations. Intended scope on "A-B relation" articles are diplomatic relations as it is with Turkish-American relations, Franco-American relations and etc. Kurds fortunately/unfortunately do not own a country and hence cannot have diplomatic relations with other countries. Same WP:OR and WP:NOT concerns as before. Article (stub) also seems to be forking Origins of the Kurds and Kurdish Jews. Article makes claims that may not be shared by a vast majority. -- Cat ^chi? 10:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is Kurdish-Armenian relations here on wiki and also Kurdish-Turkish relations.

Of course they dont have their own country, but what does it have to do with your interest in deleting the article?

Do you see any political relations in the article?

I am writing history and trying to bound the history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurgin (talk • contribs) 11:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

"A-B relations" are for diplomatic relations only, which are political relations. From my perspective I see a random list of unrelated events seemingly involving Kurdish and Israeli people, the connection alone may be disputed. No, we do not have a Kurdish-Turkish relations. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a poor way to construct an argument. WP:NOT#INFO. -- Cat ^chi? 11:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I think the title is bad, but I'm not sure whether to move it (to what?) and tag it for cleanup, or to delete it. I favor the former by default, to see if the article can develop. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Why can't that be covered under the relevant title History of the Kurdish people. These pieces of entries can be covered on relevant articles. Establishing an Israeli - Kurdish relationships like this is the definition of OR. We do not need an article for inter-ethnic relationships. Imagine articles on African-American-Asian-American relations... -- Cat ^chi? 16:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep:I think the Kurds warrant having "A-B relations" articles. Firstly, they have an autonomous region which seems to develop direct diplomatic type relations with other countries. Secondly, in some of the countries where they live which haven't been defined as autonomous regions, they have political parties and rebel groups. Thirdly, for this particular article, there is plenty of news about Israel and Iranian Kurds and this could be used to beef up the article. Example [70]. Pocopocopocopoco 01:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, autonomous regions do not have the authority to have diplomatic relations unlike sovereign countries. A good portion of US-Chinese relations is really California-China relations but California has to use Washington just as KRG has to use Baghdad. KRG is not even a part of Iran so rest of your argument fails with that. The news article talks about alleged covert actions by the Israeli intelligence. These are not diplomatic relations in any sense. A diplomatic relation is conducted openly and publicly between two countries that recognize each other mutually and not covertly. I believe Israel denies the allegations of such a connection. If there is an alleged support by Israel to a Kurdish separatist group why can't that info be presented on the separatist groups own article? -- Cat ^chi? 01:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Not always the case. The Aland Islands can develop direct relations with Sweden. To be honest, I haven't looked at Iraqi Kurdistan close enough to know if it's a similar model but I do know that other countries form "liason offices" in Iraqi Kurdistan. For example [71]. As for the Iranian Kurds, I believe "A-B relations" articles should be permitted for them because they have rebel groups as well as political parties and pressure groups. Pocopocopocopoco 01:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Those are not diplomatic relations and "A-B relations" are exclusively for notable diplomatic relations between two countries. I do want to point out that we do not have articles on diplomatic relations between every single country. Only countries can have diplomatic relations. I know nothing about the level of autonomy Åland has but I do not believe it can enter NATO or sign international treaties on it's own. I do not believe anyone claims Åland to be a country - including themselves. -- Cat ^chi? 02:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Which policy is there that states that "A-B relation" must be countries? I think that possible articles that are notable and interesting could be Hizbollah-Al Qaeda relations Al Qaeda-Taliban relations and Hamas-Hizbollah relations. If you want official country relation articles to be distinguished between non-official country or hybrid (official-non) then suggest a different naming convention for these other type of articles. Pocopocopocopoco 02:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Current practice is that A-B relations must be countries, yes - see linked past AFD. Not every country has such articles as not all relations between counties are article worthy. Furthermore Kurdistan is not even a non-official country like Republic of China (RoC claims to be a country). Non-official countries are fine, Kurdistan isn't one (does not claim to be a country). Relationship between organizations such as "PKK-Hezbollah" or your examples is also fine (Kurdish is not an "organization" while PKK is). It might be better to call it something else than a "relation" to avoid confusion. Inter-ethnic relations are too problematic to venture into for more obvious reasons. -- Cat ^chi? 10:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep - despite Cool Cat's unending quest to make sure that nothing Kurdish is ever mentioned in the encyclopedia, this is notable for the fact that the relationship between Kurds and Israel differs from the relationship between almost all other nearby groups (e.g., Arabs, Persians, Turks, etc.). The Evil Spartan 00:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
1. I changed my username. Please refer to me with the current one.
2. This notable {{fact}} is not a diplomatic relationship and hence the very point of the nomination. Random list of unrelated historic events are not helpful. If this was about Native Americans, or African Americans, I would have made an identical nomination.
3. Just because I suggest something does not make it automatically wrong. Such an approach is disruptive. Discuss the topic at hand and not the contributor.
-- Cat ^chi? 00:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
The name "Kurdish-Israeli relations" does not have to necessarily relate to countries. In fact, the name to me looks like this article outlines the relations between two peoples: the Kurdish people and the Israeli people. There may be differing circumstances in which those two peoples are peoples, but there can be a relationship nonetheless. MessedRocker (talk) 02:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

