Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 December 23

< December 22	December 24 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete--Tone 11:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Cavanaugh[edit]

Seems likely to be a hoax. Neither of the URL's listed work, neither do they produce any results on the Internet Archive and Google books and news seem to be completely unaware of any "Francis Alberto Cavanaugh" or "Francis Cavanaugh + Moran" or "Frank Cavanaugh + Moran".

Delete both, rather compelling evidence that both articles are hoaxes. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Uh, yeah... like I'm gonna pay $9.95 to the cited source just to verify a Wikipedia article... --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 01:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Both articles seems to be hoaxes. The URL doesn't work. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dont delete either oneMaybe it was written by their grandchildren...We can not tell,I know it is not the Wikipedia policy,but I think we should let it be,because it is clear that those man existed and and they were criminals indeed:just try typing "Francis Cavanaugh" into google and you`ll see tons of pages about the two of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.105.47.214 (talk) 02:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both of these are un-verifiable based Google searches. Sorry, proud grandchildren of fictitious mobsters. --Lockley (talk) 06:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until proper sources can be cited. TGreenburgPR (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). Keilana_(recall) 21:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Story[edit]

procedural nomination—version at time of AFD nomination: This has been to AFD several times, yet was found tagged for PROD-deletion. PROD nominator states: "No claim to notability (CSD A7)". User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
frag still no assertion of notability. David Fuchs^(talk) 02:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article has cites to works and websites by what are described as participants in a common movement that largely appear to be self-published. For this reason, it appears at first glance to be potentially original research. Do we have any independent sources commenting on this subject and independently verifying that (a) The various disparate individuals works really comprise a connected subject or movement (otherwise, collecting them into a subject would represent an original research synthesis) and (b) the subject is notable? The fact that some of these individuals may be scientists is irrelevant because they are talking in their "story" hats, not their scientific ones. For this reason I believe this article needs to be evaluated as would any article on a claimed new religious movement or development that cites largely to movement participant's own self-published works. As with any religion article, independent sources are the key to avoiding a delete. If there are independent sources referenced and I've missed them, would it be possible to list some of them here? Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 04:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think Evolution Theology should also be up for nomination, as they seem to have extremely similar content. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 04:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term Great Story is certainly used by modern theologians to describe an integration of the scientific with the theological. Google Scholar quickly found these three. There are many more. Lumos3 (talk) 10:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary Faith: Rediscovering God in Our Great Story, Diarmuid O'Murchu Taschenbuch - Orbis Books (USA) (Oct 2002) - 280 Pages ISBN 1570754519 [1]
Partnership with Nature According to the Scriptures: Beyond the Theology of Stewardship,H. Paul Santmire , 2003 Christian Scholar's Review [2]
Rethinking the Scientific Revolution. Cambridge University Press.Margaret J. Osler, editor. New York:2000. Pp. xii, 340. . Review in American Historical Review Vol 106 No 4. [3]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Smith (architect)[edit]

IP contested prod —B o L @ 23:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a landscape architect who has just been awarded a major contract with the city of Irvine, CA. I took the liberty of fixing the lack of sources. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 01:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait My bad, this was AFD'd before, but was closed as no consensus. Should I close the AFD? —BoL @ 01:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's up to you. Smith is certainly more notable today than he was at the time of the first AfD (which was before the page was moved to its current location), but is it enough to get a full consensus to keep? --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 01:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Smith is a notable architect. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--Tone 11:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Konan Big[edit]

procedural nomination—article version at time of AFD nomination: This was nominated for deletion via PROD despite having been here previously. PROD nominator states: "non-notable local wrestler. Did not comepete in top level of sport. Written a blow-by-blow of various fights." User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is a non-notable wrestler. We cannot have articles for every local wrestlers. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I was the user who mistakenly Prod'd it, I of course support deletion. To expand on my comments. All the external links are to Youtube. The sources are only by a Dave Meltzer only show he worked in local matches. Almost the entire article is a fight-by-fight synopsis of his bouts and their results. Even the federation he plays for is not notable enough to have an article, so its obvious to me that an individual wrestler in it, is not notable enough. Also, the name of the article should be his given name, not his show name. Mbisanz (talk) 03:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Cheers, Dav nel 03^{Sign It, Junior!} 09:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Nikki311 19:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burr Road Middle School[edit]

This is an article about a U.S. middle school. Contested prod. There is no assertion of any special notability in the article. There is no assertion of any notability at the school's website. The article fails Wikipedia:Notability. Darkspots (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 23:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why thank you, I was going to wait a day or two, but sure Delete. fails to establish any sort of notability.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No assertion of any notability per WP:N. Mh29255 (talk) 07:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find anything notable on a google search. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 11:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to Wauseon Exempted Village Schools. I have merged the content so delete is not an option for GFDL reasons. TerriersFan (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN school (to the above voter, that was not the correct thing to do and won't change anything). TJ Spyke 02:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 10:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Nasty[edit]

procedural nomination—article version at time of AFD: This was nominated for PROD-deletion after having traveled here in October 2007. I concur that the article should be deleted as it has not improved a whit since the AFD-closure (except for my actually just recently putting in a reliable source mentioned in the prior AFD), at which point it was kept on condition of cleanup and addition of references. Interestingly, the entire band lineup has changed in the article since last AFD closure. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nasty is a non-notable singer. This type of articles should be deleted. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Greswik (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--Tone 11:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

College football lineal championship[edit]

This does not appear to be a notable topic. It cites no references or sources, and all the substantive edits seem to be by one individual. This article appears to consist primarily of original research, and while I am normally of the belief that such articles can be improved by adding sources, I have no reason to believe that any reliable sources on this topic exist. It's an interesting concept, but it should be expounded on someone's personal website, not Wikipedia. --SuperNova |T|C| 23:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like an original research essay to me. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If a source can be found to back it up, it might be a keeper. I recall reading this type of thing in SI years ago, where someone bragged that St. Olaf or somewhere was the national basketball champ because it was the team, that beat the team, that beat the team, that...beat Chaminade, which was the team that beat Virginia. On the other hand, if the author conceived of this, Wikipedia isn't the place to try out such ideas. Might make a good article in the newsletter for CFRA, the College Football Researchers' Association. Better to know it won't fly BEFORE you do this exercise over a 139 year stretch. Mandsford (talk) 02:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is totally unencyclopedic. Look at the first line: 'The College Football Lineal Championship is determined in the same manner as a boxing match.' This article seems to be a hoax. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the article is a hoax per se. What the author is doing is starting with the first college football game ever, following the winning team until the next time it loses, then following the winner of that game until the next time it loses, and so on. That doesn't make it encyclopedic, but it's not a hoax, either. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. It's an interesting idea for original research, albeit the current game-by-game listing is probably not the best way to discuss the topic. I recommend that whoever is conducting this research submit it to a site such as the College Football Data Warehouse instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Really interesting, but original research. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no such championship. The only sport in which 'the man who beat the man who beat the man' is really used as a concept is Boxing. Its use here is entirely meaningless. Nick mallory (talk) 13:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is not a hoax, but it is original research. I have read that definition more carefully, and I agree with deletion. Collegefootball1869 (talk) 19:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Collegefootball1869[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (blatant copyright infringement) by User:Uncle G, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I started it over as a stub. Punkmorten (talk) 22:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archdiocese of San Fernando[edit]

Substantial copy and pasting from http://www.cbcponline.net/sfpampanga. Requires severe copyediting and needs to not have any of the names on the article. This is an article about the archdiocese itself, not the entire staff. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 22:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: AFD closed ~2 1/2 hours before the end of 5 days of discussion --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Santa Claus Thesis[edit]

I would tag it as nonsense, except that there actually are scientists making studies like this. This one, however, is unsourced. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i agree, it is obvioulsy nonsence. it is also imporant to note that

the thesis was never published
the thesis was written by middle school students (who probably wrote this article making it a conflict of interests)

And

the author's parents "confiscated" the thesis making any proof that the paper is real not likely. it is a joke article written by some middile school kid with too much time on his/her hands. it should be deleted.

Ryan shell (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, possibly a G3 (blatant vandalism) or G1 (nonsense) but I'm not quite certain. Nonetheless, I agree with Ryan Shell above, this was probably written a middle school kid one day, looking to make his/her mark on Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Coal in stocking I agree with your social studies teacher. What a delightful holiday story, however. Perhaps if it was set to music, it can be a Christmas carol, but be respectful if you elect to rhyme "thesis" with "Jesus".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandsford (talk • contribs)
Delete fails Wikipedia:No original research. Obviously WP:NFT as well. Darkspots (talk) 23:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a crap. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article that fails WP:NOR, WP:N and WP:V. Mh29255 (talk) 07:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article that fails WP:NFT, WP:NOR, WP:N, and WP:V. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above, I thought this things got speedied. Greswik (talk) 16:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: AFD closed ~2 hours before end of 5 days of discussion --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rez(life) Magazine[edit]

Contested prod, about a non-notable magazine. Seems to be created by publishers. Carados (talk) 21:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The PROD was from me. No assertion of notability. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 21:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Stefan Legein[edit]

The result was Delete Maxim_(talk) 17:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A junior ice hockey player who has not yet become notable JD554 (talk) 21:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Come back when you make the Blue Jackets, kid. Blueboy 96 21:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would agree that the article should be reduced in length but he did at least make the Canadian 2008 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships team. -RiverHockey (talk) 21:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Junior players just aren't notable in any sport. Nick mallory (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd disagree with that generalization. That said, this junior player does not appear to be notable just yet. Resolute 23:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I'd have to agree with Reso lute. -RiverHockey (talk) 19:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you disagree with my 'generalisation'? The Wikipedia notability guidelines for sport say that a person has to have competed at the highest level of the game. A fourteen year old Gymnast at the Olympics is therefore notable, a fifteen year old footballer playing for a Man United youth team is not. It's not the age of the player, it's the level at which they play. If it's a 'junior' level, then they're not notable, if they are Nadia Comăneci then they are. Nick mallory (talk) 13:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia guidelines state that playing at the highest level of sport is a self-evident claim of notability. That is hardly the same as stating that no junior players are notable. John Tavares is a highly notable junior player, one of the most talked about hockey players at any level, in fact. Simply playing junior hockey certainly does not confer notability automatically, but one's exploits in junior hockey can make a player notable. Reso lute 04:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You present no evidence to substantiate that argument. 'Most talked about'? What does that mean? If he's that good he'll soon be playing with the big boys and can have an article thenNick mallory (talk) 06:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I bring Tavares up only as an example. If you wish to debate the merits of an article on him specifically, feel free to begin a discussion on my talk page, or at WT:HOCKEY. Or, if you really wish to test your assumption on the notability of junior players, AfD his article and see how successful you are. Reso lute 15:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Tavares meets the established WP:HOCKEY notability guidelines (see RGTraynor's post below). He won the Outstanding OHL award and Outstanding CHL award. I would say being named the best player in all of junior hockey equates to winning a major award. Patken4 (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Legein is a non-notable person. This type of biography should not exist on Wikipedia. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's played for the National Junior team. That makes him sufficiently notable, especially considering the popularity of the World Junior Championship in his native country, Canada. Legein is a household name among many hockey fans. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails to meet WP:BIO, fails to meet WP:HOCKEY standards for notability at his level of play: "Achieved preeminent honors (all-time top ten career scorer, league or playoff MVP, first team all-star, All-American) in a lower minor league ... in a major junior league ... or in a major collegiate hockey league." RGTraynor 23:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Perhaps its time to re-evaluate the notability guidelines for hockey players. Legein, Matt Halischuk, and Logan Pyett and their ilk get essentially the undivided attention of the world's biggest hockey country for the better part of a month. That is more notable as a hockey player than a guy who plays one game in the NHL, and someone creates an article after his name appears on the scoresheet never to be touched again. Legein is 'notable' for a hockey player based on what he has done to date, never mind when he makes the Blue Jackets.Leafschik1967 (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Feel free to hit the WP:BIO talk page and see if you can swing consensus to your views. RGTraynor 20:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

News coverage for a month doesn't mean the player will achieve long-term notability – Notability is not temporary. And as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball we don't yet know if he will achieve that notability. --JD554 (talk) 09:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question. The article states Legein won the most improved player award in a poll of coaches. Is this considered a major award? It doesn't appear to be one, but I bring this up just in case. This would be the only avenue to which this subject could be notable per the above stated guidelines. I don't see being invited to the World Junior's or Top Prospect Game being notable.Patken4 (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- One of our editors more versed in the Ontario Hockey League would be able to give you a better answer, but no, I do not believe that these coaches' polls would be considered major awards. Reso lute 20:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not yet notable, can be readded if and when he plays professionally or earns notability through something like an award. News coverage for a couple weeks does not create notability as Notability is not temporary. -Djsasso (talk) 23:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Keilana_(recall) 22:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Knight (video game)[edit]

There is little to no actual information on the game presented, and no references are provided to support any of the information in the article. I suggest deletion until more information on this upcoming game is actually released. MelicansMatkin (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is a rumor that Pandemic might be making a game, but I think it's too early on though to create an article on it. Deflagro ^C/_T 22:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is totally unencyclopedic. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Unasserted notability by DGG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 04:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Dominguez[edit]

Declined speedy. Article concerns a family recently rescued by the Highway Patrol after disappearing on a Christmas tree-cutting trip. WP:BLP1E ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikinews. It is unlikely that the family will remain notable much longer than it takes for news to get old. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikinews does not have a GFDL compatible license at this time. --Dhartung | Talk 21:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then Delete. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable news type event. If the information cannot be directly copied to Wikinews, then I leave it up to someone else to independently create an article for this person/family. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 21:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Thriller (album).--Kubigula (talk) 04:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Be Mine[edit]

