Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 December 24

< December 23	December 25 >

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 Merge/redirect to Narnia (world). Keilana^talk_(recall) 00:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archenland[edit]

This article is an in-universe plot repetition of events and information from the Chronicles of Narnia books and has neither reference or notability. As such, its just duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Narnia (world) and redirect to the appropriate section of that article. LloydSommerer (talk) 01:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article should be improved but it is standard practice to have articles about ficticious countries related to a book (in specific look at how many of the places in Narnia have their own articles). 70.54.108.253 (talk) 06:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now. If adequate third-party sources can be found, this might be broken back out later. *** Crotalus *** 11:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is a considerable academic and popular literature of CSLewis. Even relatively minor plot elements like this will be sourceable. DGG (talk) 02:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And for the millionth time DGG, you need to prove notability, not just state it has some. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:20, 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/redirect to Calormen. Keilana^talk_(recall) 00:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hierarchy of Calormen[edit]

Love C.S. Lewis, but we don't need an article that is just plot repetition of sections of the book in an in-universe way with no references or notability. As such, its just plot duplication and can be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; such of this content as is useful would be better within Calormen than separately. If content is merged rather than rewritten, this should obviously be left as a redirect for edit history purposes. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Calormen and redirect to that article. Once it's there it will need some editing, but it's not completely worthless. LloydSommerer (talk) 01:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Calormen. This is the sort of detail which need not be broken out into separate articles. I wish a love for CSL would translate into a willingness to look for sources, and I'm to blame here also. Even for topics like this, not all is online.DGG (talk) 02:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Calormen. wikipedia is not a plot summary but the information could be added to Calormen. Jerm (^Talk/ _Contrib) 23:09, 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. Wizardman 00:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian jokes[edit]

Original research. Supplied references don't support cited text. Poor context -- should be something like "folk humor in hungary", but I don't think there's sufficient research and references for that, even. Mikeblas (talk) 23:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unencyclopedical and unfunny. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 15:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above, and also as not notable, and improperly sourced. Bearian (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons above, nothing else to add. alex.muller (talk) 16:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This probably could be speedy deleted. Jerm (^Talk/ _Contrib) 23:12, 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

Speedily deleted as vandalism Dloh cierekim 01:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admitted hoax here. Dloh cierekim 01:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Australian Penguin[edit]

Prod removed, so here we are. Zero hits for "Giant Australian Penguin", "Foreesaw Crowlaw", "Puniceus Summitto", or "Stuart Pidas Sowland". WP:HOAX or WP:MADEUP. Shawis (talk) 23:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax admitted on article talk page. Acroterion _(talk) 23:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Transwiki to Uncyclopedia. It is a clever and humorous hoax, but this type is better suited there rather than here. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 00:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as vandalism and so tagged. Between content like "the beak is made of an unidentified substance" to the thing is "8 meters" tall and eats kangaroos, this isn't even worth a google search. The IP that deprodded the article admitted to the hoax on the talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as vandalism per Someguy1221. I did save a copy to my hard drive, though. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters wish you a Merry Fishmas! • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:48, 25 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 by WP:SNOW as failing WP:BLP. Bearian (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karel Smetana Jr. MD, PhD[edit]

Respected doctor, I'm sure, but this does not mean he meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion of biographical articles. He is listed in at least one "Who's Who?" of medicine, but it is all directory-style information.[1] I find no actual sources about him.[2] Most (all?) research physicians publish numerous papers over time, so the main claim of importance here does not seem to be very unique. W.marsh 23:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In the current state notability is unclear. No books or articles in top-tier international journals reported. Even the full professorship isn't confirmed in any way. Pundit|utter 02:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From his Czech bio he's a professor, most important publications are listed as well but IMHO Wikipedia should wait until someone publishes a material about him. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 15:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia cannot serve as a directory about every scientist. Web page about Smetana at the institute where he works: [3] (en). I found nothing specific about Karel Smetana (quite a common Czech name) in Czech language materials online (which says nothing about scientific notability).

His father, born 1930, would deserve an article. He is haematologist, obtained scientific awards, has hundreds of publications, was at one time on a list of Nobel premium candidates and there's biographical information about him available on specialized websites, e.g. here (en). Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 15:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete (I had just googled up the 2005 J. Appl. Biomed. article linked to by Pavel Vozenilek above and mistakenly assumed it was the same person). His father is notable, but he is not. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete assuming the selected publication are the best of them, not notable.DGG (talk) 03:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Pete Hurd and DGG. --Crusio (talk) 10:50, 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) 00:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Money Management Group[edit]

no correct sources being given since page creation, doesn not comply with either music or any other wiki reasons for a page BLACKWALLENT (talk) 22:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Clearly the article is an advertisement, and I can't tell whether the claims made within constitute an assertion of corporate notability. Certainly, it is not verified by any reliable sources; however, this is not a reason in itself to nominate an article for deletion, unless one suspects no such sources exist. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed BLACKWALLENT (talk) 22:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
there seem to be at least some news sources about this group, not all of those are press releases. --W.marsh 23:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability. Notability is not inherited from the people you sign. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:10, 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 Speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Skribble[edit]

Despite the hyperbolic claim that I deleted for peacockery, there are no reliable sources for any of the claims on the page. Corvus cornix_talk 22:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - CSD A7 - article does not indicate the importance of the subject. Tiddly-Tom 22:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I've spent (literally) a few minutes looking for more on DJ Skribble and have expanded the article, with references. Several album releases on major labels, lots of work on MTV, etc. It's a clear keep for me.--Michig (talk) 22:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll withdraw the nom. Being a member of Young Black Teenagers seems notability for me. Unfortunately, the links to allmusic don't work - you can't go direct to amg pages. :( Corvus cornix_talk 23:05, 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 per nom, probably a hoax. BLACKKITE 01:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cassie's second album[edit]

Pure crystal ball: no title, no source. Kww (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until information can be verified on the album. Rumors don't cut it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters wish you a Merry Fishmas! • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOT#CBALL. Tiddly-Tom 22:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources - may well be true but a quick search doesn't show anything solid. violet/riga (t) 22:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL - I believe a "second Cassie album" article has already been deleted - this editor has created C-BALL articles like this before. - eo (talk) 04:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as most crystalline. tomasz. 12:15, 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. PeaceNT (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1Click DVD Ripper[edit]

No sources and no assertion of notability. This has existed since March 2006 and is still a bare, unsourced stub; there is no reason to believe it will ever improve. *** Crotalus *** 21:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable software. Article only appears to serve as an advert.--Michig (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Michig. Jona than ^{I wish you healthy and happy holidays.} 21:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - CSD A7 - article does not indicate the importance of the subject. Tiddly-Tom 22:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reread A7- this is not web content, a real person, or a real group, and so is not covered. J Milburn (talk) 23:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read the box at the bottom, containing Template:Db-software, that should cover it. Tiddly-Tom 09:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That template was created unilaterally, and the actual A7 guideline explicitly excludes software. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of assertion of notability. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:28, 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^talk_(recall) 00:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TaGPack[edit]

The article does noet assert notability for this section of the Trees are Green group, an article that is currently under AfD. A google search shows no independent reliable sources that could support a claim of notability. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant independent coverage found.--Michig (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Michig, and written like an ad. Jona than ^{I wish you healthy and happy holidays.} 21:34, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 00:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University Mall (Pensacola, Florida)[edit]

Never minding that this page is horribly out of date (McRae's became Belk two years ago), the mall in question seems to be non-notable. A search for sources online turned up nothing but listings for motels nearby or showtimes for the theater. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete lacking any clear policy allowing these WP:USEFUL pages to be kept. JJL (talk) 03:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although super-regional malls usually are notable, this one has closed down. It's historic significance has not been established. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closed down? Since when? I drove past it this weekend, it was open. 68.101.22.132 (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I suppose I should note, the local paper has written on the mall, and the plan to convert it into a lifestyle center. Haven't paid much attention to it, but it's been written about. I'm sure finding the articles will be a chore, they have a terrible search system. 68.101.22.132 (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The arguments for deletion so far have been based on a lot of misinformation. For one, the article does note that the McRae's has been converted to a Belk. McRae's is only mentioned in a historical context. Secondly, the mall is not closed down. It is very much open and functional. The article was written in order to activate a previously created "dead link" on a disambiguation page. Also, notability cannot be based on one random Internet search by a single user. I can only hope that future discussions of this nature would be a little more respectful. Perimeter285 (talk) 04:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: What wasn't respectful? Respectful of whom? The mall? Epthorn (talk) 16:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The tone of the request for deletion was pretty glib and sarcastic.64.123.211.89 (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the square footage alone I believe this is sufficiently notable and we're not running out of disk space any time soon. RFerreira (talk) 05:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- no notability established aside from existence. Wikipedia may not be paper, but that is not an excuse to include non-encyclopedic information. The "disk-space" argument is useful, rather, so that you don't have to choose between including two notable articles. This is not such a case.Epthorn (talk) 16:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The mall pushes the boundaries of super-regional status and is sufficiently notable. (jarbarf) (talk) 05:47, 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, The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just seems like another mall to me...non-notable, and square feet (mentioned above) doesn't matter. How much of the square feet is used is the question. Thus, a building might be 1 billion square feet, and only half of it is used. Jona than ^{I wish you healthy and happy holidays.} 21:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep large regional mall, there seem to be sufficient sorces [4] --W.marsh 23:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if Expanded since the article says "currently slated to undergo redevelopment as an open-air lifestyle center, to be renamed The Village at University Place. All of the existing structure except for the anchor stores will be demolished as part of this redevelopment." there will obviously be sources. DGG (talk) 03:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any information about "Village at University Place" in Pensacola, or anything else at all that says that this mall will be turned into a lifestyle center. Was this info in error? Most likely... Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Smaller then the 800,000 sqft where size is considered to be notable. There is clearly no attempt to establish notability in the article unless you consider being the newest (build in 1974) large mall in the area. The 'keep if expanded' opinion should be considered a delete opinion since this article was nominated 11 days ago and it has not been expanded. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:18, 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 Merge. Keilana^talk_(recall) 00:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Place Portobello[edit]