In current syntax on wikipedia they do. Please check the country examples. While it is true that there are lots of relations between every ethnicity in this global world (a Kurd and Israeli can marry for example) covering such relationships among ethnicities in dedicated articles is however problematic. Consider an article on African-American-Asian-American or Asian-American-British relationship.

It is more than fine as I mentioned above to cover this material in the form of Mossad-KDP / Mossad-PKK relations at Mossad, KDP, and PKK articles or seperate articles if there is no room on them. This article talks about a relationship between Israelis and Kurds as a whole.

In its current state this article fails to meet WP:OR as there is even material synthesized based on the bible. The article is at best like Kurdish-Chinese relations, a collection of random unrelated historic events.

-- Cat ^chi? 10:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The argument about Asian American-British relations makes no sense. Asian-Americans are not an ethnic group they consist of many different Asian ethnicitys, grouped all in one. While Kurds are an ethnic group. VartanM 15:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Then why are they covered under "Race · Ethnicity · Ancestry" in Template:Demographics of the United States? It is certainly a selective group of people who definitely had some relationship with the United States and/or some other country. Of course this "relationship" did not apply to every Asian American. Such relationships are better of covered on the respective articles. -- Cat ^chi? 16:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Still makes no sense, you are comparing apples with oranges. Even if you compared Korean-Americans, it wouldn't work. You see X-American is a subgroup. Kurds are not a sub-groupVartanM 16:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

x-american is as much of an ethnicity as Kurdish people. You are right it makes no sense to write such relation articles. Hence the nom. -- Cat ^chi? 16:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Kurds are not a sub-group. You might see them as such, but they have an ethnicity of their own. Korean-American Israeli relations would make no sense but Korean-Israeli would. And you're still comparing apples to oranges. I suggest you to find another example, because this one is going to stick. --VartanM 17:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Korea and Israel are both countries. Well Korea is two countries. Their diplomatic relations of course makes sense. Kurds are as much as a "sub group" (whatever that is) as Korean-Americans. They may have an ethnicity of their own, which is a cultural concept. This article does not cover any culture related interaction whatsoever. It does cover alleged covert operations by Mossad. -- Cat ^chi? 18:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

If you don't like the content of the article you should discuss it in the talkpage not nominate it for deletation. VartanM 03:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not like the concept of the article. It suffers heavily on WP:NOT and WP:OR. -- Cat ^chi? 12:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Very Strong Keep I don't know of any wikipedia policy that forbids to have articles about Kurdish relations. It's obvious that this afd was done in bad faith. VartanM 03:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- It's not obvious to me that this AFD is in bad faith. ~~I don't agree with it~~, but it wasn't done in bad faith. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  - Clarification from closing admin. Having rereviewed the purpose of "xyz-abc relations" style articles, I do agree with the nominator. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep into Foreign relations of Israel. Foreign relations of Israel has {{main}} to Turkey-Israel relations, Germany-Israel relations, etc. No reason Kurdistan should be any different.--Victor falk 10:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

CommentAs for Kurdistan not having diplomatic relations, this is false: consulates function as diplomatic missions. Kurdish-relations are very notable, with reports of Israeli activity/presence, etc.--Victor falk 10:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Which definition of Kurdistan are you referring to? Kurdistan is not a country (at least not according to KRG authorities) and you just implied it to be one. That falls under WP:OR and WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. There ale lots of consulates in the US outside of Washington such as in Callifornia. They take care of issues such as visas and etc. They do not sign international treaties or agreements of any kind. In the case of Iraq diplomatic traffic has to go through Baghdad. In the case of US diplomatic traffic has to go through Washington. -- Cat ^chi? 12:19, 1 October 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 a snowball Keep. Seraphim ^Whipp 01:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fart