AfDs for this article:

procedural nomination—version at time of AFD nomination: This was found in the PROD-deletion bin despite a prior trip to AFD. PROD nominator states: "Only notable thing about this song is it comes from the Thriller album, which is the best selling album of all time. A simple look at the Thriller tracklist does this job adequately." User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to Thriller (album), song isn't independently notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sorry. Maybe I missed out some details on the Prod-deletion list, I didn't realise if it had had an AFD before it needed to go AFD again. I just saw an article so in need of deletion that I didn't think! I wasn't trying to sneak around rules or anything.(The Elfoid (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment: That's ok - it happens more because there isn't a notice on the talk page and the link to an old AFD might be buried in the links-to-here listing. The section of the PROD policy that covers this is Wikipedia:PROD#How it works. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Michael Jackson has been informed of this on-going discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to album. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 23:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 re-create as redirect to Devil's Due Publishing --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: AFD closed ~15 min before end of 5 day discussion period --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Blaylock[edit]

Article was created by the person it is about. Disputed notability. Borderline spam. thisisace (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Devil's Due Publishing. No notability outside of his company. Blueboy 96 21:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a spam. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Devil's Due Publishing like Blueboy says. --Lockley (talk) 06:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Blueboy. TGreenburgPR (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no real notability asserted, or WP:SNOW if you prefer. NawlinWiki (talk) 05:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Allen (internet personality)[edit]

NN person. Being popular on youtube does not make a person satisfy WP:N meshach (talk) 19:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 320 subscribers is a modest success in YouTube terms; inhabitants of List of YouTube celebrities typically have subscription numbers in the many thousands. Google isn't turning up much in the way of independent coverage of this individual. --Tom Tresser (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, borders on an A7 speedy. Blueboy 96 21:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he's only known by a restricted youtube "community". -RiverHockey (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent reliable sources are given. Dekisugi (talk) 23:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the List_of_YouTube_celebrities should have some criteria for inclusion. For those of you with YouTube experience, is a million views significant? What criteria should be applied to this list? Should it be somebody whom an article has been written about who clearly meets WP:N, regardless of view counts and subscriptions? I think so, but the list seems to imply the opposite, which I think fosters the addition of articles like this one. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As answered again and again on its talk page, the criteria are Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Independent sources, and Wikipedia:No original research. Lists of people should not necessarily all be links. It is the overlinking of lists of names that results in biographical articles that don't satisfy our criteria, not the lists themselves. Uncle G (talk) 02:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is unencyclopedic. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is at best a piece of self-indulgence. A million combined views from all videos is insignificant. And even if the number were many times that, I would not see how a hit-counter is a relevant measure of notability. Wikipedia should not be a clearing house of narcissistic youtube celebrity, short of possibly exceptionally notable situations like LonelyGirl 15; then only because of the unbelievable level of legitimate media attention from the resulting fallout. Cordell (talk) 05:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, obviously a WP:POINT nomination. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix[edit]

This artical is way to long. I don't like it eithier. I want it to be Delated as quick as posibble. (Sazuref (talk) 19:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Snowball keep—Reeks of WP:POINT. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 19:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Sazuref, i can't understand why you want this article deleted. It does not matter if it is long, or if you don't like it. (Shadowmoon13 (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Montclaire Elementary School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Deletion nomination This is the second time this article has been nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Montclaire Elementary School. This version was prodded, but that prod was removed WITHOUT fixing any of the problems noted. The article is about an entity that lacks any references to extensive, reliable, third-party sources. Should be deleted again for that reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayron32 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 23 December 2007

Comment Is this version the same as the previously deleted version? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea, as I have no access to the previously deleted version. However, we can safely assume it is not BETTER than the previous version. Really... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article that fails to demonstrate any notability per WP:N. Mh29255 (talk) 07:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 13:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Seems to be a lot of schools linking around here, all of some reason with claims to be really special. Someones been busy. Greswik (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is not a re-creation of the formerly deleted content, but a poorer version. However, this version does have a minor statement of notability (unverified) that the original lacked: "ranked 1st of 25 schools in the Cupertino Union School District". --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject San Francisco Bay Area has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. AnteaterZot (talk) 08:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This nomination does not seem to comply with Wikipedia:Deletion policy. First, there is no Policy that requires "references to extensive, reliable, third-party sources" [emphasis added], which is the only rationale offered by the nominator. WP:V and WP:RS can not reasonably be expanded to that language as a justification, and lack of consensus about the number and stature of independent sources required to establich the "notability" of a school is one of the issues that keeps a notability guideline for schools from being established. Second, the Prod previously posted by the nominator stated "Non notable elementary school. If it IS notable, than reliable secondary sources would exist. Please provide those sources before removing this notice. See WP:N for more information." There are always a multitude of sources for American public schools that meet the standards of WP:V and WP:RS, which is all that is required to meet WP:N—there is no higher standard of notability for schools. In the San Francisco Bay Area many such sources are available online and can be easily discovered, including State and Federal reports on every public school. Third, in response to the Prod, the creator of the article, who has joined only the day before, appears to have attempted to comply by adding a link to the Cupertino Union School District's webpage for this school; although that is less than perfect, the website of an independent local government is a perfectly reasonable source of objective information about itself and its operations, as long as the fluff and puffery is avoided. Fourth, in posting this AfD, the nominator has shown no signs of considering the alternatives provided at WP:DP—he did not edit it except to add the Prod and AfD templates; he did not propose a merger or move any of the useful information to the District article, which currently provides no information about individual schools except their names; and he did not intitiate any discussion on the article talk page after the creator had edited the page and removed the Prod (discussion with the creator is also advised in WP:N, as is merger); Fifth, he did not notify the creator, User:Amzo, of the AfD, as suggested in WP:AFD; for whatever reason, Amzo has not made any contributions since 12/22, so such courtesy might have been pointless.--Hjal (talk) 09:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to district per the de-facto guideline that seems to be gaining momentum at WP:SCHOOL. JERRY ^talk _contribs 15:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete: It might be in production, but can't find support for this assertion. No prejudice for re-creation should such evidence emerge. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zygon: When Being Me Is Not Enough[edit]

Film that hasn't even begun being produced. It's a WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL problem. brew crewer (yada, yada) 11:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is out of date. The film has been produced, and the video is scheduled for release later this month. Clearly the article is badly in need of an update though. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN independent film, unreferenced - even the company's website shows little info. BLACKKITE 19:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted (again) to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached - AfD tag had been removed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BLACKKITE 19:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for utter failure of WP:RS (six hits on Google!), none of the information in here can be verified (heck, not even the title). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:TenPoundHammer. Apocryphal at best. Can come back when it's properly sourced. Perhaps. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 13:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Keilana_(recall) 22:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marek Michalak[edit]

Delete: NON-NOTABILITY. Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - AfD created for all the wrong reasons by a one-day puppet. All this article needs is to add some references, which are plenty on the net, not an AfD. Wrong template, subject notable beyond any doubt. greg park avenue (talk) 17:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, I am not a "one-day puppet". greg park avenue made no effort to contact me. As a Polish-American I know his reasoning re Michalak is inaccurate, however we all have a right to be wrong sometimes. But his assailing me as a puppet is a clear violation of WP:AGF. Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 23:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon for my poor English. Of course, instead of "puppet" (Pol. marionetka) supposed to be "sock puppet" (Pol. kominiarka). Sorry for your inconvinience, my hyphen-Am bro, didn't mean any personal offense. greg park avenue (talk) 01:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is it stands now is non-encyclopaedic for numerous reasons, the most important being a lack of references and links, as you yourself acknowledge. Calling me names is juvenile and foolish and will do you no good. If you feel so strongly about keeping the article, you should fix it. If you can I will ask to have the AfD closed without prejudice. So far the AfD is not objectionable to anyone besides you. Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 03:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

107 GHits under the search name: Marek.Michalak pedagog alone. Will do? I don't have to add references just because you AfDed this article for no apparent reason. Change the prod then maybe I do, don't promise although. greg park avenue (talk) 04:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Portal talk:Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board informed. This usually works better than project deletion sorting. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 16:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are not 107 Google hits (ghits) - they are Netscape hits and all from Polish URLS. I don't read or speak Polish, regretfully, except for a few bad words. Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 05:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nihil novi (talk) 21:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:VOTE Visor (talk) 22:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per arguments of Yellow-bellied sapsucker, above. This article now reads like a vanity piece: too long, and unsourced. Nihil novi (talk) 23:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not a single source has been given (reliable or otherwise), but the article is loaded with personal mementoes! The corresponding article in Polish [4] is even more extreme. Please consult Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for further guidance. I would suggest deleting and rewriting the article from scratch as a stub based on what's available online, minus Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. Note, there’s a Polish jazz musician by the same name, a pedagogue, also listed in search. --Poeticbent talk 17:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, it should be recreated when reliable information is available.. Keilana_(recall) 22:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The X Factor 5[edit]

Series 4 has only just finished, no information has yet been released about series 5, the article is totally unsourced and complete speculation. ^anemone│_projectors 19:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article is pure speculation throughout. thisisace (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. It is so blatant I would have thought WP:SNOW would apply. Ros0709 (talk) 11:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I've moved the page now to The X Factor (UK series 5) so it follows the format of the previous 4 series. I've already speedy deleted it twice. ^anemone│_projectors 11:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not crystal balling at all. There will be one okay? now how can that be crystal ball. I vote keep, as somebody is bound to come back and create it again. Either leave it, or have it created again. Its as simple as that. (Shadowmoon13 (talk) 17:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Keep Like shadowmoon said, it will easily be created again. Also you can not expect sources until the broadcast date comes faster. Don't expect everything straight away, because you won't get it. Its speculation! no its not! there will be one in the future, As the contract will continue till 2010. Keep Definitely (Gotiger13 (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Keep There will be one. It has been annuonced. So keep. Whoevers voting Delate, then think it thrugh once more. (Sazuref (talk) 17:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Keep Whoever is voting Delete, then you need to take a good look around the internet. There will be one. It has been announced! and Sazuref, learn to spell or don't come here to contribute. (Minopas (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Keep This wiki is pretty shit. X-Factor 5 was announced before the end of season 4. What is it with you people... do you not investigate your stuff before you mark for deletion. Also.............. You can apply for season 5 right now... So suck balls you fucking wiki idiots.
- Merry Christmas to you too, banned user Steven Bullen. Ros0709 (talk) 10:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove speculation, keep stub. I have no problem with there being an article about X Factor Series 5, even at this early stage. If it's deleted it will only be recreated sooner or later. But the content at the moment consists almost entirely of vague and unsourced speculation. There is scarcely a single statement that isn't prefixed with "expected to be", "presumed to", "may possibly", "are likely to" etc. I don't see there's a case for retaining any of this unless it can be attributed to some credible source. I think a stub article should be kept so that people can start adding real information as it becomes known. Matt 21:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.100.78 (talk)
Note: WikiProject British TV shows has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Might as well keep but remove speculation and add references. Look after the article and have a 'no rumours without references' policy, otherwise all sorts of crap will get in. If the article is kept and the condition hasn't improved, bring it back to AFD. The JPS ^{talk to me} 12:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Keilana_(recall) 22:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kilrathi Heavy Destroyer[edit]

Non-notable fictional spacecraft. The article has no reliable secondary sources to establish notability in the real world and fails Wikipedia:Notability. Article consists of a list of statistics, as one would find in a game guide and plot repetition. Wikipedia is not a game guide and should not have extensive plot summaries without real-world information. Pagra shtak 19:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pagra shtak 19:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- along with just about everything in Category:Wing Commander spacecraft. --EEMIV (talk) 19:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fictional spacecraft need something special to them for an article. User:Krator (t c) 19:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a List of X article as per current policy for minor fictional things such as this. Jtrainor (talk) 05:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as EEMIV says, the entire catagory should be vanquished RogueNinja_talk 09:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all articles in Category:Wing Commander spacecraft to create List of Wing Commander spacecraft. -Sean Curtin (talk) 07:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment Should this succeed, I will copy the names of all the spacecraft into a new article, and bundle-AFD the entire category. RogueNinja_talk 20:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 repost of previously AFD deleted aricle. JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reggie sears[edit]

Deletion nomination Was proded and removed without addressing the problem. Subject of the article is a non-notable musician. Merely holding a job, even a really cool one like musician, does not make one notable. A google search doesn't turn up any reliable sources. A check at http://www.allmusic.com turns up a single album, but no reviews and no biography. Allmusic confirms that he exists, but there needs to be more than proof of existence for a Wikipedia article. Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G4 Repost. Tagged as such. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reggie Sears (note the capitalization). --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was that deletion is nowhere involved. The nominator wanted a merger. Other editors wanted a merger. You can all do mergers yourselves, with the editing tools that you all have. An administrator hitting a delete button is not required. Article merger does not involve deletion at any stage of the process. Do not bring articles to AFD where an administrator hitting a delete button is not part of what you want. Uncle G (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arpitania[edit]

Propagandistic subject with no scientific base. Whatever usefull content it contains should be merged with the Franco-Provençal language article and the article itself should be deleted. Godefroy (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks Godefroy to warn me about this AfD. Months ago I deleted every single article linked to Arpitania. In the end, only one sentence is left in the article about the "Franco-Provençal". I did so, because Arpitannie does not exists. It has been created in 1970 and has no cultural, historical or even linguistical factual background. To confirm this I contacted a senior researcher in linguistic of the university of Lyon. This was my 2 cents :) Schiste (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Arpitania seems like a region that should have its own article considering the language area of it. Captain panda 04:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Franco-Provençal language#Arpitania. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 19:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Europe has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hut 8.5 19:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Keilana_(recall) 22:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dance For Destruction[edit]