Non-notable mall that lives in the shadow of a much larger mall, Mail Champlain, located less than a mile away. There are also recent news reports that the Wal-Mart ~~and Réno-Dépôt~~ anchor stores of this mall will ~~both~~ close their doors and move to Quartier Dix30, also in the immediate vicinity. Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 04:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:NOTE. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertisement perhaps? Marlith ^T/C 05:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Marlith, it's not an advertisement; I started the article but am not affiliated with this mall. Jsmaster24 (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 05:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/summarize into Brossard, Quebec article, the city where this mall located, as per WP:NNC. I agree it may not warrant its own article but the information is verifiable and should still get more than just a simple mention in the Brossard article, being a once important mall in its history. Blanchardb, I'm interested in seeing the news reports you mentioned that say that Wal-Mart and Réno-Dépôt will close, please advise. ~~Marlith, it's not an advertisement; I started the article but am not affiliated with this mall.~~ Jsmaster24 (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is the article about the closing of Wal-Mart. Sorry, it's in French. As for Réno-Dépôt, it's something I heard on the radio. Can't find an article on that, so scratch that. Still, because that store is not connected to the mall, the loss of Wal-Mart will hurt. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 21:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - French is no problem, thanks for the interesting article. Jsmaster24 (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment with regard to mentioning the mall in Brossard, Quebec, I'm all for it. As a matter of fact, it's already mentioned in there, but that's an idea for the expansion of the article. Also, the article List of malls in Montreal is full of redlinks, at least one of which is worthy of a separate article in my mind. (Okay, I may sound a bit COI there, as I live just 10 minutes from it.) But many of those redlinks should be converted into nolinks. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 21:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I say keep the article alive. Many malls in other cities have their own pages, why shouldn't this one? Until it is officially dead it deserves its own article. MTLskyline (talk) 02:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it's not that it's a mall, nor is it about the fact it may be on the verge of becoming dead. As I mentioned above, I believe this one is not important enough to have its own article. Its neighbor Mail Champlain does deserve its own article. I'm not against individual malls having articles of their own, in fact I started an article on Place Rosemère earlier today. I was surprised that there was none yet. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 02:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - fair enough, perhaps condensing it and adding it to the Brossard, Quebec article under as Jsmaster24 suggested is the best option. Under a shopping center heading perhaps? MTLskyline (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. —Jsmaster24 (talk) 23:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since I'm a contributor to the article, I would go with Keep although I wouldn't mind if it got deleted because I must admit the mall doesn't have anything special other than the fact that it once housed the first ever Woolco store to open in the province and perhaps because it is the oldest (still standing) shopping mall in Brossard. You probably will never find me create an article about Place Portobello but I guess it somewhat deserve its article because of two reasons I've mentionned. Farine—Preceding comment was added at 01:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is defined by the existence of independent third-party sources about the topic, not by the simple fact of the topic's existence. Merge to a list of shopping malls in Brossard. Bearcat (talk) 04:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Content from this article moved here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shopping_centers_in_greater_Montreal —Preceding unsigned comment added by MTLskyline (talk • contribs) 00:07, 25 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, The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as another small mall. I would not oppose a merge, but there is nothing of note to merge in. If this article is deleted, the template should be updated so that we don't encourage another trip here for an AfD again. WP:ILIKEIT and other stuff exists reasoning is not a reason to keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:21, 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 Merge. Keilana^talk_(recall) 00:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Place Desormeaux[edit]

A small shopping center. Nothing special about it. Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 04:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:NOTE. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 05:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable 203.221.239.168 (talk) 08:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable. -₪-Hemidemisemiquaver (talk) 09:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is still reasonably noteworthy, being one of the only malls in Longueuil. MTLskyline (talk) 02:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. —Jsmaster24 (talk) 23:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is defined by the existence of independent third-party sources about the topic, not by the simple fact of the topic's existence. Merge to a list of shopping malls in Longueuil. Bearcat (talk) 04:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources to be seen. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:55, 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, The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Content from this article moved here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shopping_centers_in_greater_Montreal —Preceding unsigned comment added by MTLskyline (talk • contribs) 00:07, 25 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) 01:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mail Carnaval[edit]

Dead mall near Montreal, named after its original anchor store. Delete. Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 04:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no hint of its notability. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 05:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - The nominator has stated no rational for deletion. based upon that nomination statement... I would be Keep. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 21:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How about non notable? --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 21:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That works. In future, please state you reasoning in the nomination statement, you shouldn't be relying on the first few opinions to give you a direction. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 22:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is notable even if it is a dead mall. It occupies a large piece of land and is still frequented by clients. MTLskyline (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any mall that lists Dollarama as being one of its primary anchor tenants is almost certainly not notable enough for Wikipedia. Notability is defined by the existence of independent third-party sources about the topic, not by the simple fact of the topic's existence. Merge to a list of shopping malls in Longueuil. Bearcat (talk) 04:04, 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, The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are any number of malls named after their anchor tenant. I doubt this is the only Carnaval Mall. --70.55.84.132 (talk) 00:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Content from this article moved here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shopping_centers_in_greater_Montreal
MTLskyline (talk) 00:09, 25 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) 01:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trees are Green[edit]

This organisation from the Recycling category does not show any significant notability, hence I am nominating it for deletion. Alex Marshall (talk) 09:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No clear hits on org to show notability. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:01, 24 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, Wizardman 20:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable organization. Jona than ^{I wish you healthy and happy holidays.} 22:05, 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 Redirect for GFDL reasons. Keilana^talk_(recall) 01:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The C Word[edit]

No evidence of notability. (WP:N) Play has never been publicly performed (at least according to this article.) -- Writtenonsand (talk) 20:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mh29255 (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ditto. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of 30 Rock episodes#Season 1: 2006-2007 - this was originally a crufty episode article, which was merged with the list, and the redirect was then overwritten with this article (see page history). May as well go back to being a redirect, unless there's a need for a disambiguation page. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 22:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So delete, then create a redirect as specified by Iain99. -- RG ² 22:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nonnotable work about a future event. Could justifiably be speedied under that criteria. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this fifteen-minute play gains significant critical attention once it is performed, then there may be something verifiable to say about it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above, not notable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable (not yet, anyway). Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 18:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously. Also, other (at least 2) copies of the same article have been (speedy) deleted today. Peasantwarrior (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC) Redirect per Iain99 and others. Peasantwarrior (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note added to Talk:The C Word by User:Emotionboy 18:44, 28 December 2007. -- "The C Word is part of the 2nd Write Fest at Progress Theatre. It will be performed in January 2008 in which reviews should be available. A Progess Theatre review that refers to the 2nd Write Fest can be found here:[5]" -- Writtenonsand (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of 30 Rock episodes#Season 1: 2006-2007, so as not to lose the significant edit history for the TV episode article. Some of the content of that former article may have been merged into the list, so the edit history may need to be retained for GFDL reasons. That someone recently replaced a valid redirect containing significant edit history with a non-notable article should not be grounds for deleting the previous edit history. DHowell (talk) 05:54, 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. PeaceNT (talk) 08:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Age of Time[edit]

Non-notable page per WP:N that had been previously deleted from WP and evidently restarted. Mh29255 (talk) 20:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per criterion G4:Recreation of previously deleted material. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per criterion G4. Jona than ^{I wish you healthy and happy holidays.} 22:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 04:53, 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 Redirect to ~~MTV (Canada)~~ MTV Live (Canada) for GFDL reasons. Keilana^talk_(recall) 01:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Salema[edit]

Unnotable host of a single show, article has never been more than a 1-3 sentence stub since its creation over a year ago, despite being tagged multiple times for article issues and being PRODed. Collectonian (talk) 20:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —Collectonian (talk) 20:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree this is the merest of stub articles. But I removed the PROD and would like a chance to explain why. 1) as a National co-host on MTV Canada, I believe she meets -- if just barely -- the WP:BIO requirement for "television personalities" to play "significant roles" on TV. 2) She has also received significant press coverage. The three articles I linked to are Sceneandheard.ca, a Canadian online arts magazine; Metro, Toronto's largest free daily; and canoe.ca, the Web portal for Canada's Sun Newspaper chain (in this case, an article from its largest paper, the Toronto Sun). I don't believe this is an exhausive list of her coverage, either, there is more. That's my logic, anyway. I'll respect the decision you make. Happy holidays, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if there is an "exhaustive list of her coverage" then adding some {{cite news}} tags from multiple WP:RS publications notable enough to have Wikipedia articles should be no problem ... a link from her employer's site, a Q&A in Metro.ca (not even in the list!), and a passing mention in the Toronto Sun ("depth of coverage is not substantial") do not qualify for purposes of WP:V ... see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aliya-Jasmine Sovani for the deletion of the article on one of her co-hosts ... note that it was also salted to prevent recreation, although some fanboy has tried (see Aylia-Jasmin Sovani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).) —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 21:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why do you feel it necessary to disparge this editor as a "fanboy" and not a fellow Wikipedian with a difference of opinion?Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Because Jamierush (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked for repeated abuse of editing privileges, so I am under no obligation to assume good faith on their behalf, and I do not consider them worthy of my respect. —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 23:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metro News may not be in "the list!" but I can assure you its a wide-circulation free newspaper in this country, see.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, "wide-circulation" does not necessarily make it a "reliable Source" ... and second, "popularity" is not the same thing as "notability", which is probably why Metro News does not have an article here. —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 22:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what's worth, it is included as a "commuter daily" in List of media outlets in Toronto#Commuter dailies. I'm not aware of any guideline that disqualifies it as a reliable source. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bad ... Metro International does, in fact, have an article, so you should make a proper {{cite news}} for the reference, although it's still trivial coverage of the subject. —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 23:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never used "cite news". I either add things to articles as in-line citations or as external links. I don't believe that invalidates them. Does it? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to MTV Live (Canada). MTV is big in the US but it's a rather minor cable channel in Canada. Reginald Perrin (talk) 22:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although as the MTV Canada article states, since its acquisition by CTV Globemedia its distribution is expanding dramatically. You anticipated -- and maybe undercut -- my next question, which is that if she was a host on MTV USA instead of MTV Canada, would there be less doubt about whether that represented a prominent role on television? I legitimately don't know the answer -- maybe the answer is no, maybe lots of similarly prominent US cable television personalities have been deleted. I'm just not as sure there's such a qualitative difference between being a cable host on MTV Canada and being one in the US. Anyway, she is already mentioned in the MTV Canada Live article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We agree that the TV channel and the TV show meet the notability guidelines, and the other anchors on the MTV Live (Canada) page have their own Wiki pages, so (Q.E.D.) this one should remain. Favor Keep so someone can beef it up. TOJMatt 22:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a convincing argument ... see Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions ... the whole point of this discussion is that there is NOT enough published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject to be able to "beef it up". —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 22:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest, rather, that the whole point of this discussion is that A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards... television personalities... with significant roles per WP:BIO. And that a national host on MTV Canada is, arguably, just such a role. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe she meets the television notability requirements of WP:BIO. matt91486 (talk) 23:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notability is not inherited, right? See also Wikipedia:BIO#Failing_basic_criteria_but_meeting_additional_criteria. --Thin boy 00 @158, i.e. 02:46, 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) 01:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