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary (see official policy: Wikipedia is not a dictionary). We write articles on concepts, not words. The concept of a fart is covered on the Flatulence page; we don't need a separate article discussing only a single word. Powers ^T 12:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge with flatulence and redirect. 23skidoo 12:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep A surprisingly well-written article that goes far beyond a dictionary definition. The article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn 13:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree that the sources are "ample". The first four are all primary sources used only to provide examples of usage. The fifth looks like it might be a good secondary source for flatulence, but it's difficult to determine if it's a good secondary source for the word "fart". The quoted chapter name is "The Honorable Art of Farting in Continental Renaissance", which refers to the act, not the word. In order to be considered "ample", I would expect the references to include some secondary sources that actually provide analysis of the word. Powers ^T 13:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. This word, like fuck and shit, has nuances and ramifications that go well beyond mere synonymy with "flatulence". The article at issue is a reasonable beginning. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- What nuances and ramifications would those be? Recury 17:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Well written article. I agree with Smerdis of Tlön's analysis. Seraphim ^Whipp 14:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep - this has a concept beyond flatulance. Benea 15:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- No, I'm afraid it doesn't. Recury 17:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- The article as it stands discusses only "fart" as flatulence. What other concept do you mean? Powers ^T 17:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to flatulence, etymology + usage = dictionary entry. Recury 17:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment - No, I'm afraid it does. What I have done there is to produce an equally valid counterpoint to "No, I'm afraid it doesn't", which was rather a bizarre and unhelpful thing to say, and seemed to simply belittle my vote. On the other hand, the article as it stands, as User:LtPowers more helpfully notes, is little more than a definition. It certainly has the capacity to be an article along the lines of fuck and shit. ~~I don't really care enough to expand it though, so either delete it until someone comes along and does so~~, or don't and let it stay to be expanded to include encyclopedic knowledge. But we don't redirect fuck to sexual intercourse or shit to defecation --Benea 18:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- We should though. They are just glorified dictionary definitions themselves, this one isn't even glorified. Other shit exists isn't a great argument. Recury 19:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  - By all means put them up for deletion then if you feel they should redirect. WP:IDON'TLIKEIT is also not a good argument, kindly keep you opinions out of this and come up with some good arguments. You could say that battleship is a glorified definition, or Ear, or Lighthouse, since those subjects should really just say what those words mean, and so should not appear in an encyclopedia. I'm really struggling to understand what an encyclopedia means to you. Benea 19:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
    - The articles on battleship, ear, and lighthouse discuss the concepts described by those words. This article, on the other hand, discusses a word, with etymology and usage notes. Etymology and usage notes are the domain of a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Powers ^T 23:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment - As to other concepts, see the terms 'old fart', 'brain fart' (in computer programming), and the concept of 'fart jokes', 'fart videos', even, God help us, 'fart boxes'. Flatulance deals with the medical, biologically processes. Fart is by far the common terminology in popular culture. In fact, most of the literature and arts section in flatulance would be better placed here, both to shorten and tighten that article, and to provide the contexts that are provided in fuck and shit, and that make those articles more than dictionary entries. What is needed is expansion, I agree. Benea 18:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, those are some interesting concepts, if by concepts you mean phrases that just have the word in it. Of course there isn't much to talk about besides the word which would probably be why this article is a dictionary definition in the first place. I would love to see the article when you are done with it though, with its section on how it is used in the phrase "fart boxes." Oh, but I think you've hit on something there: "Flatulance deals with the medical, biologically processes. Fart is by far the common terminology in popular culture." Yes! Just like heart attack goes to myocardial infarction and the bends goes to decompression sickness and queef goes to vaginal flatulence! Recury 19:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  - My point was to show how the term has entered popular culture and expanded to introduce concepts not related to flatulance. The article could well be expanded to run through these, which is an aspect lacking at the moment. As to redirects, as you elegantly point out, ironically other shit does in fact exist, as do cunts and wankers which are not redirects and are fully fledged articles in their own right. Nominate them for deletion too by all means. Benea 19:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
    - Actually, you raise a good point. From what I can see, the article cunt is an excellent encyclopedia article, wanker a little less so, and shit merely a longer form of fart's current state. I would not nominate cunt for deletion, but shit could use a lot of improvement. Fart just doesn't contain anything encyclopedic -- that is, nothing that isn't perfectly suitable for a dictionary. I'm not saying it couldn't, just that it doesn't. Powers^T 14:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
      - Essentially there is really little difference between the two. Cunt opens with the etymology and goes on with the usage. There's a lot more information than fart, but what it does is exactly the same, to deal with the concept. Fart has a very definite concept. This is a rather bizarre double standard, where one article can be a 'excellent encyclopedia article' but another article that has exactly the same structure and purpose does not belong in an encyclopedia. Benea 14:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
        