Does not appear to meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (music). Only claim to notability I can see is that they have a self-released EP which was recorded with the help of a notable studio engineer. The article is also written in a promotional style by an editor who appears to be a member of the band. —dgies^t_c 18:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. About as notable as 1,000,000 other bands. -RiverHockey (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as blatant hoax vandalism. This is a patent hoax. The remaining image not removed by the 'bot, Image:B1950-buhen-fort.jpg, is — as the image name actually tells us outright — an artist's impression of Buhen, which is nowhere near the Gulf of Gabès. Other images uploaded by Warkalover (talk · contribs), purportedly of this place, are clearly completely different things and screenshots from computer games. Given that the editor is clearly making things up, I don't see why we should trust any claims that xe might make about copyright ownership. So I've speedily zapped all of the images as well. Uncle G (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zarzim[edit]

Prodded as hoax. Prod contested by creator. Doesn't pass the sniff test for me. The number of sources in this article sits somewhere between 1 and -1. UsaSatsui (talk) 18:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. Click on the image. LOL. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally unverifiable, most likely a hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn per the discussion below and improvements made while this discussion was open. I even removed the {{coatrack}} tag, which had been inserted about a month ago. Other tags remain in place, but the issues they point are in no way fatal. Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 13:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Hunt and Sons[edit]

Coatrack article allegedly about a company, but written like an ad for one of the company's products. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 17:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:SPAM and WP:CORP. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC) per considerable improvements to article. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The WHS trowel is indeed popular among archaeologists for whatever reason. The article needs a little cleanup, but I'm not sure what the objection is to having information about a company's product in the company article. --Dhartung | Talk 21:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is written like a description of the companies products, not an ad, and is sourced. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the article is kept, could it be moved to something like WHS archaeology trowel? That would take care of the {{coatrack}} tag. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 23:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How is it in any way a coatrack to discuss a company's product in the article for the company? See AFDs galore for individual products which are concluded with a merge/redirect to the company. "Coatrack" is when you write an article about, say, the Texas Schoolbook Depository building to introduce your personal take on the JFK assassination. --Dhartung | Talk 00:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the article is about that product, not about the company making the product as the title implies. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 01:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - See Wikipedia:COATRACK#What_is_not_a_coatrack. The products are the things that make a company notable. They are not a loosely affiliated bias topic. --Dhartung | Talk 05:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 10:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Judges[edit]

Is this poet truly notable? This article currently reads like self-promotion. Until notability shown, delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO and WP:V. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete for lack of notability and verifiability. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 10:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Penis show[edit]

A blatant hoax that, unfortunately, fits none of the criteria for speedy deletion. As one might imagine, there has never been such a show on Swiss TV. I'm bringing this to AfD to prevent future recreation. Sandstein (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If you ask me, this has almost zero potential as a regularly scheduled show. It is highly unlikely that such a show exists anywhere in the world. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 17:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverified. ... discospinster _talk 17:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:V. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as non-notable even if it could possibly be verified, which is highly unlikely. It claism to be a series of DVD's made from TV shows from a small European country. Move on folks, there's nothing to see here. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- you'd think a show that was "popular in several countries" would get a ghit or two if it existed.--Fabrictramp (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 10:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Lachlan[edit]

Non-notable, no inbound links, no google hits Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HOAX, fails WP:V in all respects. Only search results are Wikipedia mirrors and a place called "Wikispiracy", where this article was created 3 days after ours. He's not even on the (unverified, incomplete) leaked list. --Dhartung | Talk 16:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, even top-secret spies require WP:V. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xmonad[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I AFDed this in May. The result was No Consensus and the argument was presumably that xmonad may yet become notable. It hasn't. The tiny article from OSNews is still the only mention of xmonad in a notable publication. The references all go to either the author's pages or of their friend's from #haskell.

This is clearly an insignificant hobby project that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Therefore I propose its deletion - Catofax (talk) 10:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. So I see Catofax is back for another spin on the AfD wheel, which actually surprises me: if it was no-consensus back then, the case for keep is even stronger now. To cover a few points:

XMonad has been actively and continually developed since, with many improvements and extensions contributed since. I think it's covered a good 4 releases since May with another imminent, and XMonadContrib (the extensions) has grown even more, to ~100 addons.
Catofax's assertion that the OSNews article is "still the only mention of xmonad in a notable publication" is laughable. He should look harder at the article - I've linked to quite a few bits of coverage. Quite aside from the other OSNews article, all the Web coverage, the Haskell community report and Weekly News, there are: two invited talks, one by Simon Peyton Jones of Microsoft for OSCON (a pretty major programming conference) and one by Don Stewart covering his paper; oh, did I mention the peer-reviewed paper published by Don Stewart and Spencer Janssen in the ACM's Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN workshop on Haskell workshop? (I stress the paper as some of the previous AfD voters were interested in academic results and supported because they believed something would come of it; well, something did, and I understand the authors are planning an expanded paper for JFP.)

Don Stewart and Spencer Janssen are the authors of xmonad. It is utterly dishonest of you not to mention this. If I write an article about something I made, do I get a wikipedia page? Catofax (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is the ACM's coverage, that is a highly regarded, verifiable, external source. And yes if you write an article in a major publication about something that something then gets a wikipedia page. jbolden1517 ^Talk 20:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity counts. As noted by someone else in the 1st AfD, there are many many hits for XMonad online. It's included in many of the major distros and Unixes (about all that are missing are Fedora and SUSE - Fedora though seems to be packaged but not yet through the submissions process), and by the best statistics one can get for this sort of thing, XMonad has passed StumpWM and probably dwm in popularity.
And finally, a bit of history for those who weren't around the first time: remember that the nominator came here from a 4chan discussion intending to get this article deleted, and that 8 months later, his account's contribs are still dominated by XMonad-related activity (and he hasn't exactly been expanding the article, if you follow). --Gwern (contribs) 01:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Last time, the AfD had to be relisted as not enough people commented. I would just as soon not have that happen again, so I'm going to contact everyone who edited the 1st AfD and notify them of this AfD; I believe this falls under the allowed forms of canvassing described by WP:CANVASS as long as I contact everyone and not just the keepers. The outcome was neutral so presumably contacting everyone would be neutral as well. --Gwern (contribs) 01:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are lots of notable references moreso than the last time. The best I can think of is one of the keynote talks to OSCON conference: Simon Peyton Jones talk video part1 part2 and slides. This should have been an easy keep the last time, its gotten easier since then. jbolden1517 ^Talk 04:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are now suffficient ordinary sources to support notability. Further, while I argued last time that

"The external sources are not independent, and so this does not erase the concerns. The people who work with the program telling each other about it. An article on other subjects with sources of this nature would be rapidly deleted without much argument. WP seems to be asked to make an exception on this subject, because of the acknowledged technical competence of the various editors here. It could perhaps reasonably be argued that these are the only available sources, that knowledge of such programs is diffused in this manner, and that the importance is shown by the impressiveness of the work itself. I'd be willing to accept such a complete re-orientation of the notability rules if we accepted this for all phenomena and projects that have similarly blog-based and self-publishing sources. I am open to the argument that anything adequately documented on its own terms should be included--I might even support it. What I do not accept is that it should apply only to this subject area DGG 02:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)"

I would now say that the principle is becoming accepted generally. We can and should use the best sources available, as long as they appear to represent a responsible view of the subject.

I was advised of this AfD, and this shows the benefits of doing so--based on the improved contents and conventional sourcing, and the change in apparent general acceptance of sources, I changed my opinion on the article. Fair notice isn't canvassing, but promotes consensus. DGG (talk) 05:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Believe it or not that even with over 2 million articles I sometimes want information on a topic for which the Wikipedia has no information. I am implacably opposed to deleting well-sourced factual articles and as long as we can find independent sources for this article, which it appears we can, then it should stay. Greenshed (talk) 13:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Gwern and jbolden1517's comments demonstrating the existence of reliable sources. xmonad is notable both as a window manager implemented in a remarkably small amount of code (and window managers are clearly a significant topic -- see Category:X window managers) and as a significant practical application implemented in a pure functional programming language. The nom's claim that "this is clearly an insignificant hobby project" is manifestly lacking in merit. (Disclaimer: I'm a satisfied user of xmonad and have been known to have a beer with one of the authors.) SparsityProblem (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be getting consistently more coverage. The academic coverage of Xmonad is also quite relevant - Wikipedia is not supposed to be limited to topics that a shallow newspaper like USA Today would cover. Xmonad has a good amount of coverage within appropriate academic circles - if it isn't notable enough for Wikipedia, then huge swathes of interesting research will have to be ignored if we want to be consistent. Bhimaji (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Davewild (talk) 10:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aliana[edit]

Alleged up-coming CD from Aliana Lohan. Completely unsourced. I can find no evidence that such a release will occur. Article creator is also responsible for other unsourced and questionable articles [5] concerning Aliana Lohan. It is a crystal ball at best. Evb-wiki (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are alleged singles from the alleged up-coming CD:

--Evb-wiki (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Text book example of WP:CRYSTAL, no citation and nothing to demonstrate it is real. Future tag doesn't cure. Pharmboy (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notable guidlines. --Pmedema (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "...unreleased albums may not yet be notable without substantial coverage from reliable sources." Wikipedia is not on deadline. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article deleted as a nonsense, hoax article. Dreadstar † 20:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WAH[edit]

Unreferenced neologism; no evidence this exists outside Wikipedia. Biruitorul (talk) 14:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No longer a neologism but a foundation that exists in New York to promote education. Sure more sources would be good, but then look at subscription journals in education. Pharmboy (talk) 15:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It is also a bit of a soapbox. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like an Amero-centric neologism. This can be recreated later when it catches on, or not at all. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 16:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:HOAX. No evidence the teacher exists, let alone that his concept has been blessed by the US Dept. of Education. --Dhartung | Talk 17:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Lots of weasel words in there too. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 17:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:V. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP.V, as well as possible WP:HOAX. Mh29255 (talk) 07:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article seems well-sourced, based on educational journal's I've read. Page is neutral and significant although references would be useful. sv23 (talk) 15:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article only sourced in journals, difficult to add 'real' sources to Wikipedia. Page reflects a real breakthrough in education which my curriculum in public schooling emphasizes. I can attest to its existance. ludichris00 (talk) 15:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 10:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SupeRoute[edit]

Articles should assert the notability of the subject with verifiable sources. This subject, a proposed light rail scheme, could turn out to be notable but without any sources it is unclear how serious a proposal it is and until such time as there are appropriate sources available this article should be deleted. Adambro (talk) 14:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Found a brief mention of this scheme at http://archive.nics.gov.uk/rd/070116a-rd.htm but not really convinced this would justify an article unless more info can be found. Adambro (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the midst of an "economic feasibility study." Classic WP:CRYSTAL. Delete. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given the speed that construction projects in the UK usually progress at, it could be many years off. Assuming it happens at all. RMHED (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tyrenius (talk) 02:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Willie Wind[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Willie Wind

Per WP:RS and WP:BIO. No references given and cannot find any on the Internet other then ones that point to Wikipedia, or the Geocities website (not reliable WP:RS) given in a previous edit. Also fails to satasify notability, his sole claim to fame appeared to be designing the Coat of arms of Israel, which was removed in April for being erroneous. Epson291 (talk) 13:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I cannot find any information on him one way or the other. Epson291 (talk) 14:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO and WP:V. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 05:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tyrenius indentified this google result as an example. Epson291 (talk) 04:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ronabop (talk) 04:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that claim is indeed erroneous, Delete. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 12:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 10:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black & Decker Pivot Vacuum[edit]

Not notable product, wikipedia isn't indescriminate list of products. Pharmboy (talk) 13:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication that this particular model of vacuum cleaner is notable. Lankiveil (talk) 13:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy delete as spam. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into Black & Decker. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a forum for posting stubs about every product now or in the past made by every company in the world. If one has references to satisfy WP:N, meaning substantial coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources, then it might merit an article. This one references only the manufacturer, so it does not at this point satisfy the notability guideline. Edison (talk) 19:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I know it's not very notable. However, it is produced by a notable company. Why is it every article I create get's attacked? (I love entei (talk) 21:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete or Merge per User:Brewcrewer as there's nothing to indicate why this appliance is significant enough to merit its own article. If Jimbo's torch doesn't get in, this doesn't either. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fine, delete it then. I see that if Jimbo's Torch doesn't get in, my articles can't either. (I love entei (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Strong Delete: Non-notable product, non-encyclopedic.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete company is notable, product isn't. Notability isn't inherited. RMHED (talk) 01:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as vandalism, blatant hoax. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strollbco[edit]

Hoax Malcolma (talk) 13:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obvious hoax (look at the staff list). May even be speedyable as nonsense. Lankiveil (talk) 13:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Strong delete. Yep. The user lifted the first sentence from Convergys, a company against whom it appears he/she bears a grudge [6] then made up the joke list of staff. Who knows why. We can only wonder. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 13:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious trolling. Marked as such. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 13:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – even if the company is legit the way the article is currently written it is clearly WP:SPAM, But I did get a laugh reading the employee names Shoessss | Chat 13:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, well, stock symbol "STR" belongs to Questar Corporation, not Strollbco. I'm fairly confident it's not a real company at all. Lankiveil (talk) 14:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to List of United States business school rankings by its author. Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 13:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Business school ranking[edit]

POV piece that states the opinion of one magazine. Delete. Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 13:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unlikely to ever have an NPOV due to its very nature. Lankiveil (talk) 13:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

Sources have been shown here, and some are used in the article, poorly written is not an argument for creating an AFD. Notability is shown. Consensus has been apparent. Non-administrator close. Result was keep. Rt . 16:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashok Banker[edit]