W2pi[edit]

This website asserts no notability through reliable sources, and appears to be just a flash in the pan story, and as Wikipedia is also not news, this doesn't fit that requirement either. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mh29255 (talk) 19:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete i noticed this article earlier, i tried to remove some blatant advertising but the whole thing just looks like an ad, and the fact that the company is into "viral marketing" makes me even more suspicious. If anyone can actually confirm it being featured on Fox news or something maybe it could stay.--Helixdq (talk) 17:20, 25 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 Halo (series). Keilana^talk_(recall) 01:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halo universe[edit]

Fails in how it is presented, WP:CITE, and WP:GAMECRUFT. Fangz of Blood 19:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Fangz of Blood 19:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We should delete this and restart from the Halo series article in writing a proper account of the fictional universe of Halo. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Halo (series). The subject is better presented there, and there is not a lot of brilliant prose to merge. I would argue in favour of keeping article history intact. User:Krator (t c) 19:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Judgesurreal777's assessment above. Peptuck (talk) 19:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and edit. I don't see why it's necessary to completely DELETE the page, it just needs editing. Right now, I'm busy with college applications, but in the next month or so I should be able to get started on re-vamping the page. Neil the Cellist (talk) 17:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - such a subject should be based on staff interviews, magazine articles, and other out-of-universe source, not an in-universe plot synopsis and descriptions. Contributors may wish to try Halopedia or somesuch instead. Marasmusine (talk) 08:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete, but merge~~Redirect and merge relevant information into the appropriate articles, particularly Halo (series).--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 21:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Changed to redirect as I also believe article history should remain intact.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 19:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per notability and verifiability of Halo game series. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:52, 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. Any useful content from this article is in Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008; it was content that was already in that article, therefore the GFDL requirements are satisfied. Keilana^talk_(recall) 01:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Paul Revolution[edit]

Subject not notable in its own right; suggest merge to Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 18:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --- this is an article about the slogan of a campaign that already has a strong WP article. It is far more likely that the (appropriately verified) content from this page could contribute to Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 attaining GA (or Ron Paul achieving FA) than it is that this article about a neologism could ever become an FA. Three additional points:
1. Another Paul campaign neologism, Moneybomb, quickly became a magnet for OR and coatrack Paul boosterism
2. WP would not benefit from the (constantly changing) campaign slogans of every campaign getting articles; where do we draw the line? Presidents? Senators? State senators? There are already venues in WP for this content --- the articles on the campaigns themselves.
3. What is the likelihood that this article retains any value into 2009? Even the successful Bush campaigns don't leave this kind of detritus. --- tqbf 19:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A reply per points: 1. That another article about Ron Paul became a center for OR and coatrack is irrelevant here. 2. The article is not solely about the slogan, but is about the term as it is used to describe Paul's grass roots support. Said usage is consistent with its use in the media, where the activities of Paul's base independent of his campaign have received enough media attention to make it notable and warrant a separate article. Please re-read the article, which I've been working on improving. 3. The article documents a notable grass roots campaign independent of a politician's own official structure. Given the rarity with which this kind of phenomenon has occurred, I'd say this article has large potential to be useful in 2009 no mater the outcome because of the topic's importance in Presidential election history. Buspar (talk) 08:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  An "improvement" to an inappropriate article made by shifting content out of another valuable article can hardly be considered an "improvement" to WP as a whole. Again: you are creating a second article for the same topic. Paul's entire campaign is a grassroots effort. This is no different than would have been an '04 attempt to create a "People vs. The Powerful" Kerry article. --- tqbf 19:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  You still haven't answered my point that the article I'm removing material from is too large by Wiki standards and, therefore, Wiki policy says that branching it off is entirely appropriate! If the Kerry article was having the same length problem, your hypothetical new article would be entirely justified. The fact remains that Ron Paul is 83 Kb and his campaign article is 119 Kb, so creating new articles to contain subsets of the info there is not only warranted but expected. This article is just one such subset. Given the continued length of the parent articles, more branches may be appropriate. After all, so long as an article meets WP:RS and WP:N, it should be kept. And you've already conceded both of them and seem to have no suitable response to my WP:SIZE citations. Buspar (talk) 05:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  It's transparently not a WP:SUMMARY page; if it was, it wouldn't be called "Ron Paul Revolution". You do realize these articles have edit histories, right? This is a POV fork, which two editors are currently attempting to retroactively turn into a summary page. No doubt they mean well, but it will stay a proper summary page (once it achieves that) until about 5 minutes after this AfD completes. Perhaps someone less involved with the Paul campaign should divide it up. --- tqbf 05:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  "No doubt they mean well, but it will stay a proper summary page (once it achieves that) until about 5 minutes after this AfD completes." Wiki's not a crystal ball - and neither are you. :) The future of the article will be guided by consensus and constructive editing. Deleting an article just because you suspect it may become POV sometime in the future is not a sound basis. The article should be judged for what it is right now: a branch off of two other oversized articles that contains reliable sources and is notable. That it didn't start out that way is irrelevant, since articles can be improved. Also, this isn't a case of a POV fork: "POV forks usually arise when two or more contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page, and instead of resolving that disagreement, someone creates another version of the article to be developed according to their personal views rather than according to consensus." Do you have evidence Duchamps disagreed with another editor and so started this one to avoid consensus? I saw none going through the edit histories. Buspar (talk) 05:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  This is a second article about the Paul campaign, ostensibly about the campaign slogan (a conceit not shared by any other '08 campaign), but really about how the Paul campaign is different/better/grassrootser-y than others. I'm going to opt to continue to call it a POV fork, but I understand your objection. --- tqbf 05:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -True “Ron Paul Revolution” it is a slogan but it also refers to the supporters. As the grass roots supporters (in their mind) joining the revolution, change in America, we can also see from moneybomb fundraising and intrest is not small. It is in Mainstreem media TIME and theLos Angelas Times refering to “the Revolution” AKA the supporters. WP needs to define what this word as it is gaining in common parlance IE nightly news. It’s more of an ideology than a slogan which is why many will poo poo it!--Duchamps comb (talk) 19:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Duchamps comb should have mentioned that he is the creator of the nominated article; he also specifically requested that User:Buspar, User:Smileyborg, User:Katydidit, User:Monsieurdl, User:Verad, and User:John J. Bulton comment on this discussion; all of these editors have written favorably about Paul. --- tqbf 03:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Monsieurdl and Verad would be surprised to know they'd written favorably about Paul (diffs please); I see no reason to question Duchamps comb's statement that only neutral canvassing of Paul-interested editors was intended. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't. WP has edit histories on all articles. Note the editors Duchamps did not request comments from. I think you're wrong and will leave it at that. --- tqbf 20:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment --- I dispute that any mainstream media outlet refers to "the revolution". When TIME prints the words "Ron Paul Revolution", they are referring to the campaign slogan. They do the same thing with the Straight Talk Express, which (properly) does not have an article separate from John McCain. --- tqbf 01:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Abstain. Topic can be easily dealt with within Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008. Article is awfully written to boot, usually Paulites are a little more skillful. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC) Article has been changed a lot since I originally cast my position; I no longer have a good sense for what the best way to arrange all the RP material is. Nor do I envy the closing admin who has to sort this one out. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hahah, you are so right. Poor admin, what a mess we editors make. Ah well... --smileyborg (talk) 07:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very biased, can be contained in the presidential campaign article and I definitely feel that the "Ron Paul Revolution" is a neologism, or merely an off-hand comment that may/not have much currency. Shiva_eVolved 19:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge. This most certainly belongs in the Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 article, and doesn't deserve its own article as it can find its rightful place with its rightful candidate and supporters. Makes perfect sense to me, and it doesn't stop Duchamps comb from adding material relevant to Ron Paul. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 20:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, merge, and make more encyclopedic. People might wish to know what the "Ron Paul Revolution" is, and what exactly the phrase represents, but I think this should be presented in the main article. - Connelly (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per tqbf. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 20:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--OK, merge, and make more encyclopedic. I just want someone to be able to do a WP word search and find it. Without reading the "whole page". Would prefer It's own page but am not opposed to merge, and make more encyclopedic. Maybe some off you folks would lend a hand in edditing?--Duchamps comb (talk) 21:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The idea of Wikipedia is NOT so that "keywords" will have linked advertising information, so I disagree that the info in this article should be kept only so that it appears when a user searches for "Ron Paul Revolution". I believe this article should be maintained independently of the original; rationale follows my vote a bit farther down the page. Now, if the consensus IS indeed to merge and redirect this term to the main article, the redirect should link directly to the subsection where the information is moved to (as opposed to a redirect to the top of the Ron Paul campaign article). Agreed? --smileyborg (talk) 10:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term "Ron Paul Revolution" has been used in multiple news reporters, such as Jack Cafferty. It is therefore worth having an article that details what it is precisely. I've seen news articles describing the "revolution" in papers like the Washington Post and other places, which means the article passes the "perfect article test." I suggest having the article be about the people who support Ron Paul and their efforts that are independent of the official campaign, such as the money bombs, blimp, and fund raising. This would keep the article on the official campaign from becoming cluttered. Buspar (talk) 00:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment --- it's hard to dispute that the term is newsworthy; we don't need to dredge up every reference to the term. But the topic already has an article: "Ron Paul Revolution" is the slogan for Paul's campaign. In effect, you aren't asking for an article about a notable topic: you're demanding that the WP carry two of them. If boosters for every candidate did that, WP would be littered with useless articles about defunct campaigns. Why carry two articles, when one article can be improved and taken to GA? --- tqbf 01:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Would be three of them, actually ... there is already List of Ron Paul campaign 2008 appearances, believe it or not ... Wasted Time R (talk) 01:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is appropriate to split things off an article when the content would cause that article to exceed size recommendations. Case in point, the List of Appearances. This article would document the grass roots efforts - which are well recorded - and keep them separate from the official campaign efforts (which are also notable), which go in the main article. Keeping articles a certain length by branching off sub-sections is good Wiki practice and not redundant, as you seem to suggest. That's how I see this article being important. Buspar (talk) 01:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, I'm sure you're right. Without knowing that on "June 5, 2007 Paul was interviewed by Laura Knoy on New Hampshire Public Radio" or that on "September 14, 2007 Paul spoke at Seattle University in Seattle, Washington" we wouldn't have any idea what his campaign was about. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think you missed my point. The point of the branch off is to retain information without causing an article to be too long. Buspar (talk) 08:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I strongly agree with Buspar's comments above. --smileyborg (talk) 10:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per tqbf, and merge with Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008. 71.166.36.102 (talk) 03:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --On one hand, the article does not seem to have enough standing or significance to stand on its own, and I would normally suggest it simply be merged and redirected. However, I do believe that the Ron Paul campaign in particular is the only presidential campaign at present for 2008 which has so extensively mobilized itself at the local, grassroots level. Since there are a significant number of grassroots efforts in the "Ron Paul Revolution," I do not feel this information will fit appropriately into the main Ron Paul article. Therefore, I recommend KEEPING this article for the moment, until it is no longer a current event (ie, Ron Paul does not become nominated/elected, the "Revolution" becomes history, etc), and there is no more significant grassroots activity for the Ron Paul campaign. Just a note, if there were any other candidate who was running such a large grassroots campaign, I would recommend he/she be entitled to a similar article as well. --smileyborg (talk) 10:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a newspaper. A vote to "keep until no longer newsworthy" is a vote to delete. --- tqbf 14:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let me rephrase that. I believe this article should be kept due to its significance and one-of-a-kind following. And I argue to err on the side of caution when removing an article such as this one, which is what I was trying to get across. I believe the article should be kept for a period of time to allow it to be developed more than one day. If the article turns out to contain information that is either a) solely biased, or b) not important enough to meet Wikipedia's standards, then it should be removed. Essentially, this article was created "before its time," as we do not yet know the full significance of the phenomenon it describes. But I do see where you are coming from. --smileyborg (talk) 16:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia is also not a crystal ball. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 17:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - That policy isn't relevant to this particular AfD, as the article in question does not contain speculation and is well sourced. Also, a vote to "keep until no longer newsworthy" is NOT a vote to delete, per past AfD precedent where allowing a current event to pass and then going back to reevaluate its contents was done (such as with Internet celebrities). To delete, you need to show the article isn't noteworthy in the way it lacks secondary sources. This article does not lack secondary sources, so its contents are notable. Buspar (talk) 03:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Where did you get the impression that the only reason an article could be deleted was lack of notability? This article should be deleted because it is a redundant POV fork. --- tqbf 03:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge any useful info. The term is not notable on its own and the content applies to his campaign, which already has its own article.--Svetovid (talk) 18:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless if Ron Paul does not become nominated/elected, the "Revolution" is still valid. Because this is the first time in recent/digital history that thousand of people have become interested in a canadite in a personal way via meetup.com as well thousands of first time would be voters are now registering. Google “Ron paul cured my apathy” Even the Nov 5 moneybomb was created by one such supporter. –My point being that many thousands of people interested in politics will change the face of US politicks, energized to back the next big thing they are willing to put their time, money and vote into. Wit the origins being “the Ron Paul Revolution. I’d say that’s worthy.--Duchamps comb (talk) 23:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And here we have the crux of the problem with these Paul neologism articles --- they assert that Paul's campaign is somehow "special", so much so that its slogans and slang take on encyclopedic value. In any other campaign, "revolution" is an empty peacock word. On the subject of Paul, it seems to be more valuable than the Rose Revolution --- an actual revolt, which now has fewer words than this Paul article. --- tqbf 00:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's like there's never been an American grassroots candidacy that caught on and brought in uninvolved voters before ... no Eugene McCarthy in 1968 or George McGovern in 1972 or Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988 ... sigh. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete; this appears more to be cheerleading for Paul than anything else --Mhking (talk) 00:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, BUT that's just how the article is written at present. With some editing it can be restored to a NPOV status. Most importantly, articles should not be deleted due the the content of the article, but ONLY for the content/significance of the article title itself. I think the quality of this article is both high enough with sufficient content to merit its own separate article...there's too much to merge (instead of further lengthening the Ron Paul 08 Campaign article, this article can be used to take some of the load off from the aforementioned article...official campaign activity should be detailed in the aforementioned article, and this article should focus on the grassroots aspects). There's far too much sourced and fairly high quality information to simply delete. --smileyborg (talk) 05:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  This article references Myspace, Facebook, YouTube, press releases, The Ron Paul Blog (to "verify" that Paul has "surpassed" Obama), Meetup.com, a Ron Paul chat log, "Hotties 4 Ron Paul", and 3 different Ron Paul vanity domains. Much of the "high quality" sourcing simply repeats content already present on Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 and Moneybomb. I think we'll live without this article. --- tqbf 05:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has 50 some references, including the Associated Press, CBS, Time, Situation Room, Boston Globe, and others. Please read the article before dismissing it so readily. It already includes numerous reliable secondary sources. Buspar (talk) 05:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note: this article never had "NPOV status"; it was created by a Paul partisan, and every person advocating for the article in this AfD debate has also written favorably about Paul in Ron Paul (or related), which is how they ended up on the nominated article creator's canvass list to comment here. There's no original good status to return this article to. --- tqbf 05:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas, since you repeat this charge, please see my and Monsieurdl's comments above. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment refutes my assertion without evidence. --- tqbf 20:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By your reasoning, a person who liked anime could never write an NPOV article on anime because they like it. That's bad logic. I, for one, have a history of cleaning up Ron Paul articles to keep the personal opinion out and only including opinions from secondary sources. If you see instances of POV in the current article, feel free to remove them. But deleting an article because you think the person who started it has a bias is neither logical nor assuming good faith. Buspar (talk) 05:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying what you can or can't write, and my reasons for deleting the article, spelled out at the top of this page, have nothing to do with your POV. I'm simply disputing the idea that there is some "NPOV status" for this article to "return" to; the article was created as a POV fork of an existing article. --- tqbf 06:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right. However, isn't the point not what the article can be returned to but more what it can become? I've already improved the article by moving material that was cluttering other articles to this one. This article also allows for detailed info on the blimp and networking, material that doesn't belong in either the moneybomb article or in the article on Paul's official campaign since neither the blimp or the networking belong to the official campaign. Buspar (talk) 06:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you're doing great work, which will eventually be a service to Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008, where it belongs. --- tqbf 06:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with campaign article, as it already explains the grassroots effect of the campaign thoroughly.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Milk the cows (talk • contribs) 07:13, December 26, 2007