        Well "excellent" was perhaps not the best choice of words. I'm not suggesting it's ready for Good Article status. Regardless, this is not a double standard at all. If information comparable to what is in the cunt article was in the fart article, I'd probably let it go. The "Feminist viewpoints" section of the "cunt" article, for example, is a prime example of the type of information that an encyclopedia could include but a dictionary would not. Furthermore, the "cunt" article contains actual secondary sources, something which the "fart" article lacks. Powers ^T 14:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  - heart attack = myocardial infarction; the bends = decompression sickness; but a fart is much more than mere flatulence. Alansohn 19:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
    - And what exactly would that be? And why doesn't the article mention any of that? Powers ^T 23:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
      - Read the article. I see it, as do the overwhelming majority of participants in this AfD. Alansohn 00:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
        
        I've read the article, multiple times, and I don't see it. It talks about the history and modern usage of the word, along with a few synonyms, one portmanteau, and one metaphorical usage. Every reference in this article is to flatulence. Please, even if you think it's obvious, humor me, and quote a reference from this article that involves "fart" meaning something other than "flatulence". Powers ^T 14:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
        
        [here, here, here, and here. They're not in the article yet, as I've said it would indeed benefit from expansion. But not deletion. They ALL refer to fart in a seperate sense to flatulance. Benea 14:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
        