Doesn't show any notability for the person. Poorly written. The man himself isn't notable, so I say Delete. IslaamMaged126 (talk) 12:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree. Clearly the page is being used for some kind of personal vendetta. There is nothing useful or informative on the page, nor is Banker himself worth such debate and arguments. Please Delete. ashwinblake

Keep – sorry to disagree, has established notability as shown here [7], [8], and here [9]. As a side note ashwinblake, if you blanked the article by accident, please be more careful in the future. If you belived you could blank the article because it is nominated for deletion, sorry to say no, no, no. Shoessss | Chat 12:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Google News search shows 9 years of continuous WP:RS coverage in India and abroad.[10][11][12] • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Annamonckton (talk) 14:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Poorly written is a nonarguement for deletion. Notability is established by list of books published, including several that are wikilinked and are seperate articles already. AFD sounds fishy. Pharmboy (talk) 15:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Banker is a notable Indian writer both for the volume and visibility of his work. ^[1] ^[2]

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

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

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 10:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasexuality[edit]

Doesn't seem to be notable enough of a term, fails WP:NEO and WP:DICT. Dougie WII (talk) 12:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Agree could find no reliable and verifiable information other than one site here [13]. As such, does not meet WP:Notability Shoessss | Chat 13:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism, by the looks of it. Lankiveil (talk) 13:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Lankiveil. The topic may be valid, but it appears they are making up the term to describe it and no 3rd party references are available yet. Not notable until someone notices. Pharmboy (talk) 14:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Any potential for merger to unrequited love? Sarsaparilla (talk) 14:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think that would fix the fact that it is original research, plus unrequited love is about real people, which is different than the topic of this article. Pharmboy (talk) 15:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I forgot to read the Center's text in greater detail: 'Many equate the love a fantasexual experiences with so-called "unrequited love." We here at the Center hope to quash this dismissive and insulting myth. Fantasexuality is not about "unrequited love," but rather about obstacles and illusion. In the fantasexual's reality, love would be requited if not for obstacles, obstacles which, oftentimes, the fantasexual is intentionally keeping firmly in place, or else obstacles that would need to be dismantled by some outside, freakish force that will most likely never happen. Fantasexuality is about the keeping in tact of illusion at all cost' Sarsaparilla (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I thought this article was about romantic love for a particular soft drink...expecially when I got to the "pop culture" section...Okay, no more puns. Complete OR. Source it, and I may change my mind. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and Wikisexuality. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 10:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Gibson Elementary School[edit]

Non-notable primary school. Dougie WII (talk) 11:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 12:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks like your standard garden variety primary school. No notability shown. Lankiveil (talk) 13:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete No notability is even asserted, likely a speedy candidate but doing a speedy on schools gets ugly. Pharmboy (talk) 14:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pharm. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per concensus that primary schools aren't inherently notable. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and there is no consensus to delete.--Kubigula (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Spearing[edit]

Contested PROD. Original concern was "No evidence that the player meets notability criteria for sportspeople as laid down at WP:BIO". – Pee Jay 10:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. – Pee Jay 10:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO by not having played in a fully-professinal league. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per User:Number 57. Recreate if he ever makes a first team appearance. - fchd (talk) 12:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, come back when you play in the first grade team. Lankiveil (talk) 13:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete No first team appearances yet. Nick mallory (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is in Liverpool's first team squad. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 10:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm a liverpool fan - he might be in the first team squad, but he hasn't made a first team appearance. He is a reserves regular but I don't think that qualifies here? Porterjoh (talk) 11:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a first team squad member [14] and if other fringe members of this team and other major clubs have an article I don't see why he can't. Qwghlm (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close - despite me being the nominator, had this stayed as a PROD, I would have withdrawn the nomination by now. He has a squad number for this season, which warrants notability for me. However, if he isn't given a squad number next season and hasn't made an appearance by then, I will renominate. – Pee Jay 16:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all to Marco Casagrande. Keilana_(recall) 22:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1000 White Flags[edit]

Non-Notable work of art; lists a prize of dubious (at best) importance. Legionarius (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for similar non-notability reasons, in what looks like an astroturfing campaign around Marco Casagrande:

Treasure Hill is a neighborhood in Taiwan. Although it could merit its own article, right now is just an advertising for Casagrande. My vote is to stubbify.

The largest media coverage, accordign to the references, was two small articles in Architectural Review. It did not win any prizes. My vote is to merge with Marco Casagrande.

Zero mentions. My vote is to merge with Marco Casagrande.

Small media coverage. Maybe a mention in the Anchorage article and/or merge with Marco Casagrande.

Its biggest claim to fame is that one of NYT staff liked it. Please note the article is about the art event as a whole, not about the piece of art properly. Did not win any prizes.

small company, non-notable output. My vote is to merge with Marco Casagrande.

Zero mentions. My vote is to merge with Marco Casagrande.

The editors for those articles are all working on Marco Casagrande and non-notable articles related to him; they usually include links in other legimate articles. The article was previously identified as the center of an astroturfing campaign and stubbified. Other articles, all about non-notable architectural works: Treasure Hill, Land(e)scape, Bird Hangar, Redrum (installation), 60 Minute Man (architecture), 1000 White Flags. As a bonus, Casagrande's first company: Casagrande & Rintala.

While annoying, editing with a conflict of interest is not a reason by itself to delete articles. If the subject's notable we'll keep an article written by Lucifer himself and simply fix it. Some of these articles already demonstrated notability by their references, some are not apparently notable and some can quickly be found to be notable with a quick Google News archive search. Here's my two cents worth:

Keep Treasure Hill -- see the existing article references
Keep Land(e)scape -- see the existing article references
Delete Bird Hangar -- nothing found with Google News archive search searching for "Bird hangar" + yokohama or "Bird hangar" + Casagrande
Keep Redrum -- I added two references based on a quick Google News search
Keep 60 Minute Man (architecture) -- see the existing article references
Merge into other articles: Casagrande & Rintala -- Google News archive search turned up 10 references but in most cases they also referred more directly to the architect or his work
Merge into the architect's article: Potemkin (architecture) -- A Google News archive search for Potemkin + Kuramata turned up one possibly useful reference; I am unable to evaluate its reliability.
Keep Marco Casagrande -- Google News archive search turns up >50 press mentions.
Delete 1000 White Flags -- nothing found with Google News

While I disagree with some of these nominations, I very much appreciate Legionarius riding herd on this spam problem. --A. B. ^(talk) 20:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 20:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 20:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Casagrande is notable and not up for deletion (even if not for being an artist, as a mercenary/writer). As for the other articles, I do not think any of them stand for themselves (even with credible references), the mentions in the author's article look good enough to me. Treasure Hill is a special case; I think it merits an article for itself, just not as a promotional article for Casagrande's work; the way it is now it is just a promotional article. Anyway, all those articles are here to be discussed. --Legionarius (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the way to deal with this is to propose a merge, and, if resisted, pursue dispute resolution. DGG (talk) 08:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastordavid (talk) 10:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – into Marco Casagrande. Shoessss | Chat 12:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into Marco Casagrande. Although some of the photography is excellent, this content is much more illuminating as part of a larger article on the creator, rather than a half dozen two paragraph stubs. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 16:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Modernist (talk) 14:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all or merge to artist. We have few enough articles on land/installation art & I've no doubt plenty more references for these could be found for these offline, and not necessarily in English. Words fail me on the crassness of using "no hits on Google news" as a deletion argument here! If you want articles to delete there are hundreds with fewer than 20 words in Category:Painting stubs. Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Carmine Falcone. Keilana^talk_(recall) 23:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Falcone[edit]

Merge into Carmine Falcone. This minor character is mentioned in one Batman story, barely appears in another, and really only matters in one specific story. Merge into the article featuring this character's more important father. Doczilla (talk) 10:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge per above Macy's 123 10:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – into Carmine Falcone. Shoessss | Chat 12:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge, quite a minor fictional character, without demonstratable real world notability. Lankiveil (talk) 13:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Merge into Carmine Falcone. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 16:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 17:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Carmine Falcone. Hiding T 17:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perWP:OR or Merge per above. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Carmine Falcone. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 06:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 10:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barrett, The Honors College[edit]

Notability. Suggest merging with Arizona State University article. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 10:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article fails the WikiProject Universities' article guidelines. It also fails to establish WP:N and even though it represents over 2700 students, this article does not provide the reasons why it could survive on its own as a standalone article. Also the article is unsourced. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 10:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(rm AfD. Original contributor has satisfied notability guidelines and is beginning to follow the WP:UNI article guidelines.)- Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 10:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 10:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History Repeating (Conflicts)[edit]

A short essay about the fate of human civilisation. But not an encyclopaedia article. The magazine article linked to has only a tangential relevance to the subject. Prod removed without comment. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 09:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - this sort of musing doesn't belong in WP. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Has no place here. It reads like an unproofed book jacket. Snowfire51 (talk) 09:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - not encyclopedic article Macy's 123 10:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Shoessss | Chat 13:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:OR essay. Lankiveil (talk) 13:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per above. Everyone's comments above have been kind, and in this season of charity, I hope that we may continue in that spirit. Perhaps Professor Kaku's theories can be summarized in another article at some time. Mandsford (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research, page being used as a bouncing place to read a Cosmo article and promote someone else. Not a proper use of Wikipedia. Pharmboy (talk) 14:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:non-notable concept written as a personal musings with no way to verify it has been reviewed by good sources. Interesting idea, but not WP material. Sorry, dude. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As interesting as it is to learn that editing conflicts might not be completely unrelated to an asteroid hitting the Earth, this page does not serve the purpose of Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Keilana^talk_(recall) 23:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haunted Hero (Ghost Whisperer episode)[edit]

Fails WP:EPISODE. Hasn't "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Article also got tagged with a "copyvio" tag. Author removed to the tag and rewrote it, but the rewrite, IMO, is poor. brew crewer (yada, yada) 08:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for basically the same reason.

"Matt, Jim's friend, return from Iraq after his unit dies. His memory loss, Melinda help him to do clarity thank to ghosts of privates". Most informative! Neither article, to quote from WP:NOT, "offer(s) detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance". Therefore, I suggest that we Delete All. Lankiveil (talk) 08:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete all (I have added The Underneath (Ghost Whisperer episode) to the nomination because it has the same problem). The articles don't demonstrate any notability, and I guess there isn't any to begin with. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three I would like to see the "significant coverage in reliable sources" test applied to all TV episode articles. There are some television episodes that are remembered by everyone-- Master of Your Domain, Who Shot J.R., Vitametavegamin, The Trouble With Tribbles --- but the vast majority of TV episodes are not worthy of an encylopedia article. Because there is no secondary coverage, it's ALL original research. The only positive point that can be made about a TV episode article is that it gets someone off the couch and lets them hone their writing skills... but these things should be taken down after a month. Somehow, this is even worse than o.r., taken straight from imdb.com or the show's website, which is wrong on even more levels. Mandsford (talk) 14:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above sentiment. This fails to assert even the potential for independent notability and should therefore be removed per WP:NOT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eusebeus (talk • contribs) 14:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. Everyking (talk) 08:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All Three — Not notable. I also agree with Mandsford's WP:OR argument, and offer thanks for it. --Jack Merridew 09:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All nothing notable about these episodes. Ridernyc (talk) 11:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as it is a notable show and episodes seen by millions of viewers are inherently notable and verifiable. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
see WP:NOTINHERITED --Jack Merridew 07:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three, they are not worthy entries in an encyclopedia. Greswik (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Ghost Whisperer episodes, per WP:EPISODE. Why does it seem that certain people who decide to enforce WP:EPISODE stop reading before they get to the section "Dealing with problem articles"? The guideline says specifically to "consider merging or redirecting" and to "avoid listing episodes for AfD", yet I see no attempts by the nominator or anyone else to merge or redirect in the articles' histories, and the discussion pages are nonexistent. By the way, there are secondary reliable sources, e.g. The Toronto Star, though the coverage might not be enough to establish notability for separate articles. Consider my recommendation changed to a "keep" if more significant coverage in reliable sources can be found. DHowell (talk) 05:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

because if you redirect without going through AFD you end up at ARBCOM. Ridernyc (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus, defaulting to Keep, references added, disagreeement over whether they establish notability. Davewild (talk) 10:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir John A Macdonald Junior High School[edit]

PROD was removed by User:Jerry without an explanation, so I'm bringing it to AfD. No assertion of notability has been made for this school and, per search and discussion on the talk page, it does not appear that it can be. It is unreferenced and orphaned article, which is not a reason to be deleted, but indicates a lack of notability when other factors are taken into account. It is unlikely to make a plausible redirect. As it is a Junior High School, as opposed to High School, it does not fall under the "inherently notable" guidelines of any of the WP:SCHOOL proposals. Cheers, CP 07:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no real assertion of notability. Just a garden variety Junior High by the looks of it. Lankiveil (talk) 07:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. There seems to be a concensus that high schools are usually notable and primary schools usually aren't notable. What's the story with Junior High's?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 08:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just added a bunch of info and refs, I'm leaning towards keep at the moment. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 08:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 12:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Among the references I don't see any notability. They have a health program, but who doesn't? Nothing here sets the school apart from others. Yes, the school is named after someone, but most are; etc. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AliveFreeHappy. Also, I would have appreciated a courtesy notification that my name was mentioned in an AFD nomination, which was probably not necessary.... "another editor removed"... would have worked. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply And I would have appreciated a courtesy explanation as to why you removed the PROD. Since I could not point to an explanation as to why the PROD was removed, I had to point to a person. Cheers, CP 01:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't mind my name being used, I just think it is reasonable to expect to be notified in such case. I objected to the prod because I do not think that school article deletions are non-controversial, which is the purpose of prod. All school article deletions seem to receive debate with people on both sides of the issues, so prod for any school is highly unlikely to succeed, hence the need for the AFD process. JERRY ^talk _contribs 15:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - now has the multiple, independent, verifiable sources needed to meet WP:N thanks to AliveFree Happy. TerriersFan (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per TerriersFan. Kudos AliveFree Happy! Noroton (talk) 20:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, still no real assertion of notability. But it's a nice thing they fight sugar and tobacco. All schools should. Greswik (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, Little support for deletion, consensus is it does not violate WP:NOT, some support for a merge bbut no consensus here for such a step. Davewild (talk) 11:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wii System Software[edit]