Delete If he wins or if maybe he had some impact on the 2008 election but other wise its just his internet buddies truing to get his name out there and wiki is not a soapbox Gang14 (talk) 07:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For what it is worth I am all in favor of giving this page "NPOV status" It has potential and to mark for Deletion after only one day seems like a bit of bad faith.--Duchamps comb (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So are you saying that the vast majority of editors here who support deleting this page are also acting in bad faith? --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 16:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NO. I'm not saying that at all (don't be a troll). Only a select few (you) seem to have a personal vindetta. --Duchamps comb (talk) 18:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ron Paul's presidential campaign page. The information is notable enough that it does deserve to be mentioned (with proper citations and NPOV of course), but I really don't forsee that it would ever need its own seperate article.Umbralcorax (talk) 16:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep The mention of Paul's slogan makes me go into hot flashes! I can't control myself! Just kidding. I've seen more trivial matters on kept on wiki though.Reinoe (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that's it's trivial, it's that it already has an article. --- tqbf 19:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Yet another Ron Paul is wonderful article. The swarm of other articles about Ron Paul cover this sufficiently. Burzmali (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename for a very simple reason (I may go into the other subreasons and rebuttals later). There is a consensus here for keeping the usable content (i.e., high number of "merge" comments), and the current campaign article is already overlong at 110K: so breaking it out in summary style into official and grassroots activity is an excellent way to fix both problems. AFD after one day seems uncharitable when a cursory review of the sources suggests much useful minable material awaits gleaning; and breaking out much of the campaign article's material on Internet, fundraising/moneybombs, straw polls, and supporter blitzes would be well-moved from campaign to Revolution. This is additional to the well-developed and unanswered points of smileyborg and Buspar.

One other fine point of Buspar's: this is much better than having a separate "Ron Paul Blimp" article. The blimp is borderline notable enough right now to merit mention in a more generic article like this, but would be harder to defend on its own.

I would encourage all to remember that the question must be stated as being about the existence of an article about grassroots campaigning for Ron Paul (add: that would be an example of a neutral rename), including one section on origins of the term "Ron Paul Revolution". Pretending the debated article is about some other topic (such as about a term or slogan only, or about pro-Paul POV) would not be helpful for finding the consensus on this question as I and others state it. As stated, the question yields a clear affirmative. Disclosure: I successfully predicted this article's eventual creation on 11/30 12:23, but have not been minded to contribute to it. (I also believe personally that, if deleted, it will be recreated sustainably.) John J. Bulten (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You think we shouldn't delete the article because if we do, people will recreate it? That's what protection is for. --- tqbf 19:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say potential recreation was a deletion argument, but a personal belief. And protection is not proper for sustainable recreation. I note you did not respond to my actual arguments. John J. Bulten (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article "contains usable content" because it "repeats the content of other articles", such as Moneybomb and Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008. This article is a simple POV fork. --- tqbf 20:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you've read the article recently, you'd see that I've moved material into this article that is not repeated in the other two, so your redundancy argument no longer applies since this article now contains more details, with the other two only have brief summaries and "See also" links. Buspar (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as clearly notable in its own right as a grassroots campaign. Any information here overlapping with the campaign article (e.g. details of moneybomb, Boston tea party, internet rankings, social networking) should be kept here and summarised in the campaign article, with See Also links to Ron Paul Revolution under the Internet Popularity and Fundraising section headings. Corleonebrother (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware that Moneybomb (and, thus, Boston Tea Party) already have articles? Your argument is therefore that "internet rankings" and "social networking" need their own article. --- tqbf 21:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Moneybomb article is about the neologism used to describe a grassroots political fundraising event - it is not limited to Ron Paul events. The November 5th event and the BTP should be described at their most detailed here. Corleonebrother (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And now we see the other problem with these neologism articles:
That article made "no consensus" on an AfD by arguing that it was a neutral term that applied to all candidacies, but

it's since become such a cesspool of OR and coatrack boosterism that the most prominent thing on the page is picture of Ron Paul, and

the only aspect of it that applies to non-Paul campaigns are its attempts to attribute every fundraising event in the 2008 primary season to attempts to copy Ron Paul, and yet

it's now being cited as a non-Paul article to justify fitting yet another Paul neologism into the encyclopedia.