        We keep or delete articles based on their current state, not potential for expansion, don't we? Powers ^T 14:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep, article about a notable word. J Milburn 18:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment - this is somewhat interesting. From Medicinenet.com - Fart: This is not an accepted medical word for passing gas. Excess gas in the intestinal is medically termed "flatulence." . So fart is not even a synonym for flatulance, but a distinct phenomenon, with an etymology, usage and numerous appearances in popular culture, that was developed into areas of everyday use with different meanings, as here about 'brain farts', here for military slang, here for 'old fart', and here for cocktails. It's appeared in films and music and even a poem called “The Parliament Fart”, written in the seventeenth century and surveyed here. Benea 20:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep It's true, wikipedia is not a dictionary, but this is not a dictionary definition. The article does more than to explain the meaning of the word, but also provides fairly detailed history of the word, usage of the word, and general attitudes surrounding the word, with a myriad more information that stands to be added. Wikipedia does not have articles about "concepts", but articles about things, be they people, places, books, architecture, or anything else you may think of. As such, there are a few articles about words, and while there are not many of these, because most words do not have sufficient context and information for an entire articles, some words, including "fart", are significant enough that there is both warrant and material for an article. Calgary 21:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- A "fairly detailed history of the word, usage of the word, and general attitudes surrounding the word" are all the domain of a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Powers ^T 23:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep of course. Extremely important word in the English language, with a rich and fascinating history. DWaterson 22:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Just in case it was missed, let me quote from the policy document: In Wikipedia, "[a]rticles are about the people, concepts, places, events, and things that their titles denote. The article octopus is about the animal: its physiology, its use as food, its scientific classification, and so forth." In Wiktionary, "[a]rticles are about the actual words or idioms in their title. The article octopus is about the word 'octopus': its part of speech, its pluralizations, its usage, its etymology, its translations into other languages, and so forth." Which definition applies here? We need a very strong justification for going against clearly-stated policy. Powers ^T 23:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep I guess that the history bit is the main reason for me to say keep, which makes it more then just a dicdef.--JForget 23:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I have sympathy with LtPowers and his viewpoint, which seems to be that an article about a word is not a subject for an encyclopedia, which should be about things and, err concepts. It seems that the consensus is that 'fart' exists as an independent concept however, seperate from the term flatulence. In this case, I would expect to see it appear in both projects. The policy you quote is far from clearly stated on this matter. It certainly does not rule out an article about a word. The article fart is about the word: its history, its usage, its etymology, its changing nature, its cultural impact, and so forth." would be just as acceptable set of criterion as your octopus example. And as for not being subjects worthy of an encyclopedia, precedent is also against you, the venerable 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica has pages which simply define words and talk about their history, development and usage, as with Fallacy and Recognizance. Benea 00:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not saying it's not a worthy subject, just that there is nothing in this article that isn't the domain of a dictionary. Your "recognizance" example proves my point: the article is almost entirely about the concept of recognizance; the discussion of its history and usage of the word is limited and includes only that information relevant to the larger concept. I honestly don't understand the reluctance here to let Wiktionary be Wiktionary and transwiki this information over there. Every piece of information in this article is suitable for Wiktionary. If this article as written is a suitable encyclopedia article, then I don't see the difference between an encyclopedia and a dictionary. Seriously: what part of this article is not suitable for a dictionary? Powers ^T 14:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  - Indeed, I would certainly hope information of this nature is in wiktionary, which would indeed be incomplete without it. Happily it is there for all to enjoy, so we all know what the swedish for fart is (you learn something new everyday). But the list you quote of what wikipedia articles are is not exhaustive, it deliberately ends with 'and things'. It leaves the matter open ended. The consensus is that this term is what you also deliberately vaguely define as a 'concept', and one beyond a mere dictionary definition. For the difference between what an encyclopedia and a dictionary is, read wiktionary's shit and our shit (so to speak). At best this a debate over what constitutes a dictionary and an encylopedia, and should be debated at the relevent policy pages, and not using this article as a test case, and at worst, a case of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. Benea 14:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    - I'm not using this as a test case -- or at least, I didn't realize it would be a test case when I nominated it for deletion. I had thought it rather clear-cut based on the clear wording of the policy page. Regardless, if this is kept, the WP:DICDEF policy page will be proven to be inaccurate, or at least woefully incomplete. Powers ^T 14:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Well written, and well documented. We wouldn't merge "fuck" and "intercourse". I think usage and etymology make it encyclopedic, and beyond a standard dic def. There are several books on the history of single words. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep - per Richard Arthur Norton. -WarthogDemon 03:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep Per encyclopedia, encyclopaedia or (traditionally) encyclopædia is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge. Seems like this fits in with official policy. Viperix 09:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Which official policy is that? Powers ^T 14:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  - That is the definition of encyclopedia, and is linked to in almost every official policy on WP. Most notably WP:NOT and WP:Five Pillars. There seems to be some confusion as to what an encyclopedia is for, hope that clears it up. Viperix 02:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    - WP:5P also says "Wikipedia is not a dictionary." While some encyclopedias contain dictionary elements, an article that is nothing but dictionary elements is not suitable for Wikipedia. This article, as it stands right now, is nothing but dictionary elements.
Of course Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. However, dictionary definitions are limited to the definition, pronunciation, etymology, and sometimes translations, as shown on Wiktionary. I am inclined to keep this, since this word in itself has a very wide scope, and a whole lot of usages. Additionally, dictionary entries never include history (if it did, it would be very limited), and this separates itself from a dictionary definition. What is needed here is an expansion, though. —O (说 • 喝) 00:36, 26 September 2007 (GMT)
- What is an etymology if not history? And if the article needs expansion, then by all means do so. Powers ^T 14:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  - Etymology is only where the word comes from, i.e. Latin, Roman, etc. History includes that, plus the past meanings of the word and how it was used over the years. A dictionary definition cannot provide that detailed of a history; it only provides the etymology and the current definition. —O (说 • 喝) 21:07, 26 September 2007 (GMT)
Keep but expand into non-definitional format. —[[Animum | talk]] 00:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment - seems to me to be that we agree that articles about words and concepts are wikipedia worthy. Even our nominator, Mr Powers agrees if he thinks the a wikipedia article on cunt is acceptable. This is not a question over whether an article about fart is acceptable, it is about what the content should be. The procedure should have been to add a request for expansion template, and not try and write the whole thing off by trying to delete it. I've really struggled to understand the nominator's reason for seeking the article's deletion. Tens of thousands of articles on wikipedia need expansion. We do not delete articles that are just one sentence long. We expand them. The article as it stands is the same in structure and approach to other articles he considers wikipedia worthy, and the clear consensus is that the concept of fart is, like fuck, cunt, wanker, shit and twat, distinct, and as it stands, well beyond a dictionary entry. But not enough for the nominator. He is quite correct that it could be expanded. But quite wrong to say that rather than attempting it, an article that does not meet any deletion criteria should be deleted. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article is more than a dictionary entry, just like octopus it has to say what it means. But it is consensually agreed that it is a concept, and as you point out, that definitely IS wikipedia worthy. Benea 16:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- I've started rewriting and adding material pretty much copying the style of cunt. And I'll stress started since there is a lot more to cover and I've barely begun researching. Please, give me a good reason why this is not encyclopedic that is not releated to 'there isn't enough in it'. I'd really like to try and make this all better for you so you could actually live with this article, it would be a bizarre loss if it was deleted just because you have an aversion to articles about words. Benea 17:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
KeepThe article meets standards of notability. LordHarris 21:50, 26 September 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 23:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jordan C. Johnson