This article seems to lean strongly towards: What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory and Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. This is better suited for a gaming wiki, so a transwiki seems like a good idea. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially a patch list. I'm going to invoke the spirit rather than the letter of WP:NOT and say that Wikipedia is not the place for this sort of thing. Lankiveil (talk) 07:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Merge – How about a merge to Wii software library as shown here.[15]. Shoessss | Chat 13:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per User:Shoessss. 99.230.152.143 (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This does not violate WP:NOT#DIR or WP:NOT#INFO. It is not a patch list, because patches are minor updates to games that are insignificant. The updates in this list is not insignificant. The article does require some clean up, which I am going to do. --Son (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. if merged into the main Wii article, it will create problems with the length of that article (and wikipedians seem to have a problem with long articles), and I can see no reason to delete the article, and strongly disagree with the argument behind the proposal. Doktor Wilhelm 16:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trim to Merge - We don't keep track of minor version updates for software (per WP:IINFO); that's not to say this table cannot be trimmed down to keep version, date, and one or two significant changes that occurred in it, with appropriate links to offsite info for full patch details; at the present, it will be half a screen, and that could be included back in the main Wii article. The full details of the patch info are what make this table excessive. --MASEM 17:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've done some work on the article; it is much more comparable to the equivalent XBOX and PS3 articles. --Son (talk) 17:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment, there's no reason to have a separate line for each "Added support for X" "Added support for Y", etc. The trimmed version, however, looks much better and, IMO would probably still fit better on the main Wii page, but no longer edges into indiscriminate information territory.--MASEM 14:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As a notable and important element of Wii software that should be kept independent of the main article. Would support Masem's trimming proposal, and the addition of some more references from different sources would be good, but AfD isn't cleanup. — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 00:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This list is definitely not insignificant. Sure we can trim down the list like Masem has said or merge it, but deleting it is going a bit far. Eugene2x-^talk 02:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs some tidyup work to make it the same standard as PlayStation 3 System Software but well worth keeping. --Oscarthecat (talk) 18:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is a discriminate article with notable and verifiable information. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that WP:NOT#IINFO says that verified information can still be indiscriminate and not belong here. Anyway, there seem to be two definitions of the term. Yes, the information itself is very discriminate and selective, but its placement on Wikipedia as a whole is what is being debated. Just because we can have lists of stats doesn't mean that we should. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't have separate lists for specs for other consoles. This would set a bad precedent if this were to stay. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- actually we do. Xbox 360 System Software PlayStation 3 System Software PlayStation Portable System Software. --67.68.152.88 (talk) 05:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, the other systems have separate equivalent articles. And I'm not sure what you mean by "bad precedent". This is discriminate information that's verifiable and noteworthy. This article should not be a list. The title of the article is not List of Wii System updates (one did exist and was merged into the article), rather Wii System Software. What the article really needs is a good treatment with information about the software. The similar articles on the PS3 and PSP, I believe, are also lacking. Meanwhile, AfD is not cleanup. --Son (talk) 06:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me attack it from the WP:NOT#DIR angle, then, since apparently my comparing of the two methods of looking at IINFO seems to have been lost. It lists an example from a radio station, saying not to "list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, current schedules, etc." but to "mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules." A blow-by-blow account of what each patch does to the software, in my opinion, does fail the part about listing upcoming events, promotions, schedules, and that it should instead be condensed into a paragraph about the most major and historically significant of the fixes. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- First off, if we're discussing deleting this article, then the other two articles, (on the PS3 and PSP) need to be tagged for deletion and combined with this AfD. Secondly, what you're talking about is clean up, not article deletion. There is well more than enough information to keep it its own article, and not delete/merge into the article Wii. --Son (talk) 08:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, with only one other person ~~voting~~ discussing to outright delete the article, I say, it probably will not be deleted, so I'm being reasonable about my expectations. I, persoanlly, do not think it should be kept, but unless that camp gets a turnabout, it's heading for a merge/keep. hbdragon88 (talk) 08:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Group AFDs rarely work, so that's why I didn't nominate the others with this one. RobJ1981 (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's an important article on the upgrades of the core wii software and shows what has been changed over time —Preceding unsigned comment added by FastKarts (talk • contribs) 11:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep extremely notable item, and important list of issues with it. This will have 3rd party refs and reviews in independent magazines and newspapers. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 11:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apokalipsis[edit]

First of all, this article is a direct copy-paste from this website, and is not written in anything close to encyclopedic tone. Even if rewritten, though, this doesn't appear to pass WP:MUSIC. No reliable and/or independent coverage. shoeofdeath (talk) 05:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. If their record "Simula at Wakas" was released on Universal then they might meet category #5, but a search through Universal's back catalogue reveals no trace of the album. Lankiveil (talk) 05:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: Yes, I also looked to see if that record was in fact released by Universal and found this not to be the case. shoeofdeath (talk) 06:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Process as copyvio. Nominated @ Copyright problems/2007 December 23/Articles DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. -RiverHockey (talk) 02:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keilana^talk_(recall) 23:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Jagielski[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Procedural nomination. Article was previously deleted at AfD and nominated for deletion review. Deletion was not overturned, but a new draft in userspace was created with additional references. Consensus at deletion review was that new references improved article beyond qualification for CSD G4, but questions remained if the new references did indeed satisfy notability requirements. Conflict of interest issues may also be present. As this is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. IronGargoyle (talk) 04:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, being chairman of the Apache Foundation board is good enough for me. Lankiveil (talk) 05:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep – Believe he has established notability as shown here [16]. Shoessss | Chat 13:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable and the article is referenced. Fosnez (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Might need some style editing still, but it's worth keeping. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 16:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, some of the refs are a bit mushy but article could be improved. Subject is notable as an important advocate for open source and running one of the most important open source orgs. --Dhartung | Talk 17:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been reopened as it was closed early and (in the opinion of at least three administrators) in error by a non-administrator. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 24 for further information. Daniel 02:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not beyond saving, and I think the subject is notable. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 03:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable individual with strong claims of notability supported by reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 04:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Do a little due diligence, guys... Anything more than a cursory examination of the "reliable" sources reveals the following (reposted from talk, from when AFD was inappropriately closed):
The subject of the article has re-created this article (about himself!) with no reliable sources that establish any sort of notability, and a very clear conflict of interest in which the article serves to promote its subject rather than give any sort of encyclopaedic treatment. The largest claims to notability seperately (apache.org founder and Slashdot editor) are both tenuous at best -- they each seem to fail WP:N individually, and I just don't see how combining the two comes any closer to true encyclopaedic notability. Regarding WP:RS, the sources listed all fail... the first source is a self-published list in the subject's own web directory; the second source is a self-published usenet FAQ also by the subject himself. The third source is a self-published press release. The fourth source is a self-published Slashdot announcement. The final source is simply a list of the Apache BoD's.

Also, please read WP:SPS, which is directly on point: "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable_sources." /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the efforts of Blaxthos, which make a clear cut case that this is in contravention of our policies. Eusebeus (talk) 13:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the current maintainer of the A/UX FAQ, and can attest to notability of the subject in regards to that. The current references may be deemed a bit "squishy" but they are all true. Being the lead member in a number of (mainly online) communities, a number of references may indeed seem "self-published"—he's the guy responsible for publishing for the community in which he is notable! I don't understand how this can be seen as a liability to the article. ⇔ ChristTrekker 17:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. ... If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Just because he is notable within the A/UX community (or even in the open source community) does not mean that he automagically meets our requirements for inclusion in this encyclopedia. WP:V, WP:N, and WP:RS all mandate delete. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then those policies are in error—insofar as they do not account for situations like this—as they do not reflect the reality of the internet age. I think it is quite clear that this person is worthy of note—if those references were from anywhere else we wouldn't be having this discussion. Just because the noteworthiness comes from segments that get little third-party coverage (hence necessitating self-publishing) is not a good reason to exclude him. ⇔ ChristTrekker 20:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability and existance of reliable sources are inseperable; a lack of reliable sources is indicative that a particular subject truely lacks objective notability (one outside of a particular niche (A/UX users, perhaps)). As time increases, the probability that WP:IAR will be invoked infinitely approaches 1. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. The lack of independent sources is a major problem. He does appear notable in a general sense but until that can be verified by citing independent sources, I think that deletion is the better course. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sudama. Keilana^talk_(recall) 00:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kuchela[edit]

Delete no doubt minor character in Hinduism, notability isn't inherited from one's friends. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Sudama is another name (along with Sridama) for the same person. Mykej (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sudama as above. He's a minor character for sure, but no more minor than the many minor Bible characters we have articles on. A few sources on Google assert this character is known ( [17] ), but perhaps better under the other name. Given that there is almost no content on the page, I don't think a Merge makes much sense. Lankiveil (talk) 05:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Merge and Redirect per above. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 08:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – There is enough information as shown here in Google Scholar [18], Google News [19] and the old stand by, plain old Google [20]. Shoessss | Chat 13:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's marked as a stub...
Keep; just because it's a stub doesn't mean that it's not notable. -Sean Curtin (talk) 07:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete then recreate as Redirect→World Heroes#Mudman --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mudman (SNK character)[edit]

This is a character that does not have real world information to establish notability. It reads like a game guide, and there is no current assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to World_Heroes#Mudman or delete as non-notable. I was going to suggest a merge, but there is only WP:NOT#GUIDEish and unsourced trivial content. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable outside of World Heroes. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Lankiveil (talk) 05:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to World_Heroes#Mudman. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 08:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect per Sgeureka. The existence of this article is absolutely ridiculous considering how minor he is. JuJube (talk) 12:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (edit conflict with close, but eh). Does anyone know of a GFDL-compatible fighting-game-oriented Wiki (similar to TV Wiki) for this sort of stuff? While it is "nice" to have all this content, it's blatantly unencyclopedic - and this goes for the rest of the minor-SNK-fighting-game-character entries. Anyway, if there is a fighting game wiki, transwiki there, otherwise delete --Badger Drink (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article is in need of a rewrite and a few more citations of reliable sources, but the major bases like notability and verifiability have at least been covered. AFD has been live long enough to generate consensus. The result of this discussion was keep. (Non-administrator close) Rt . 15:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Brown[edit]

Delete nn bit part and porn actress fails WP:BIO and WP:PORNBIO. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. She's starred in many movies that have been extensively rebroadcast on cable and thus she clearly meets WP:BIO. And WP:PORNBIO does not really apply here as she is not exclusively a "porn" actress and in fact has never made any hardcore movies. Qworty (talk) 13:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, a B-movie actress to be sure, but I think she might just fall over the line. Lankiveil (talk) 05:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per WP:BIO. A few of her movies are staples on late-night cable television, and she plays the lead role in those movies. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Metropolitan90. Article needs further citations and a more encyclopedic tone but those things can be worked on. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Apparently on November 9, someone replaced the text of the article with content taken from this page, which displays a copyright notice albeit stating: "Additional info at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misty_Mundae". Given that the previous text of the Wikipedia article had been pretty much encyclopedic in tone, but the replacement text was not, I have reverted the text to the pre-November 9 version to remedy the apparent copyvio. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 11:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Just enough to make a claim of notability as shown hereGoogle [21]. Shoessss | Chat 13:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Baird Hotel[edit]

no references at all , no website, all references ralated from clones of wikipedia Stefanbcn (talk) 12:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC) - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: since the user is having difficulty creating the nomination, I am assisting. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: no Google hits at all. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 21 murders, 16 suicides, 4 disappearances and £1000pn yet strangly has no web presence outside Wikipedia. Screams hoax. Nuttah (talk) 14:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as above. One would think such a colourful history would be covered somewhere else on the Internet. Lankiveil (talk) 05:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per WP:V. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 08:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – could find absolutely no information, other than Wikipedia mirror sites. Possible “Hoax” especially with its supposed past history. Shoessss | Chat 13:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if true, fails WP:V as nothing can be found to verify it. Pharmboy (talk) 14:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator as hoax. --Lockley (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep with {{cleanup-afd}} affixed. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Illuminated Film Company[edit]

Delete nn company, fails WP:CORP Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Referenced by IMDb, BFI and the BBC among others, plentiful Google search results, and the notability of particularly the Raymond Briggs, Very Hungry Caterpillar and Little Princess material Blobni19 (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable production company. Please note that directories like IMDB and BFI are usually not taken as indicators of notability. Lankiveil (talk) 05:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. fails WP:CORP. Even if you accept the "refs," they don't establish notability. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 09:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if improved - the subject of the article is notable, but unfortunately the notability isn't established by the article text or by the refs given, a fairly common problem with stub articles. This can easily be fixed. This company's Little Princess series was broadcast on Five (channel), one of the main five British TV channels, and the show was recently nominated for a British Academy Children's Film and Television Award. The company was also responsible for the Christmas Carol: The Movie animated movie which featured the voices of Nicolas Cage and Kate Winslet, among others. AdorableRuffian (talk) 12:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – has definitely established notability as shown here [22], and Google News as shown here [23]. Shoessss | Chat 14:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even I've heard of them. Article is rubbish, but that's grounds for improvement, not deletion.Annamonckton (talk) 14:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 16:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the editing policy which asks that we improve articles, and per the fact that improvement is possible given the sources presented above. Hiding T 17:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Revert back to disambiguation. Keilana^talk_(recall) 00:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True Blue[edit]