Let's be clear: the Boston Tea Party event you referred to earlier is the most prominent example of the marginally notable phenomenon of "moneybombs". But, for the sake of further expanding Paulite content on WP, you advocate removing it from the moneybomb page and adding it to this article? One wonders if you'll be up in arms a week from now, when it's been copied back to Moneybomb so that it resides in both articles. --- tqbf 23:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that the Boston Tea Party event should be removed from the Moneybomb article, it should be mentioned there as an example of a moneybomb, but described in detail here at Ron Paul Revolution. The rest of your points are irrelevant to this AfD discussion. Corleonebrother (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE some folks are deleting sections from the Ron Paul page and the Ron Paul 2008 page and puting it in the Ron Paul Revolution page. I don't mind making the other pages smaller, but if this page is deleted the info. will be lost. We need to figure out where to put all the grassroots fundraising info...--Duchamps comb (talk) 21:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikichaos! Wasted Time R (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's just you, Smileyborg, and Buspar that are doing that... — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 22:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All that I have done is source a few things, add a few things (NOT from other Wikipedia articles as you suggested), and change the See Also to a more descriptive one that explains this article is focusing on the grassroots efforts that are too large for the main article, and to go to the main one for official campaign appearances, polls, etc. Info will not be lost, this article will either remain as it is, be moved to another more descriptive name, or merged back into the original. I support keeping this article and moving things over from the official main campaign article that would better fit here. And if the consensus is that the name of this article does not properly reflect the contents, maybe rename the article (I don't have any better ideas...). I think the AfD tag should be removed, and ONLY possibly replaced with a suggested merge tag...but we should have another discussion on whether or not to do so. Seems to me that nearly everyone agrees not to simply delete this information in the article outright. So it boils down to keep as is, or merge into the main article. Time for a new discussion, let's start at page 1! :) --smileyborg (talk) 23:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're trying to say about what "it boils down to", but it's currently 14 v 5 in favor of "delete", 4 of the 5 "keeps" were canvassed, and one of them is the article creator. --- tqbf 23:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not canvass! Thank you. I only contacted people who edited on Ron Paul's page. I have no way of knowing if they are pro or con. Or as to their political views. --Maybe I'll go and send a "NPOV invitation" to many more. Maybe some new ideas and opinions could stop all this incessant filibuster.--Duchamps comb (talk) 00:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:tqbf that you are canvassing, and you've contacted at least two or three other pro-Paul posters in an attempt to influence the outcome of this discussion since he raised the issue. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Ron Paul Revolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_Paul_Revolution#Ron_Paul_Revolution If you have time I would like to hear your comments on this page. Thanks.