No references, no sources, no evidence of notability, predicts future events, probable vanity article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/5ive Po1nts). Powers ^T 17:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete though it's a nice touch how he graduated two years from now. 17Drew 18:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable, fore-seeing the future. Got me thinking, tho, bet you a cookie that this is related to some school project to create a fictional company. Yngvarr (t) (c) 18:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Non-notable, unsourced (and violating WP:BLP because of that) and crystal-ballery. --Moonriddengirl 18:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete for so many reasons... vanity, crystal ball, non-notable, unsourced. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 21:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete. So he graduates in 2009, but receives an award in 2007 from the institute he attended after graduation. It's a big ball of wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey stuff. And fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 03:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Not yet notable, and a little too much crystal ball-gazing. --Kateshort forbob 08:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:Bio. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 21:49, 28 September 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 September 24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Pine Lake Middle School

[edit] Yasir Bahrani

[edit] Dale Sheckler

[edit] Hungarian rugby league

[edit] List of magazines

[edit] Moderated nuclear explosion

[edit] Arbitrary section break

[edit] Titanic 2. Jack's Back

[edit] Clovis Carrive-Meyer

[edit] Marc Shneier

[edit] Marin Independant Journal

[edit] Motorbreath

[edit] Jae J. Jang

[edit] Ben Leonard

[edit] Ultra Mario Bros.

[edit] List of remixers

[edit] Comparison of world calendar and gregorian calendar

[edit] Middle childhood

[edit] Theory of Structure and Counterstructure

[edit] Korkaew Prakaikawin Na Chiang Mai

[edit] St. Patrick School (Wadsworth, Illinois)

[edit] Source criticism

[edit] Miles de Courcy, 1st Baron Kingsale

[edit] William G. Covington, Jr.

[edit] Paul Lewis

[edit] Rock Solid Music

[edit] Connor Stanhope

[edit] Nanik Atak

[edit] Cory Gierman

[edit] Quincey Tones

[edit] PokerTracker

[edit] Sensible Charlotte Area Transportation

[edit] S4s

[edit] Fran Cosgrave

[edit] Rumsfeldian

[edit] Locked Away

[edit] StepMania

[edit] DDR Freak

[edit] Coffee World

[edit] RuneScape combat

[edit] Coven (short film)

[edit] Disruptive comments by Tweety21's sockpuppet

[edit] Derek white and the monophobics

[edit] A man called Brian

[edit] 2007 Brownlow Medal

[edit] Hey! Say! JUMP

[edit] Mall of Georgia

[edit] Boston Logan Airport Fake Bomb Incident

[edit] RUT

[edit] James Boulevard

[edit] Left Book Club Online

[edit] Edvin Mattiasson

[edit] Ultramod

[edit] Fabolous' fifth studio album

[edit] Tim & Eric

[edit] Hydromissions

[edit] Res Medicinae

[edit] Cybernetics Oriented Interpreter

[edit] Grand Theft Auto Cathedral City

[edit] Lehigh Valley Arts Council

[edit] Xtac Fashions

[edit] Data loading

[edit] Innocent Mdledle

[edit] GoAbroad.com

[edit] Buddhist polemics

[edit] Justin Scharvona

[edit] Sheasgreen

[edit] Bioenvironmental Engineering

[edit] Luìs Fernando Centi

[edit] Dark Carnival (ICP)

[edit] Ayman Ahmed El-Difrawi

[edit] Wapan

[edit] 5ive Po1nts

[edit] Pedbase

[edit] Master's degree in North America

[edit] Rashmi uday singh

[edit] Trapped Under Ice