Not enough notability, since the sources are from the same locations and they're blogs (one with the same name as the user) Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 20:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's three separate blog posts, plus there is an article on him in an upcoming Yo! Raps Magazine (largest onling magazine in Europe), and several other blogs are trying to post his music/find more of his music. All of this with only four tracks actually out there for the public to hear. He has received radio play on Grand Rapids 104.5 WSNX radio station. Hiphophead88 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the blog with the same name as the user (Hiphophead) doesn't mean anything, because hip-hop head is a very common phrase, and does not imply the user hiphophead made the blog... Hiphophead88 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:MUSIC; blogs are not reliable sources. He's got to meet at least some of the guidelines set out there for an article, but does not at this point. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to disambiguation page: notability not established; reliable sources are needed. There has been a cut-and-paste move of the disambiguation page that was here to True Blue (disambiguation), also the original article was cut-and-pasted to what is now True Blue (John Williamson song). --Snigbrook ^(talk) 03:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert per above. The current subject of the article quite clearly does not meet WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil (talk) 05:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete and revert per above. Fails MUSIC and seems to be a vanity piece. Pharmboy (talk) 14:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Revert per discussions to the dab page and cleanup the dab page to add an entry for this. Modify True Blue (disambiguation) to redirect back here. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and revert per above, even if someone moved it to "True Blue (record producer)". Greswik (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: The deleted edits are at True Blue (producer). --kingboyk (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep: I will affix {{cleanup-afd}} to accompany the already placed {{refimprove}} as the contributors here have provided references that need to be included in the article to establish notability. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Von Sneidern[edit]

Article doesn't make it clear why he would pass WP:MUSIC, as his albums seem to be self-released. However, there are some incoming links that suggest he may be notable as a guest musician, which isn't really discussed here. I thought I'd list it here rather than PRODding to see if somebody recognizes him and can add independent evidence that he has a "cult following" (which might imply MUSIC #7) or is notable as a guest musician. Rigadoun (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly, this artist seems to have a very strong following, especially in the Bay Area. The San Francisco papers bring him up on a regular basis[24] [25] and he gets a lot of references for his work with John Wesley Harding, including places like Rolling Stone (which describes him as a "local pop wunderkind"). He's got a Billboard bio here. Unfortunately, this article is the Billboard bio with some words changed. So, while I think the subject is at least a weak keep, the article needs to be rewritten entirely to avoid the copy-and-paste-ishness. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, repeated coverage in newspapers probably pushes him just over the line. Lankiveil (talk) 05:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep – has established notability as shown here [26]. Shoessss | Chat 14:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Abd El Adheem[edit]

No notability other than coming eighth in Super Star 3, a version of Pop Idol in Arabic countries. The only external link is to an interview with the subject in Arabic. No edits of any substance to the article since it was created two years ago. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone provides evidence of any interest shown beyond the reality show. Nuttah (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, failed game show contestant, and no evidence of notability beyond that. Lankiveil (talk) 05:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not enough here. Punkmorten (talk) 10:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – sorry to say has not established notability at this time. Only information was Wikipedia mirror sites. Hopefully in the near future we will find him here. Shoessss | Chat 14:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, please consider using {{prod}} before going to WP:AFD thanks EvanCarroll (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Hovde[edit]

Sole claim to notability was coming 7th in the Norwegian version of Pop Idol. Is signed to her father's record label. No other information of any substance since the article was created in 2006. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable unless someone shows the world took an interest beyond the TV show. Nuttah (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, failed game show contestant, and no evidence of notability beyond that. Lankiveil (talk) 05:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not enough here. Punkmorten (talk) 10:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, You need at least sixteen minutes of fame to be notable, right? Notability isn't temporary. Pharmboy (talk) 14:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<~~>Weak Keep<~~> – There does seem to be notable coverage. The problem is that it is all in “Norwegian”? as shown here [27] and here [28]. Anyone able to translate? Shoessss | Chat 14:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on information. Thank you Punkmorten (talk. Shoessss | Chat 01:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I'll translate the GNews hits. "Cindy ut av Idol" = "Cindy out of Idol", the first two paragraphs mentions how she was voted out of Idol, in other words less than 50 % of the article body is about her. "Aviser i "Idol"-tåke" = "Newspapers in Idol haze", a letter to the editor mentioning her name in passing. "Plateselskapet er Idol-vinneren" = "The record company is the winner of Idol", mentions her name only in the picture caption. "Mari fra Sandeid ut av Idol" = "Mari from Sandeid out of Idol", about another contestant who was voted off, mentions Cindy's name in passing.
  The rest of the articles are not about the person in question. To conclude, seems like all trivial coverage to me. Punkmorten (talk) 19:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without a doubt. This is much too scant to provide notability. __meco (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Limerick Computer Society[edit]

Non-notable student club with no assertion of notability, and no external sources. So far as I can see, its only possible claim to notability is for having organised an apparently non-notable open-source software conference, the article on which was merged into this one. Most of this article is trivia which is probably of interst only to most dedicated members of the society, but has no place in an encyclopedia (such as the story of the lost server and a list of participants in a LAN party); I was tempted to attach an {{inuniverse}} tag to it. However a one-paragraph mention of the computer society could be incorporated in the article on its parent body, the University of Limerick Students' Union. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable student group. Ridernyc (talk) 04:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a no notable student society. Nuttah (talk) 15:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:ORG. Student organizations at a single school are generally non-notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rigadoun (talk) 07:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Webbie discography[edit]

Redirect - This page supplies no additional information, and was easily merged into the original Webbie article. At this time there is no reason for an individual article. I recommend a redirect to the original article until there is enough information to suffice an individual article. Manderson198 (sprech) 18:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect discography pages are for long-going bands with more than three or four albums release: see Kylie Minogue discography, Genesis discography Will ^(talk) 20:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Comodo. Keilana^talk_(recall) 00:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melih Abdulhayoglu[edit]

Here's a person on the razor's edge of WP pro-forma notability: a consistent spokesperson for an Internet company that gets a press mention maybe twice a year. WP has a page for the company, Comodo. Abdulhayoglu is notable for nothing else other than his founding of the company. His page was created by User:Lakshmin, which is likely Lakshmi Dinamoni, a Comodo employee. I spent a bit of time stripping out the POV and puff language from the article, which is now being reverted back in a couple times a week by an anonymous SPA account. WP should cover Abdulhayoglu on the Comodo article; it needn't host an executive bio for him as well. Oh, no references, either. --- tqbf 14:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Comodo article, unless Mr. Abdulhayoglu has some other claim to notability, for instance if he disappears when you say his name backwards. --Lockley (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Ulgoyahludba. Nope, nothing happ

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There does seem to be notable coverage as shown here, [29]. In addition, multiple reliable and verifiable coverage on Google, [30], Google News, [31]and finally Google Scholar, [32] which makes for a pretty impressive and easily made Keep decision. Shoessss | Chat 15:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment --- suggest you re-check your references:

The MSNBC story carries a photo of Melih, but his name appears in the article only once. The article does include significant coverage of Melih's company, Comodo; I am not nominating Comodo for deletion.
The Google search provides no additional reliable sources writing about Melih. It does capture all of Comodo's press releases (not valid sources) and several blog op-eds. Predictably, the #1 hit for Melih in Google is WP.
The news search includes no articles written about Melih; it does include several written about his company, which already has a WP article. I am not nominating Comodo for deletion --- just a poorly referenced article about an individual executive of the company, written and edited by an employee of the company.
The Scholar search is populated entirely with patents. Patents aren't reliable sources and do not establish notability, although a reliable source writing about it would.

I don't believe you have uncovered any references that verify Melih's notability. --- tqbf 20:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – First of all “Happy Holidays”! Now to your Comments. I believe MSMBC is a Notable and Verifiable source. That alone I believe establishes Notability. The second comment as regards to quote; “…provides no additional reliable sources writing about Melih.”. I am going to act stupid here and ask What additional sources do you require? . The third Comment; “….it does include several written about his company” means what? His company deserves an article, but He doe not. Finally , the forth reason, I leave to all the other Editors to make up their own mind and hopefully a keep vote is made. Once again Happy Holidays. Shoessss | Chat 21:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're saying the same thing. Clearly, there are reliable sources for Comodo. There simply aren't any that write about this guy. Comodo is his company; when I say, "I'm not nominating Comodo for deletion", I'm saying, "his company merits an article, and he doesn't". --- tqbf 21:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "additional sources" I require are spelled out in WP:N --- a topic is presumed notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. So:

A single quote from the subject in an article about the subject's company is not significant coverage.
A press release from the subject's company is neither reliable nor independent.
A patent from the subject is neither reliable nor independent.

There are no references in the nominated article. I've looked for them (and studied yours) and haven't found any that qualify. The onus is not on me to find references at this point. This article should be deleted. --- tqbf 21:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect If someone could verify the claims made in the "Awards and recognitions" section I'd change my mind but without that I don't see the notability. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 12:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spike Guys' Choice Awards[edit]

NN television event, unneeded list. No real media coverage, only sources to be found are random blogs and side-mentionings on notable and semi-notable sites. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 09:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an awards show which was broadcast internationally. All of the participants are notable. It was hosted by a notable person. USA Today did a story about his hosting the awards. The same company that produced this show produces the Spike Video Game Awards as well as the MTV Video Music Awards and MTV Movie Awards, all of which are notable. Frog47 (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe the article does a fine job of expressing why these awards are notable. (jarbarf) (talk) 05:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ – The only information I could find was Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirror site, other than one or two additional mentions that are not notable. As shown here. [33]. Shoessss | Chat 15:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Based on new search criteria - Duh - thanks for the advice .Wikidemo (talk just shows you, it’s all in how you search. Happy Holidays all. Shoessss | Chat 11:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of significant coverage in major reliable media (Washington Post, Fox News, etc). But clean up, add citations, and fix clumsy list format. As is, this is just a list of winners. What about the awards show itself? Also, possibly rename. You'll find plenty of info on this if you remove the word "Spike" from the front of your search.Wikidemo (talk) 18:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is notable due to media coverage, but it needs some expansion. PrestonH 01:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article cleaned up. Tag removed. Pejorative.majeure (talk) 23:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Keilana^talk_(recall) 00:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lucinda Barry[edit]

Article for a Psych character who appeared only in the pilot before being replaced. She plays no significant role in the series and carries little to no notability. Shoemoney2night (talk) 03:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, minor character who is not notable outside of her television programme. Lankiveil (talk) 04:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom - really scrapes the barrel in terms of notability. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slight merge and redirect to Psych. DHowell (talk) 05:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Keilana^talk_(recall) 00:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Fenich[edit]

Peripheral character in Psych who has never appeared on-screen or been mentioned by name in the show. Entirely un-notable. Shoemoney2night (talk) 03:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, minor character who is not notable outside of his television programme. Lankiveil (talk) 04:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom, same comment as Lucinda Barry. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete please use {{prod}} next time. EvanCarroll (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slight merge and redirect to Psych. You can redirect without needing to discuss anything on AfD, as well. DHowell (talk) 05:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. jj137 ^♠ 17:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Progression of women in hard rock[edit]

Original research. Delete. Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 03:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, OR. Delete. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 04:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an interesting topic, but this WP:OR essay doesn't belong here. Lankiveil (talk) 04:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete OR, notable topic but perhaps there should be a more general article like "Women in popular music" before it started to get specific like this. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 05:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The statement that women artists prior to Janis Joplin were "chosen for looks and rarely for talent" is an insult to Janis and every other female artist. While everyone is entitled to an opinion, pure opinion doesn't belong in an encylopedia. Mandsford (talk) 14:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR. Topic itself could be notable but no evidence of this. JJL (talk) 17:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't merit an article. Original research, etc. -RiverHockey (talk) 02:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Animalia (film)[edit]

Very unlikely that this film would have such an A-list cast but absolutely no references or search results that I can find. Another user proposed deletion on the basis that this may have been created by a sockpuppet known for creating hoax film articles. I tagged as a hoax but all tags have been removed by anon editors with no comment. Canley (talk) 03:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley (talk) 03:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nom is spot on, no references can be found and yet has a star studded cat. Likely hoax/vandalsim. Pharmboy (talk) 03:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Shoemoney2night (talk) 03:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I know IMDb isn't a reliable source, but a couple of the stars profiles there show nothing of the sort. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 04:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is an animation television series coming up based upon the book, but not a film. With a cast like that, you would need some pretty solid third-party references. Probably a hoax. Lankiveil (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete most likely a hoax, given the A-list cast but total lack of sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment see also this AfD and this sockpuppet report. --Closedmouth (talk) 13:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Final Fantasy. Non-administrator close. Rt . 20:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis Rhaspodos[edit]

Not notable outside of the game universe. Pharmboy (talk) 03:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, minor fictional character not notable outside of the Final Fantasy universe. Lankiveil (talk) 04:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy redirect, the article is useful as a redirect. No need for lengthy AFD process. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Keilana^talk_(recall) 00:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Theory[edit]

The article asserts notability but does not establish it. There are very few google hits for this particular theory, and the few there are seem to be repeats of the material here. Only sources are a blog and one magazine article. At best, it could be a subsection in the respective articles of some of the wikilinked people mentioned. The might also be conflicts the guidelines in WP:BLP as the article makes statements about living people. The only source of those statements appears to be the blog. Delete TheRingess (talk) 02:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to be a fringe theory at best. Or maybe I'm just not "advanced" enough. Lankiveil (talk) 04:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. The magazine article was written by Chuck Klosterman who is notable and featured this article in his fourth book. If you look in the right places, there are more sources Doc Strange (talk) 12:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Appears to be a discussion of a concept in a single NN Esquire magazine article. Fancruft. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Press Bed[edit]