This is the invitation I sent out to ALL who edited on the Ron Paul page. Did you even check to see how many people I invited that wanted to delete the page? Check your FACTS before you espouse your simple mindedness.--Duchamps comb (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A neutral invitation is still canvassing when it is only sent to people you believe would agree with you. I think you're being disingenuous. You can take it to my talk page if you want to argue further. --- tqbf 01:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you're arguing that myself and others have not improved the quality of the discussion? You're both assuming bad faith and being uncivil. Your point might be valid if all I did was say "Keep per Duchamps," but since I've refuted several of your arguments and been generally constructive, you don't have a leg to stand on here. Buspar (talk) 05:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you feel that way. But yes, I think you're here because you were canvassed. --- tqbf 05:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta love how your response to being told you're canvassing is to go and canvass nineteen more users. =) --- tqbf 01:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's how you know he is a RP supporter =P Burzmali (talk) 03:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please obey WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Your implication that Ron Paul supporters are somehow poor Wikipedians is not appropriate for this discussion. Do not use such language in the future. Buspar (talk) 05:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To notify other editors with a neutral "friendly notices" of ongoing discussions, messages that are written NOT to influence the outcome but rather to improve the quality of a discussion should be looked at with negativity.--Duchamps comb (talk) 03:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would remind all that Duchamps is basically an SPA (see here). — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 03:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BITE (image removed) Thanks "HelloAnnyong"...--Duchamps comb (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment --- I thought of SPA-tagging too; he's worked on several articles, but virtually all are all Paul campaign articles. --- tqbf 05:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, since when do we give presidential campaign slogans, tactics, and movements, their own articles, except when extremely successful and only after the fact? (such as the eminently, and permanently, notable Daisy commercial)) Put this into the campaign article, and if that gets too long, prune it. If Paul somehow miraculously gets the nomination (and I say this as someone who will caucus for him on January 3), then the information can also be added to the 2008 presidential election article. But as it is, it's just a campaign tactic, one that, in the longer scheme of things, will end up being only a minor blip. This is a slogan - nothing more, and it deserves no special treatment. --Golbez (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all the cited facts and NPOV content with Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008. I agree with the user above (User:Golbez) that much of it is a slogan and does not deserve its own article. Happyme22 (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep possibly delete in distance future, The Ron Paul Revolution has become a part of pop-culture and people at least for now and maybe in the distance future would want to know what Ron Paul Revolution meant when and if the concept is still active in political discourse just like Reagan Democrat has become a part of pop-culture and the political discourse. Lord Metroid (talk) 01:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a newspaper. A vote to "keep until no longer newsworthy" is a vote to delete. --- tqbf 01:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 per WastedTimeJForget 01:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Burz, tqbf. Please be wary of possible sockpuppetry and canvassing to keep articles like this alive. I assume good faith, but with RP supporters, good faith with caution is advised. I see that Duchamps comb has already got the ball rolling there. 75.65.91.142 (talk) 02:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; this is a thinly veiled attempt to give exposure to a campaign slogan for crying out loud. As for the canvassing... well it seems something is going on, but I was solicited and as far as I can tell I've never show views sympathetic to that kind of promotional article or had contact with much anyone else around here, so I couldn't tell why me. — Coren ^(talk) 03:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, Some information in this article is already found in the main article, everything else can be merged.--S TX 04:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. afd is premature. This article, IMO, ought to discuss the grassroots campaign for Ron Paul. The presidential campaign article is bloated enough. This should not be a pov fork, but rather a sort of subarticle to the Ron Paul Presidential campaign 2008. If people want to roll back all the information into the campaign article, go ahead. But that article is huge. Just give this some time and let this article become stable, and then if it's unsatisfactory afd it again.--Goon Noot (talk) 05:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed with above. As I mentioned before, close this AfD as this article is NOT going to be deleted outright. Then let's all move to the talk page and discuss whether to MERGE or KEEP. This discussion is getting too long and personal anyways. Don't you agree? --smileyborg (talk) 06:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have started a new discussion on the matter over here. --smileyborg (talk) 07:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  What does this comment even mean? The AfD will close in a few days. How do you figure this for a snowball keep? Even with canvassing, this article loses. --- tqbf 07:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  You're right, there is no "snowball keep." But if you read through the votes, nearly every person agrees (=consensus) to NOT delete the article without a merge first. So thus, the discussion becomes merge or keep. (Don't forget - a merge means this article essentially will be deleted, just the useful info will be "salvaged" first.) I simply suggest we start the discussion over because this one got a bit messy and now we can rule out a pure deletion as there is definitely a consensus not to lose some of the info in this article. Okay? --smileyborg (talk) 07:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Merge is one likely outcome of this debate. Keep is not. Either way: AfD's don't close on account of "messiness". Wouldn't have been "messy", had it not been canvassed. --- tqbf 07:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  But see, the problem is that an AfD that goes through as Delete risks losing info in the article if not properly merged. IF the consensus of "merge" is reached, then relevant info should be merged and this article turned into a redirect. The AfD should be suspended (or Keep), and we will simply discuss this on the talk page again so people can "revote" if they elected to simply delete the article at an earlier point in time, or if people wish to change their minds now that there is less risk of completely losing all information. By simplifying this debate and starting over, I'm acting in the best interests of Wikipedia, not my personal desire to have this article remain as it is - honestly, I could care less if it gets merged or not (even though I do have an opinion on the matter). --smileyborg (talk) 07:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  I think you already made this argument, but there it is again. I think we can wait for an admin to close the AfD, though. I'm still delete. --- tqbf 08:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  The argument is that (even though we aren't voting and shouldn't be) I count the tally to be 18 Delete OR Merge VS. 8 Keep at present. That is a majority, yet hardly a consensus as 30% argue to keep the article as is, while the remaining 60% are somewhat split between a pure delete and a merge. This ambiguity, in my opinion, requires a clean debate to clear up the mess. So while you wait for the AfD to close, you might as well head over and put your vote in to merge over on the talk page. --smileyborg (talk) 08:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  It's 19-8 (closing in on 3-1 against); you missed the nom. I'll stick with the AfD debate; let us know if you figure anything out on your talk page. --- tqbf 08:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, right, 19-8. But closing in on 3-1 against? No, it's much closer to 2-1 against (2.375-1 to be exact). And remember, that 2-1 is lumping pure deletes and votes to merge into one category. My only point was that there is not a consensus yet, however. But anyways, if you are so opposed to contributing to the article's own talk page, so be it. I have no interest in persuading anyone to do anything. --smileyborg (talk) 08:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  
  One thing to remember: AfD's aren't decided by majority rule, but by the application of Wiki policy. Even if there are fewer keep votes than delete votes, if the keep votes make better arguments, the article will be kept (assuming the admin reads the discussion as they're supposed to). So, the outcome of this AfD can't be predicted just yet. Buspar (talk) 12:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Agreed wholeheartedly. --- tqbf 20:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the definition of the term is different to different people, and every element of it can be more properly placed somewhere else (chiefly the campaign article - grassroots efforts on behalf of a candidate are part of political campaigns, not a separate phenomenon). If somewhere down the road the Ron Paul Revolution is recognized as a significant concept in political science, then it might deserve its own article, but for now it seems like a redirect to the campaign article and the incorporation therein of whatever useful content can be found in this one would suffice. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete outright. In the nomination I suggested a merge, but most useful information in this article is duplicated elsewhere. It is unlikely that this poorly written ad about an campaign slogan for a minor candidate could ever achieve NPOV status. I hope the closing admin will take into consideration the pro-Paul canvassing surrounding this AfD. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This new article covers an important and unique topic. Merging the article into the Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 is unnecessary, would make said article too long, and would be unwise, because it covers a separate topic. The Ron Paul Revolution is unique in that it is independent of the official campaign. Like the Goldwater Conservative movement, the RPR is very likely to outlast the 2008 election season. RPR is Goldwater Conservatism on steroids. It provides enough information for at least one separate article. JLMadrigal (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your example disproves your point — there's no separate Goldwater Conservative article. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Good idea. There ought to be a separate article about the Goldwater revolution too - even though it was much smaller, and has till now been put to bed by the neocons. The Ron Paul Revolution is resurrecting it and giving it a much more libertarian flavor. It could be incorporated into this article. JLMadrigal (talk) 04:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Then Delete - I'm officially changing my vote (Can I do that? I hope so...). The R.P.R. isn't yet notable especially since we don't know if he'll even make it out of the primary. Even if he does, this isn't notable enough as is to justify its own category in wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reinoe (talk • contribs) 15:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article does not stand on its own. Topic is covered in the campaign article. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Notability (see section Notability is not temporary). This article is ostensibly a dump for the latest Ron Paul grassroots activity that find there way into the papers. It's long-term notability is dubious, except perhaps as a few lines scattered throughout Paul's 2008 campaign and developments. The Ron Paul Blimp & Boston Tea Party Reenactment have already been transitioned over to the Ron Paul presidential campaign developments, 2008 page, leaving only the Moneybombs & various minor events (the details of which are largely duplicated). - CheshireKatz (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not, the Moneybomb and Tea Party stuff have their own article too. --- tqbf 17:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep so main article isn't too large, as many others have said. Maybe revisit in 6 months, or if Ron Paul quits the race. If no one tells us editors that a vote is happening, most of us will never know, which is just plain stupid. A beloved article of mine was deleted before I ever heard of any vote. Korky Day (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is another "keep until no longer newsworthy" vote. Wikipedia is not a newspaper --- there's a seperate wiki for that. Wikipedia is also not a crystal ball --- if we have to predict that it merits an article, it probably doesn't. --- tqbf 20:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked on that link about "not a newspaper" and the word "newspaper" did not appear on that page once. I'd say an encyclopedia is a distillation of all newspapers past and present. Also, the article is good even if Paul drops out today. It doesn't depend on any prediction. Those of you who are always trying to shorten WP in one way or another forget the READERS, who want more content, not less. Let them decide what they want to read or not. This is certainly encyclopedic. Korky Day (talk) 21:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duchamps, the author, is very fully aware that this article is up for deletion. He has been quite active here and on a few of the other Ron Paul pages. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 20:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said he wasn't. I said that I wasn't aware. I don't check every day every article I've ever edited, so I deserve to be notified when one of them is up for deletion. Korky Day (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment --- One of the reasons that Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 is "too big" is that it's poorly edited. For instance, the contents of Moneybomb are, predictably, duplicated almost in their entirety. A large list of "notable campaign appearances" dominates the latter half of the article. The article has five paragraphs of information about the fundraising results of a single fiscal quarter. Another fifteen paragraphs of content apparently detail anything ever said about the candidate by anyone notable. Perhaps editing is a better cure for the ailments of this article, not wholesale metastasis across the rest of WP. --- tqbf 20:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, the WP:SIZE arguments for preservation are undermined by the fact that Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 is flooded with items that are simply not noteworthy. Permitting this fork to exist merely allows the items contributing to the excess size to persist unaddressed. - CheshireKatz (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, "Those of you who are always trying to shorten WP in one way or another forget the READERS, who want more content, not less. Let them decide what they want to read or not. This is certainly encyclopedic." Korky Day (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of us, on both sides, are substituting our own judgement for that of the anonymous reader. That's what editing is. --- tqbf 21:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Ron Paul campaign article may be long, but it is also generally well sourced. Where a reliable source exists that provides a comment on a factor relevant to the campaign, it should be included to make the article as perfect as possible. Remember that noteworthiness is determined by the media attention it receives. So your argument that it's not noteworthy is countered by the very presence of secondary sources. Remember, the perfect article "is long enough to provide sufficient information, depth, and analysis on its subject, without including information that would be more suitable in "sub-articles", related articles, or sister projects." I argue that the article is too long not because it does not contain noteworthy material, but because some of the material is better placed in sub-articles such as the one being discussed here. Buspar (talk) 03:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't criticize the article for being unsourced; I criticized it for being poorly-edited and redundant. --- tqbf 03:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not get stuck on the CONTENT of articles; when an article is deleted, it is because the article's name in and of itself is inappropriate, insignificant, etc. Content can always be changed to better fit WP's standards and the article's title. But the title itself determines whether an article lives or dies. --smileyborg (talk) 05:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being poorly edited isn't something that qualifies an article for deletion, however, so long as it meets WP:RS. And redundancy is easy to fix. Buspar (talk) 03:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP --- The r3VOLution is not about a man, the man Ron Paul is the first one to admit this. Rather, it is a continuation of the original American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence and the original Bill of Rights. It is deserving of its own page because it is much larger than the man Ron Paul. In fact, Ron Paul 2008 had nothing to do with the r3VOLution logo. This is a movement that needs to be documented. It is not a man says Ron Paul.Anappealtoheaven (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
— Anappealtoheaven (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --- tqbf 21:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Err, a quick glance at his contrib's shows he's been generally editing political candidates articles, not only Ron Paul ones. And that doesn't somehow affect his credibility to have an opinion on this AfD. I don't think you should be hunting for ways to discredit votes for "Keep" that disagree with yours. I'm sure some of the other votes for "Delete" have been made by editors with similar edit histories, but to me, that's really not important unless they are sock-puppet accounts. --smileyborg (talk) 05:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Check his contribs; he edits other GOP candidates to add negative information to them, and adds positive information to RP articles, and that seems to be the extent of it. Thanks for giving me the chance to straighten that out. --- tqbf 05:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The argument that voting to wait and see on future notability is somehow a vote to delete is NOT in keeping with past precedent. When Chris Crocker was put up for an AfD the second time, conditional keep votes (i.e. wait and see if Crocker gained popularity beyond Internet stardom) were considered equally valid as unconditional, resulting in a "no consensus" ruling. So the argument that a vote to wait is a vote to delete is incorrect given past AfD rulings. Buspar (talk) 02:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to suggest that I determine what votes are and aren't valid, but for what it's worth, WP is not a newspaper or a crystal ball; if you can't say an article is going to remain valuable, that's a symptom of a bad article. --- tqbf 03:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I, for one, can say it's going to remain valuable, as right now we have 1 article on the candidate, 1 on his official campaign (plus sub articles), and 1 on the independent grassroots effort. How would information on that not be valuable later on? There's little if any speculation in the article (which wouldn't retain value) and a good amount of hard facts (which do retain value). SO I don't see how either newspaper or crystal ball apply here. Redudancy is your strongest argument for deletion so far, but that can be resolved with some syncing up of the articles (which I've already done some). And there's still WP:SIZE that says subarticles related to Paul's campaign should exist. Buspar (talk) 03:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though I considered a merge. This is not unique to the 2008 election since I recall seeing this slogan used in the past, so it spans multiple elections. Probably the most ubiquitous campaign sign in Vegas this season! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegaswikian (talk • contribs) 04:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice- Nothing but spam by another Ron Paul supporter. Haven't they vandalized the Internet enough? Arbiteroftruth (talk) 07:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pro-Ron Paul article that would be better off as a paragraph in the Ron Paul Campaign article. Not neccessary, and in all probability will be forgotten in three years. Kevin (talk) 09:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep or Merge As stated by several above users, this neologism has been used by multiple news sources. However, if the page cannot be saved, I suggest it be merged into Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008. However, the idea that such a well referenced and well written article be deleted.... I do not think this bodes well for the future of Wikipedia. --Shark face 217 23:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sharkface! Rather than try to analyze the above morass and reply point-by-point (as another editor seems keen on doing), I will merely append here to voice my confidence that a neutral admin will find a nonconsensus closure, and to re-emphasize a glaring problem with deletion (especially one-day deletion of an article that is well-sourced and content-worthy even though it hasn't had time to be developed properly). Most of the delete comments have "merge" elements. So the problem is not content but placement. However, the deletion would ignore the standing consensus at Ron Paul to split, which this article and others are attempting to carry out; the proper placement for grassroots campaigning for Paul is in this article, with most of the campaign article more appropriately needing to merge to this one. Right now Ron Paul is laid out in summary style with reference to six other articles, two of which are up on AFD; the helpful template for navigating them is also up for TFD. Deletion is simply not the way to decide where content goes; the simultaneous delete period hampers ability to move content and in fact encourages the redundancy itself, because of fears of this, that, or t'other vanishing. A great chunk ~20K has been removed from Ron Paul on the presumption that this article will stand. I would appreciate the prior commenters questioning whether this simultaneous urge to merge is improving WP, or getting in the way of extant efforts to improve it. Thanks. John J. Bulten (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny to watch the things people will say when they forget that everything on WP has an edit history. Next time, before you strike "~20k" worth of content from an article, you might wait to see how the AfD on the POV fork you've decided to merge to comes out. --- tqbf 01:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your first sentence! I was referring to the striking of 19K by CheshireKatz, who also opted for deletion of the Revolution article above. What were you referring to ("next time, before you strike")? John J. Bulten (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge - I'm pretty much on the fence here but overall I think that since this is a movement as part of Paul's presidential campaign, and not a simple grassroots effort about some social cause, it makes sense to incorporate it as a section of the article about Ron Paul's campaign. -Timberlax (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hey, people, there is no such thing as "delete and merge"! The GFDL won't allow it. If you merge text into another article you have to have some way to determine the original authors, who retain copyright, and have licensed that copyright under a license that requires attribution. --Trovatore (talk) 02:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is merge. If the outcome is merge, leave a redirect. Does anyone really care? --- tqbf 02:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, people care. A merge is completely different from a deletion. In fact it was incorrect in the first place to bring a requested merge to AfD -- see WP:MERGE for the proper procedure. AfD is only for when you want the article deleted, which means its history will no longer be accessible. --Trovatore (talk) 02:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to reread WP:AFD (and I know you have 5x my edits) --- merge is a common outcome of AfD. The nom wanted to delete. I want to delete. John wants to keep. The outcome might not be either. Obviously, any of us can go do a WP:BOLD merge right now, but given the debate here, the prudent thing to do is to wait for the discussion to close; it would be a dick move for me to pretend like John and "Duchamps Comb" are OK with a merge. --- tqbf 02:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is a common outcome. But it shouldn't be the intent going in. If you know you want a merge, either do it yourself boldly, or use the "requested merge" methodology. And you stated from the start that you wanted a merge (even if you changed your mind later), which means this nomination was procedurally incorrect. --Trovatore (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know which AfD you're commenting on now, but I think this is the Nth time I've pointed out that the nom wants a delete, and I want a delete. Just because I'm not going to be apoplectic if the article is merged, doesn't mean I commented in bad faith. --- tqbf 02:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

self-correction sorry, that wasn't you, it was User:Newsroom hierarchies. So not your bad, but the point stands. --Trovatore (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have always wanted this article deleted, what little useful info there is in it placed in the appropriate article(s) and possibly a redirect placed on the page. I changed this to a simple delete later on to be clearer about this. Perhaps I used the word "merge" carelessly (or maybe not)--but why shouldn't we salvage what's useful from the article? At any rate, people !vote for delete and merges (meaning "stick relevant info in appropriate article") all the time. This is the first I've ever heard that GFDL doesn't allow one to do so (though that doesn't mean you're not right, necessarily) and it seems a little unnecessarily lawyerly to insist that the whole AfD is "spoiled" because of that. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what you said was that you wanted it merged. That might mean deleting most of the content, depending on the degree of the merge, but even if you just redirect it without merging any content, that still isn't a deletion. The content would remain accessible in the history. I understand that in usual terms you might see a pure redirect as equivalent to a deletion, since the content is not directly apparent in any article, but for WP purposes it's quite a different thing. Still, no, I don't think the AfD is "spoiled". My comments were for future reference. --Trovatore (talk) 03:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I just reread the original nom, and you're absolutely right; I should have been more careful and specific with my choice of words. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless --- yes, you're right, there's no merge-and-delete. In the interest of avoiding an unproductive DRV debate, I think it's safe to assume that the merge-and-delete crowd is fine with merge-and-redirect; I know other AfD's have "discounted" merge-and-delete, but, come on, don't you think that's just process run amok? --- tqbf 04:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, if I were closing this debate (note: I'm not an admin) I would have no problem counting "merge and delete" as "merge and redirect"; that's likely what they actually mean. Note however that those do not count towards deletion. Only "delete" or "delete and redirect" !votes count towards deletion (that is, blanking the history) -- all other !votes are arguments for some version or another of "keep" (even a redirect without merge is a "keep" for AfD purposes, because the history remains). --Trovatore (talk) 04:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just be happy to see what the consensus is here. I'd be fine with a merge+redirect (again: I want a delete) --- that's still one less page that needs to be policed for boosterism. --- tqbf 04:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment --- I believe it is quite easy to establish from past history that tqbf is guilty of WP:DE being in bad faith and trolling other users causing wikistress that is incivility with WP:POINT and WP:GAME. It is obvous in his bias, Anti-Paul status, and harassing members on their talk pages. With regard to this AfD and other Ron Paul pages. (Admins I request you look into this).--Ducha mps_comb 04:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you want to take that to WP:ANI. --- tqbf 04:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete subject adequately covered in Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008, Ron Paul presidential campaign developments, 2008, not to mention Moneybomb & List of Ron Paul campaign 2008 appearances. This level of detail is unencyclopedic, I don't see the value to anyone fifty years from now. WP is not a newspaper. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you should mention "newspaper". Were the United States Constitution given proper respect by the newspaper editors, &c., and were the public adequately informed, the politicians would be pressured to comply, the Law of the Land would prevail, and there wouldn't be any Ron Paul Revolution. Good thing Wikipedia is not a newspaper. JLMadrigal (talk) 13:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The strongest argument to delete this article was that it was redundant. However, I think I've eliminated most of the redundancies with both Ron Paul and his presidential campaign article, making this a proper subarticle like several others that exist. This leaves some overlap with Moneybomb, which can be cleaned up through editing. Buspar (talk) 06:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (1st choice) or merge and redirect (2nd choice), but very strongly do not delete. There are plenty of reliable sources using this phrase to describe the grassroots campaign that it ought to be considered notable, but at the very least it is a valid phrase for a redirect. Note that nearly all of the arguments for "delete", including the nominator's, are actually arguments for a merge and redirect: "suggest merge", "the (appropriately verified) content from this page could contribute to" the campaign article, "can be contained in the presidential campaign article", "Delete and merge", etc. Merging articles does not require deletion or AfD at all, and an administrative decision would not have been necessary if the proper process were followed, and merging an article's content to other articles without retaining the edit history of the original article would violate the GFDL. This is the appropriate place for a merge discussion. By the way, the lack of articles about other campaign slogans (though we do have "Tippecanoe and Tyler too") should have no bearing on the existence of this article. If other slogans are notable then they probably ought to have articles too. I'm surprised that there is no separate article for the extremely notable "I Like Ike", though the Draft Eisenhower article to which it redirects is very much analagous to the Ron Paul Revolution article. This article isn't just about a campaign slogan, it is about a grassroots campaign which has attracted notice from the mainstream media. DHowell (talk) 06:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point! Arguing that since other campaign slogans don't have articles this one shouldn't exist is a logical fallacy per WP:OTHERSTUFF. So that's another argument for deletion that doesn't work. Buspar (talk) 06:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - per nom. Can someone explain why this candidate essentially has three articles about an open campaign? If he loses, then all of this will be yesterday's news. Merge per WP:NOT#NEWS. LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest re-reading the newspaper section, specifically: "Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article. News outlets are reliable secondary sources when they practice competent journalistic reporting, however, and topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial." This article does not contain tabloids, announcements, or gossip as its main sources - they consist primarily of substantial sources of competent journalism. The "Wiki is not a newspaper" is meant to prevent sensationalist news on celebrities or "flash in the pan" attention getters (like that duct tape bandit fellow). Paul's sustained widespread coverage, as well as his status as a Congressman and presidential candidate, mean that documenting his candidacy is neither sensationalist or temporary. I'd argue, in fact, that most candidates should receive as thorough a treatment as Ron Paul has had. Buspar (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation, and hence the reason I made the statement I did regards the routine news coverage. I think the day-to-day routine reporting of a campaign for nomination, in and of itself, does not meet notability under this policy. If the campaign is revolutionary for introducing something new to politics, or if the campaign is especially historic, then its notable. This is not even a presidential campaign; this is a campaign to get a nomination. The person is notable, but this article amounts to political advertising. Further, there is the issue of being in the news for a brief period of time. This is subjective as it is written, but I think this is relative. This campaign has a fixed length (irrelevant of the outcome). Most political campaigns (certainly not all) do not have historic importance beyond their relatively short era. I interpret that to mean "brief time". If, at some time later, this campaign ended up influencing the outcome of policy or further politics, then a seperate article may be warranted. I see nothing in this article that amounts to the campaign being revolutionary, causing major changes to politics/policy in America, etc. Thus, I think a merge into the article about Ron Paul is the best outcome. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:11, 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. Kurykh 01:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Hall (footballer)[edit]

Contested PROD. Original concern was "No evidence that the player meets notability criteria for athletes as laid down at WP:BIO". – Pee Jay 18:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. – Pee Jay 18:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO as he has not played in a fully-professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Shiva_eVolved 20:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sunder land 06 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 No consensus (default to keep). Keilana^talk_(recall) 01:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Letter To God[edit]

An electronic Wailing Wall being promoted by its webmaster. Is it notable? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete article is clearly a commercial website advertisement in violation of WP:SPAM. Mh29255 (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article was written in order to add information about Letter To God Ltd., the category is Privately held companies of Israel[6], if this article is commercial then all the registered companies in Wikipedia are commercial as well. I've invested a lot of time in written the article, if you think it has commercial content please rephrase the relevant parts. Thanks.gokoby (talk)
Keep – The article is very informative, contains many inner links that are informative as well and should appear in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.0.41.2 (talk) 08:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteMay be a great service. But is very spammy to me. Mbisanz (talk) 10:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I don't see a reason to delete this article, it informs the reader about a company called "letter to god" and about it's services, i do not see the content as an advertisement or as spam, since it clear enough from the article that this is a commercial company, i don't see how it violates Wikipedia's rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.118.48.248 (talk) 14:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article was edited to feet Wikipedia's rules.--Gokoby (talk) 14:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The articles about some companies establish notability. This article does not. I don't think that two links to short articles on the same (non-English) website qualify as notability. And Gokoby, it's bad form to vote twice on the same Afd. Watchsmart (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article seems to conform to Wikipedia rules, altought this is commercial company it has some useful information for other users —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.1.20.241 (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but i would like to see some 3rd party source in addition to ynetnews. DGG (talk) 11:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added another reference to the article --Gokoby (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 delete. Kurykh 01:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compton Fashion Center[edit]

Non-notable mall in California, page hardly gives any context. Only sources are unreliable and/or primary; a search for better refs found none; this place actually appears to be an indoor swap meet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does Wikipedia have a guideline for swapmeets? This isn't a mall. It does not have 170 "stores", as the article attests, but 170 places to buy stuff. There is a significant difference. If you go to the webpage, then go to the "Services and Vendors" link, you'll see that you could quite easily add yourself to their "store" list. Keeper | 76 22:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Compton, California has been at the focal point of urban decay in the Greater Los Angeles Area for decades and this city was where many flash points of the Los Angeles riots of 1992 took place. This mall, along with its swapmeet, was one of the few retail pillars of this troubled community for many years and especially after the riots. The Los Angeles Times wrote at least one story about it [7] and Google News has many other stories about it (generally from the Long Beach Press-Telegram), mostly due to its economic significance in the poverty stricken area. [8] Heck, even Snoop Dogg gave a charity performance there [9] --Oakshade (talk) 06:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Oakshade, would you be willing to add to the stubby article (while this process is ongoing) with your research? I can honestly say I did not find what you found in my own searches, so I hesitate to add "history" myself. I can't read your LA times article without subscription or the Long Beach Prss-Telegram. It would seem that the "fashion center" has significance beyond "the mall standard" for its community stature and I would readily change my opinion to keep if the article was brought up to par. Keeper | 76 16:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simply put, there is no assertion of notability or of meeting WP:CORP. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming to be the largest swapmeet under one roof is an assertion of notability. --Oakshade (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...but it still has to be verified, which so far has proven fruitless. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:47, 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, Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 17:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article that lacks sufficient notability per WP:N. Mh29255 (talk) 17:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:N Macy's 123 review me 18:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Shiva_eVolved 19:57, 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. Kurykh 01:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio Wesleyan University PhD productivity[edit]