Not notable film. Author can't provide citation, was never released except on youtube, claims it was screened at a University but citations can't be provided (and probably doesn't matter). Youtube link was removed, but still fails notability. Nice guy, but still fails test. See article talk for more. Was refused G11 after youtube.com link was removed, went afd.Pharmboy (talk) 02:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Keilana^talk_(recall) 00:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tuition in Canada[edit]

I really don't think that tuition in Canada is real deserving of a topic. It's just a list of facts and statistics, and WP:NOT an almanac. Any relevant information can be merged into other articles (specific universities, provinces, or Education in Canada). -Royalguard11(T·R!) 02:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as some of the data could be used at Education in Canada but there's really no need for this page as such. Definitely fails WP:NOT as is. JJL (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant information to Education in Canada#Post-secondary education and redirect to Education in Canada. Appears to have been an attempt to clean up the Tuition article by moving these "facts and figures" to its own article [34] but I agree that it doesn't belong there. Some of the info could be of interest if made into prose rather than bullets. DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GJ (talk) 07:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia may include almanac information per Pillar One. Merger of this information into other articles does not require deletion. See Help:Merging and moving pages. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that if nom felt merging was deserving, then nom should have done so or tagged it. I believe nom was incorrect in referring to an almanac. An almanac is organised information. This is, at best, an indiscriminate collection of statistics and, at worst, a soapbox. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almanac information includes everything. This is someone's synthesis, their choice of the "facts and figures" (from four years ago!) that they thought were interesting. This synthesis was either done by the author of this article, or the author of the 2003 article in The Daily. What's to merge? Mandsford (talk) 14:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable topic affecting millions. Sarsaparilla (talk) 14:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I like it isn't a valid keep reason. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 22:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...if not the fate of the free world. Mandsford (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:Sarcasm is really helpful. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - LOL! Sarsaparilla (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Sasparilla... who, I'm glad to see, took no offense and knows that none was intended. One thing is for certain, if it's a choice between sarcasm, or a humorless recitation of a wiki-principle, I prefer criticism that makes me laugh. Merry Christmas! Mandsford (talk) 22:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirected. Jeffro77 (talk) 07:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Jehovah's Witnesses

The Jehovah's Witnesses[edit]

Unverified and possibly satirical band Jeffro77 (talk) 01:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Jehovah's Witnesses, which people are much more likely to be searching for. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 01:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No information on the Band what-so-ever. Shoessss | Chat 02:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jehovah's Witnesses per above. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 02:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Jehovah's Witnesses, per above. Shoemoney2night (talk) 03:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect as above. You would think if they had a record released by Parlophone there would be some sort of record, but a quick search of their back catalogue came up fruitless. There was a band called "The Jehovah's Waitresses" around the same time, but they appear to be a totally different group. Lankiveil (talk) 04:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete and redirect as above. No information about the band Macy's 123 10:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied. Singu larity 05:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Breakdown[edit]

New band with no CD, notability. Keep removing speedy tag so here we are. Pharmboy (talk) 01:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

also wp:band Pharmboy (talk) 01:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (A7) and salt The article essentially SAYS it isn't notable ... no CDs released yet. Recommend salting, as it's been speedied twice in the last hour. Blueboy 96 01:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. When these young musicians have successfully released an album that demonstrates notability, then this article can be recreated. Until then, we're just crystal balling here. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 01:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per {{db-band}} and use salt. It was deleted twice already today. --Evb-wiki (talk) 02:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Other speedys were for A7 and A3, A7 still applies. Should be a snowball flying through about now. Pharmboy (talk) 02:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Best of luck to them and hopefully they will have a legitimate claim next year. However, in the mean time Delete Shoessss | Chat 02:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7, per above. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 02:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, meets A7 easily, and probably a WP:SNOW candidate too. Lankiveil (talk) 04:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 improvements to the article during AFD. Davewild (talk) 11:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Punta Gorda Middle School[edit]

Middle schools don't get a free pass (HS do) and there is no assertion of notability. Was declined speedy (?) so we go here. Pharmboy (talk) 01:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed the speedy deletion tag, because I know that most school article deletions are controversial, and many become improved to the point of concensus for keep during an AfD. I am choosing not to !vote on this one at this time. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no assertion of notability. Just a garden-variety middle school by the looks of it. Lankiveil (talk) 04:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Merge and redirect to Punta Gorda, Florida until we have an article for Charlotte County Public Schools. (jarbarf) (talk) 05:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per comments by (jarbarf). Mh29255 (talk) 07:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has references and notability; I don't think that theres any reason for it to be deleted. Noah¢s (Talk) 03:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above discussions and precedent. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, thanks to DoubleBlue this page now contains the necessary independent, verifiable sources to meet WP:N and contains several specific claims of notability. TerriersFan (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article as it currently stands after improvement, provides the required reliable and verifiable sources to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:N, kudos again to DoubleBlue. Noroton (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well sourced and just notable enough imo. RMHED (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result wasdelete. DS (talk) 15:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the life of...[edit]

Alleged up-coming TV show. Completely unsourced, and I could find no evidence that there is such a future show planned. Crystal ball at best. Evb-wiki (talk) 01:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per above. Shoessss | Chat 02:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing at all on the Disney Channel Website ... knowing what I know about Disney, you'd think that if this show was real it would be heavily promoted. Tagging article with {{hoax}}. Blueboy 96 02:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:CRYSTAL seems to apply. Lankiveil (talk) 04:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I could find no evidence of this show other than Wikipedia and mirrors, and a message board post about the show which said: "I actually tried to find some more info and also looked on wikipedia. There's one big problem with wikipedia, anyone can put something on it." [35] Yes, exactly. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, WP:CRYSTAL applies, and might be a hoax Macy's 123 10:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until September 2008. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Keilana^talk_(recall) 00:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Makai[edit]

I'd like to suggest the deletion of the article since the word makai (魔界, which roughly means "world of supernatural beings" or "world of evil" in Japanese) is usually not used aside from fictional works (I'm talking about Japenese usage, of course), and even within the territory of fictional usage, it has likely no definite interpretation (as the article's opening prose suggests), hence this article would not likely be nothing but a repository of non-notable fictional worlds which have no connection to each other aside from the naming (that is, the currect state of the article). Neko jarashi (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This word seems to be used in enough mediums (even in a video game title) to warrant keeping this article. Just because it's only been used in fictional works doesn't mean that it isn't notable, or that no one has written something about it in a secondary source. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 01:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Sorry to say. I saw no references, in my search that talks about the definition of the word makai. Hence, this could be considered WP:Original Research . Shoessss | Chat 02:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no references or secondary sources that show this is a coherent concept. Has the smell of animecruft and WP:OR about it. Lankiveil (talk) 04:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Yōkai if no sources can be found to support this being a separate article. If sources can be found, then Keep. Despite what the article currently states, "makai" is basically just another (more modern) word or usage for yōkai (妖界), the supernatural place where yōkai (妖怪) when they can't be seen. And if we can keep the "this is cruft" slinging to a minimum, Lankiveil, that would be appreciated. This is a legitimate topic, just one for which it may be difficult to find sources talking about it in general terms. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This sounds like a good merge, but I am not terribly familiar with Japanese culture. Do you have a source I can read that shows this connection? --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 04:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nihonjoe, is it a sort of 'non-fictional' stuff? Or are you talking about GeGeGe no Kitarou or something like this? Honestly, I've never heard of the yokai's world before. Neko jarashi (talk) 22:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After doing more research on it, it seems that both "makai" and "yōkai" (妖界) are mostly modern creations and used mainly in fiction. I think they are legitimate topics, and still think the article should be redirected as mentioned above if it is not kept. Perhaps a section about these usages could be added to the current yōkai article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR and not notable. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 03:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On the one hand, this word does exist and has an entry in Kojien, albeit a very short one ("The world of demons"). On the other hand, the Kojien entry is also not accompanied with a reference to the first use of the word in a classical text, which suggests a possible modern origin of the word. My educated guess would be that the concept as such did not exist in classical Japanese mythology, so my suggested plan of action would be a removal from the J-myth template and a rewrite of the opening paragraph. The rewritten opening should be much shorter, should avoid false interlinks, and should state clearly that 'makai' is a modern narration tool. If such changes were made, I'd vote for a weak keep of the article, as it does seem to be a fairly widespread notion in modern fictional worlds. TomorrowTime (talk) 08:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Mara (demon): While I'm not 100% sure, this word is likely used in Buddhism, in the sense of denoting Mara, an embodiment of carnal or worldly desire. So if not deleting the article, I insist this article be redirected towards the article Mara (demon). I think the fictional stuff shouldn't be mentioned in the article unless the problem of OR can be avoided. Neko jarashi (talk) 22:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have heard the term used at Manga conventions. I vote keep for now, pending comment by a Manga expert. Sensiblekid (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (with heavy trimming to remove the YuYu Hakusho bias) into the Popular Culture secttion Yokai. As in, into a paragraph-or-so subsection of there, mentioning the works makai appears in and conceptions of it. Per the above, this fictional location does not yet seem to have independent notability enough to satisfy WP:FICT. —Quasirandom (speak) 00:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 11:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Julianne Alister[edit]

Alleged fictional character allegedly from a future TV show. The character is supposed to be played by Aliana Lohan, but the article is unreferenced. Zero g-hits. Probably wouldn't be notable even if the show is real. Evb-wiki (talk) 01:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wait until the show premieres, and then we can judge notability. But right now, it's non-notable. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 01:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since the show doesn't yet exist, how can we demonstrate notability? --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 01:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per above. Shoessss | Chat 02:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fictional character from a television programme that may or may not exist. Sounds hoaxy to me, and can easily be recreated if the show does turn out to be real. Lankiveil (talk) 04:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment, there is a related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/In_the_life_of... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lankiveil (talk • contribs) 04:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per no citation of any sources, no verifiability, and currently no notability, due to a show that hasn't yet been broadcast. Rt . 15:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Keilana^talk_(recall) 00:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Live from the Republic of Texas... EP[edit]

This promo EP has 5 G-hits that are not on Wikipedia. Prod tag removed. Unsourced, non-notable. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Dirty South County, the group which produced this EP. Although, their notability is questionable, and if that article is not suitable for redirect, then delete. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 01:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Already listed under Dirty South County. Album itself in non-notable. Shoessss | Chat 02:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Track listing and some other minor content can be merged to improve the other article. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 02:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, the group's notability is borderline at best, but this EP is clearly non-notable. Lankiveil (talk) 04:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as non-notable, ill fit for an entry. -RiverHockey (talk) 02:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per NickPenguin and Lankiveil. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G3 Vandalism by Dlohcierekim (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin-closure. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 15:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avius cani[edit]

No google results (except wiki-copy pages). The supposed reference is "unpublished" and equally gives no google results (except wiki-copy pages) - both when misspelling it "Britsh" (as done in the article) and when spelling in correctly. The supposed author of the source, Mary L'Estrange, also cited in the main text as one of the few people who've witnessed this supposed species, likewise gives no google results (except wiki-copy pages). So, the entire article, created entirely by a single recent user and an unknow IP address, fails for WP:V. I have forwarded a link to this deletion proposal to the WikiProject Cryptozoology Rabo3 (talk) 00:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probably a hoax, all we have is an unpublished source and a self published source, both unreliable. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 01:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a hoax to me. Get it published in a book, and then this article can be recreated. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 02:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – As hoax…No information. Shoessss | Chat 02:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've seen these; they're pretty cute. However, they're also entries into a Photoshop contest. Even given that this is an article on a cryptid (which may or may not exist by its very nature), the lack of any published sources means we can't write anything about its supposed existence. Zetawoof_(ζ) 02:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - hoax. Sbowers3 (talk) 03:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hoaxes are (unfortunately?) not speedy deletion candidates. Zetawoof_(ζ) 04:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - I don't think in this case, as it isn't obvious, but G3 covers vandalism, and "adding known inaccuracies" is a type of vandalism. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 04:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Tagged as such. Let's get this over with. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 15:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"It is said to attack a man if confronted and to be "partial" to human flesh". Amusing, but almost certainly a hoax as pointed out above. Delete, Lankiveil (talk) 04:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete hoax Macy's 123 10:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax, a well written hoax, but a hoax nonetheless. --θnce θn this island ^Speak! 13:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable hoax. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 14:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 (talk) 15:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nigerian Conglomerate[edit]

Seems like a hoax. Can't find any references whatsoever to this supposed organization. Picaroon (t) 00:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hoax or NN. No reference found for the supposed people either, and the bit about "not being able to be reported till 2012" seems ... unusual :) Expressions such as "have made the party popular amongst the public" and "was known for their violent attacks" and "controversy that initially surrounded the election" are not backed up by a single reliable source that I can find. WP:SPEEDY close? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - probably a hoax, and even if it isn't, a g-seach shows it's non notable. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should be deleted unless verified. -JodyB_talk 01:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No References. The ones cited do not even mention a “.Nigerian Conglomerate”. A Google search shows no hits on a Political “Nigerian Conglomerate”. Shoessss | Chat 02:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no group in Nigeria currently holds "1.8% of the vote". If it's not a hoax, it's wildly inaccurate. Lankiveil (talk) 04:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - as per many of the above. A severe lack of reliable sources, which could verify any of the claims, puts the reliability and the truthfulness of this article to question. It would either need a serious overhaul or stubifying with a wide use of sourcing, or deletion, preferably the latter. Rt . 16:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nevada Wolf Pack football. Keilana^talk_(recall) 00:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Defection[edit]

Search for "Red Defection" on Yahoo--one hit, Wikipedia. No coverage to speak of under this name--not on ESPN, not in Vegas or Reno media. Blueboy 96 00:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ Looks like Google wins out over Yahoo for this search. "Red Defection" plus "Wolf Pack" gets me this, but the other few results are on forums, and I can't seem to find the original articles from which they come from. Appears to be a name used by fans of the Wolf Pack, and thus could be a neologism. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 02:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge After seeing some other suggestions, merging would be a better solution; Nevada Wolf Pack football would probabaly be a better place than Chris Ault, although this could use a mention in Ault's article. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 16:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – One reference, and that by a blog, does not make for a notable article. If anything, Merge to Chris Ault article. Shoessss | Chat 02:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, shades of WP:NEO here, but also no reliable sources that use this term. Lankiveil (talk) 04:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Merge - Merge the information into a Nevada Wolf Pack football article, or, if that's not created yet, the general Nevada Wolf Pack article. matt91486 (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Matt91486 or Delete as an uncited neoligism. A highly specific idiom with an unclear degree of breadth in its usage. If it could be expanded and justified, that's great. As it is, it's not an encyclopedia article. -Markeer 16:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Keilana^talk_(recall) 00:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gropegate[edit]

Recounts the whole sordid story of allegations made during Gov Schwarzenegger's gubenatorial campaign. Was tempted to go ahead and honor the speedy tag, but I feel the events surrounding are notable enough to bring it here. It's a notable subject, and perhaps the article could be improved to have balance rather than just deleted Dloh cierekim 00:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I debulked the article to remove the contents form general view. Dloh cierekim 00:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This actually does seem to be a term used by the media, but not solely in connection with Arnold. While news stories related to him do show up in a Google search for "Gropegate" (#2, after Wikipedia, is this, but the actual article does not use the term, so I'm not sure why it is showing as a #2 result for the term), and these news reports: [36] [37], as well as those "subscription only" URLs, but the term does come up quite a bit in a news archive search. However, it is also associated with other public figures, as seen here. I think the bigger issue, would be the obvious WP:BLP concerns, and that if the article remains, it must be exceedingly well sourced, and very carefully written for neutrality and BLP issues. Ariel♥Gold 00:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect I think it's a borderline CSD G10 candidate, as the only well-sourced part is the Schwarzenegger quote. Another source is a dead link. But it's probably moot as the main article Arnold Schwarzenegger#Allegations_of_sexual_and_personal_misconduct already covers most if not all info that seems redeemable here, with sources. Avb 00:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Arnold_Schwarzenegger#Allegations of sexual and personal misconduct, because it's the obvious thing to do. -Halo (talk) 02:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there's room for more details. There's currently no mention of the allegations made against Schwarzenegger by Gail Escobar. Andjam (talk) 02:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Already listed here [38] in Wikipedia.. Shoessss | Chat 02:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentHmmm, I don't think United_States_journalism_scandals#.22Gropegate.22.2C_The_Los_Angeles_Times_.282003.29 quite covers it. Maybe redirect to Arnold Schwarzenegger#Allegations_of_sexual_and_personal_misconduct unless this article can be expanded without violating BLP. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 03:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect as suggested by Halo. Gropegate? I think we're scraping the bottom of the barrel made of old broken gates here. Nick mallory (talk) 08:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect or rename. There was a lot of coverage of this stuff at the time, including Schwarzenegger's statements on the subject and commentary that his wife helped neutralize some of the criticism by standing by him. Gropegate probably isn't the best article title, though. Sarsaparilla (talk) 14:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete or redirect if anyone has ever used it independently of Arnie. Is a POV fork IMHO to enable them to discuss this more than would happenn in the main Arnie article.Merkinsmum 15:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why do we need someone using a term "independently of Arnie" when it's a term primarily associated with him? Are you suggesting we have a generic article for every time someone applies the term "gropegate" to a sexual scandal? --Dhartung | Talk 17:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There already is such an article: List of scandals with "-gate" suffix. EvilCouch (talk) 11:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. Currently the AS article has four sourced, roughly NPOV paragraphs. I could see a sourced article going into more detail than that, but what we have is either a stub or an unsourced leaning-POV mess. If the material in the main article is ever expanded it could go here, and this is definitely a plausible search term. --Dhartung | Talk 17:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, it should at least be a redirect. Sarsaparilla (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article clearly meets the WP:N threshold to justify existence, even with book coverage[39], this is notable. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See my !vote. The problem is that this is a poor article, and the section in the AS article is better. I don't see the point unless this is both as good/better than that section AND longer to the point that it would violate WP:NPOV#Undue weight in the AS article. --Dhartung | Talk 06:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, neologism, character assassination, etc. -RiverHockey (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of scandals with "-gate" suffix As ArielGold pointed it, the term is generic and has been applied to a variety of celebrities.[40] EvilCouch (talk) 11:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no need for a redirect for this silly neologisms, and it is covered in the mans main article. Greswik (talk) 17:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete + salt. Wizardman 02:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yung JoJo Tha Prince[edit]

The subject is a 14 year old rapper. This article has been speedily deleted numerous times, but the article now asserts notability, although all of the claims appear to be false. I could find no evidence that this person is actually signed to Grand Hustle Records. The claims that he was featured on the Screamfest '07 tour and appeared in an episode of Law and Order SVU appear to have been copied from the Tiffany Evans article. His first single "Rain on You" doesn't seem to have made much of an impact.[41] It sort of gives new meaning to the phrase "one-hit wonder". Bongwarrior (talk) 00:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt A grand total of 56 Yahoo hits and 134 Google hits. Completely fails WP:MUSIC. Blueboy 96 00:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah, I think they did basically copy and paste from Tiffany Evans. You can see they forgot to change the infobox as it still says Tiffany Evans as the title. Also both mention the song I'm Grown as replacing a song on their album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deflagro (talk • contribs) 01:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:MUSIC. That's funny, it still says Tiffany Evans :) J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 01:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Only 16 hits, as shown here [42] and most of those are MySpace. Shoessss | Chat 03:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete + Salt, a zero-hit wonder maybe? Comprehensively fails WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil (talk) 04:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete plus a dash of WP:SALT. Simply not notable right now, perhaps later. (jarbarf) (talk) 05:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Non-notable act. Ridernyc (talk) 11:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ompassi[edit]

Contested prod - holiday made up by two college students two years ago. None of the references have anything to do with the actual topic of the article. Top Google hit is this article; all the rest are unrelated (mostly hits on the word "compassion" - apparently Google does partial-word matches now.) Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sounds like WP:MADEUP. Google returns zilch. The sources provided only show the rationale that led to this alleged holiday, with zero reference to the holiday itself. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 00:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Blanchardb. It's not exactly Festivus. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 01:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per above. No information found. Shoessss | Chat 03:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, something made up in school one day. No sources showing that this has widespread (or any) recognition anywhere. Lankiveil (talk) 04:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Perhaps better sources will be available before the next Ompassi. (jarbarf) (talk) 05:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/merge to Dark Passion Play. Keilana^talk_(recall) 00:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Poet and the Pendulum[edit]

Non notable song, not released as a single. Mostly trivial and unsourced, includes what are probably copyrighted lyrics. Rehevkor (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything of value and redirect to Dark Passion Play. JJL (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge agree. Shoessss | Chat 03:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it. Simply being lengthy or leaked is not usually considered grounds for notability. Lankiveil (talk) 04:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Merge not notable song Macy's 123 10:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into album article. Will ^(talk) 20:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have fixed cons on the article, included interesting details on story and relations to The Pit and the Pendulum, as well as a section on the meaning for the track in Dark Passion Play. Everyone who choosed "merge" - check through it again, it is much better than for example the Bye Bye Beautiful article. - Aki (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'm still unsure how the article asserts notability. Rehevkor (talk) 03:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge this non-notable song. -RiverHockey (talk) 02:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable due to it reportedly being band leader's favourite Nightwish song ever. Fyorl (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable to Nightwish fans but to Wikipedia? Rehevkor (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keilana^talk_(recall) 00:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people and organizations associated with Dominionism[edit]

unsourced list of people; removal of unsourced material results in NPOV violation Will ^(talk) 20:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is untimely. The sources are being upgraded per talk on the discussion list. --Lquilter (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it. For most of the people and organizations listed, there aren't even any sources saying that they are Dominionist. Roger (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Roger Schlafly, I suggest you look at the talk page. --Lquilter (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not to mention WP:COI since his mother's group the Eagle Forum is widely seen as dominionist. FeloniousMonk (talk) 00:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to be broad speculation with few WP:RS and a lot of WP:OR. Orderinchaos 23:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Orderinchaos, I suggest you look at the talk page. --Lquilter (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Did so. The problem is this "Dominionism" thing - it's not a word too many use or is used to describe too many people. Perhaps opting for something requiring no original research but along the same lines would be the way to do this within WP:5. Orderinchaos 01:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Not too many", maybe, but some people do use this, and in verifiable, non-OR ways. Contrary to the nominator's assertion there have been and are plenty of cites in the various sections. --Lquilter (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The illogic of this move is, to me, like someone stating that Lavern and Shirley was high art. That Roger supported the deletion gives even more reason to not delete the list -- he has his own personal playground at Conservapedia, the place where no truth is too big to ignore and fantasies, myths and revisionist history are the apex of human existence. Jim62sch 00:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's an encyclopedic list on an encyclopedic topic. Nowhere else on the project is all this information collected in one place. Like all Wikipedia articles it's a work in progess, and progress is being made. And there is no shortage of sources there and available. Also, this list was suggested by the community as a compromise in the TFD for the now largely purged Dominionism Template and received strong support, see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_October_27#Template:Dominionism. FeloniousMonk (talk) 00:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This is a useful list for determining who is associated with Dominionism. Besides, as FM states, this is the compromise article. Time to move on. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above--Filll (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The list is not unsourced; the material is notable. The subject is appropriate for Wikipedia. Keep. Guettarda (talk) 03:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not unsourced? The whole first section of people is unsourced. Will ^(talk) 14:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the section about the leaders of the Christian Reconstructionist movement? That's utterly uncontroversial. Guettarda (talk) 14:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are active users verifying sources. Meets WP:N. Editors must be careful about violating WP:POV but it seems there are enough patrolling editors to keep it clean. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 03:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This sort of wanton synthesis in an effort to categorize living persons is specifically outlawed by BLP. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Wanton synthesis"? Never thought I see those words strung together. But, in any case, SYNTH would be "outlawed" (not that anything here is "outlawed") by NOR. That is, were there any synthesis taking place. Jim62sch 18:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an excellent band name. --Lquilter (talk) 20:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't that a Nick Rhodes side project? Or was it Yoko Ono? ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At any rate, this is no more synthesis than any other list. --Lquilter (talk) 18:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : there is sufficient notability per WP:N and verifiability per WP:V. Mh29255 (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Theocratic domination advocates have opened the door to questions of their mortal status. Anon166 (talk) 19:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : I would say delete it, except that this list would undoubtedly resurface in another form, and this is the best version of it we are likely to get. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 19:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FeloniousMonk and Frjohnwhiteford. (How often does one get to say that!!) --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 07:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep : "Pinky, are you thinking what I'm thinking?" "I think so, Brain, but next time you wear the rubber pants." Knowing who's trying to take over the world isn't just informative, it has endless entertainment value. =) With any luck, Steve Jackson will include them all in his next edition of Illuminati. And a hearty "Amen" to Frjohnwhiteford. ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The bare topic is notable; the list is being defined in a clear way that properly describes the relationship of people & organizations with a movement/tendency; and there have been plenty of sources provided, and those sources that were criticized are being upgraded. --Lquilter (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an encyclopaedic topic for a list, and a fairly well sourced one; and I see the sourcing is still being improved. 'Dominionism' isn't a necessarily derogatory term, so I don't see any real problems here. Terraxos (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected to McStroke - "Peter Strokes His Meat" was a working title for that episode. --Stormie (talk) 00:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Strokes His Meat[edit]

episode of Family Guy that has gone way past its projected airdate; doubts about existence Will ^(talk) 20:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rt . 20:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't want to be seeing this ever again, thank you. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge with List of American Dad! episodes. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frannie 911[edit]

article about a future event with no sources Will ^(talk) 20:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rt . 20:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sources include tvguide and fox press releases. Was initially scheduled to air in DEC, but due to strike and shortage of eps it was moved to Jan 6, 2008, although the xbox live marketplace release never changed from the initial date so its already available there.Grande13 (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Working with episode articles myself, it's a real let down to see articles with fictioncruft in and for them to be unreferenced, so, unless references can be found and it can be expanded, deletion is the best thing here. Qst 13:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, deletion is not the best thing. WP:EPISODE#Dealing with problem articles says to "avoid listing episodes for AfD" and to "consider merging or redirecting" articles for non-notable episodes. DHowell (talk) 05:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no references, no real world notability, fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of American Dad! episodes. No claim of real-world notability; WP:EPISODE says such episodes should not have their own article.--Fabrictramp (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment -- this also would apply to most, if not all, of the episodes of this show.--Fabrictramp (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of American Dad! episodes. Recreate when significant coverage in reliable sources can be found. DHowell (talk) 05:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the episode name, planned airdate, and plot synopsis are verifiable to a primary source: the Fox press release reproduced here. Doesn't establish notability but does establish a valid redirect name. DHowell (talk) 05:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] The Sunday Tribune - Spectrum - Literature

[2] the Literary Saloon at the complete review - 21 - 31 July 2003 Archive

[1]

[2]