The topic of the article is non-notable and constitutes original research via synthesis of verifiable sources. BryanD (talk) 17:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: article appears to be original research. Mh29255 (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dear Bryan Daniels, the synthesis section that you reference clearly states that "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article. This claim has been published by a reliable OWU source. I am guessing that as an OWU alumnus, you may have seen this claim with recent sources published by research papers and Ohio Wesleyan itself. Therefore, it is clearly not original research. Let me know if you disagree or can't find the reliable source. I will be more than happy to help out. Happy Holidays! LaSaltarella (talk) 08:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I do not attempt to disparage OWU in the least, I am concerned that there could (emphasis: could) be WP:COI if this is the primary source, because when I read the article, WP:OR was screaming pretty loud in my head. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non encyclopedic content. Clear OR, and OWU talking about how good their faculty are is not an independent source. Nor is their listing as relatively high on lists of colleges reason for a separate article--just a sentence in the main article. this is spam: consider articles on "research notability of X university people," "teaching notability of X university people," "paper count of XD university people," "high school record of people admitted to X university" as potential separate articles. The effort would be much better spent writing individual articles about each of the individual OWN faculty who would qualify for one, on the basis of outside awards, and other demonstrations of status in their fields. Or start filling in the missing articles for those at List of Ohio Wesleyan University people. DGG (talk) 03:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a mess, any way you pull it. Spam, WP:SYNTH, WP:COI, WP:RS are all implicated. Perhaps merge with List of Ohio Wesleyan University people. Bearian (talk) 18:13, 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. Kurykh 01:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hit ball[edit]

Notability not established. Ddxc (talk) 16:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Seems there are a number of recently invented games called "hitball" or "hit ball". While I am not so sure that "notability" matters, I guess that there is some threshold of popularity at least that should be reached before a game or activity makes it into the project and I do not see that met at this time. --Alfadog (talk) 16:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:N Macy's 123 review me 18:37, 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. Kurykh 01:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reformation Study Bible[edit]

Does not appear to meet notability criteria for books. In particular, I looked for reviews, but didn't find any that weren't self-published and independent except this rather trivial one. Flex (talk/contribs) 16:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article that fails to pass WP:N and provides no external references for verifiability per WP:V. Mh29255 (talk) 18:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article on this book seems to be an advertisement for Ligonier Ministries. Bwalker5435 (talk) 21:23, 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. Kurykh 01:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UST V-League Roster[edit]

I don't see how a team's roster to a collegiate volleyball league even deserves an article. No assertion of notability and I very much doubt that there are third-party reliable sources to obtain in-depth information for this article. seav (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears futuristic, unreferenced and not deserving of a separate article. Shiva_eVolved 19:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - even a fully professional team (at least none to my knowledge) has a single article dedicated solely to their roster (current or future). WP:CRYSTAL not to mention WP:DIRECTORY. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 19:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Might as well delete other school rosters. --Howard the Duck 11:35, 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 A7 by NawlinWiki. RMHED (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Blatric[edit]

Originally tagged for CSD for nonsense article, both CSD and prod tags removed by author. Article is about a so-called "dance craze", obviously no sources to validate, no notability, possible attack article on the people in question as well. Please also see The blatric which is the same article. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete all. Nonsense. Tag improperly removed. "Any user who is not the creator of a page may remove a speedy tag from it. The creator may not do this." --Alfadog (talk) 15:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense. -RiverHockey (talk) 19:22, 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. Keilana^talk_(recall) 01:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the mickey[edit]

Dictionary definition. Already an article on Wiktionary. kingboyk (talk) 14:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very, very weak delete per nom - but the article as it stands is more than a dictionary definition as it gives context for its usage and etymology.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are other crap articles. The overall content of the article in question could be improved, though. ^Dlae│_here 15:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Per Dlae Computerjoe 's talk 15:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep noteworthy British expression. Shiva_eVolved 19:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it is, but why does it belong in an encyclopedia? It's dictionary material surely? --kingboyk (talk) 20:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily - its a slang expression with cultural implications, which can be elucidated/developed on. Shiva_eVolved 00:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's already at Wiktionary and this is basically just speculation about etymology. Corvus cornix_talk 22:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am in bed right now, with a broken ankle, so I can't find them for you, but I know of at least two books I own which talk about phrase in such a way that would be inappropriate for a dictionary entry, but would be entirely appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. The phrase is something which appeared in the books of trivia that I loved when I was younger rather a lot. J Milburn (talk) 23:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. This article seems like a definition and a stub but it could to be expanded to a full-fledged article. For starters, we can expand the history of the phrase and provide a little more sources if needed. PrestonH 00:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'll add some more sources showing the breadth of its use. If this is deleted should all these [10] go too? Nick mallory (talk) 07:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge into British slang --Boreas ^Talk 12:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it definately cites well and I understood it to be totally plausible.--207.172.183.139 (talk) 23:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kettering Council election, 2007[edit]

Council elections for a local town (pop 86000). Wikipedia WP:NOT#IINFO does not house this much info. The Evil Spartan (talk) 14:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added references and external links in multiple reliable sources including the BBC establishing notability. The election was at a level which is contested by the national British parties and does receive significant coverage. There is nothing in WP:NOT#INFO that prevents this sort of article - it only says statistics should have enough text to establish context for the reader which this article does. There is precedent for keeping a similar type of article (though a bit larger council area) in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windsor municipal election, 1991 where support for this type of article was expressed. Davewild (talk) 16:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to Davewild for his comments, there is only a little I can add to that. It should be noted that there are, at least, summary council results available on wikipedia for a good number of other local authorities in Great Britain. In addition, Kettering Borough Council shares exactly the same area as the revised Kettering parliamentary constituency and that thus an understanding of local election results can give context to discussing national elections in the area. Chris nelson (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 01:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metacommunity[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Captain panda 14:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Alfadog (talk) 14:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary and delete, that is, if anyone can say that this neologism is even Wiktionary-worthy.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:20, 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. Kurykh 01:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Castes in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development[edit]

I do not think that this book is notable enough to warrant inclusion. Captain panda 14:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. --Alfadog (talk) 14:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The weblink might be something to insert in another article, however. Mandsford (talk) 15:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is not even a book. It's a shorti-ish polemic. Nshuks7 (talk) 16:27, 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 ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 12:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gibran Burchett[edit]

While doing WP:RCP, I came across the subject of this article, User:Elohimgenius (AKA Gnosis), writing an autobiography. I came on a bit strong with him re the initial lack of sources but then discussed what he was doing on our respective talk pages. I warned him about WP:COI, WP:AUTO, and WP:V. I told him I would give him a bit of time to make what he could of the article before I submitted it to the community. Here is what I see: While Mr. Burchett may be notable within his field, his only verifiable claim to notability of interest to this project is as the victim of an alleged assault on him by Wu-Tang Clan and his subsequent civil suit. That is not grounds for an article here. Mr Burchett's accomplishments in his profession are not grounds for an article here. The article contains a lot of material that might be of interest in our marketing article (were it sourced properly) but that is not grounds for an article here. The article contains what appear to be sources but they are general or vague and fail WP:V. The article does not assert notability beyond the Wu Tang incident. Alfadog (talk) 14:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete going through some of the references and it becomes clear that this article is not Wikipedia worthy. The references try and give the article validity but is miss-leading. Too many things wrong with this article and the information provided is questionable.--Pmedema (talk) 16:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not sure what's questionable here. The magazine articles are properly sourced and the other references are to individuals mentioned in the article. My question here is if other Wikipedians have articles then they should all be deleted. I'm a known wikipedian here and my notability has been sourced in 5 articles in noteworthy magazines? The Source Magazine, Fast Forward Magazine, and 2 YRB magazines. I only write articles in magazines for celebrities and that is one of the things I'm known for in addition to what was quoted above my notability in my field. Saying the message is misleading is vague. How is it misleading, had time been taken to review the sources. You will see my notability. No one has once said they researched my articles written on celebrities. I strongly question whether just internet searches are being used to justify notability. There are Wikipedians that are known, such as I, whom have been editing for awhile that are not notable outside Wikipedia. Then there are people who are notable such as Bert Padell who is an account for all the stars and maintains an enormous memorabilia collection whom do not have an article. I am not making any boastful claims I am merely stating my notable involvement in a notable movement. The projects we were working on were gave birth to today's models of internet marketing, SPAM, Ring Tones, and mobile text messaging. These things grew from our techniques used. I would say if this article is nominated for deletion then every Wikipedian who has a page should then be deleted out of fairness. I followed the guidelines as requested.

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

   * it is relevant to their notability;
   * it is not contentious;
   * it is not unduly self-serving;
   * it does not involve claims about third parties;
   * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
   * there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
   * the article is not based primarily on such sources.

--Gnosis (talk) 16:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:V and WP:BIO. Search of Google Scholar and Google News Archive turns up absolutely nothing. We must also delete claims exported to other articles, such as that Burchett is a creator of "memetic engineering", which from the literature appears utterly false and self-serving. The violations of policy here are quite egregious. --Dhartung | Talk 17:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, after rethinking the entry I will resubmit once all sources have been published online and verifiable online since everyone appears to be only googling as a means of research. In addition I will be nominating any other Wikipedian Biography article for deletion in accordance with what is being suggested here in fairness.--Gnosis (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I strongly suggest that you read WP:POINT, WP:SOURCES, and WP:ALLORNOTHING. In particular relation to your use of articles to verify related but inconsequential facts, please carefully review WP:SYN. --Dhartung | Talk 22:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was just hunting around looking for that reference for him (WP:ATA). --Alfadog (talk) 22:16, 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. Kurykh 01:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex The Soccerbear Cast[edit]

Seems to be a hoax article, can't find anything about this topic. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 14:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possible hoax TV show, no reliable sources STORMTRACKER 94 14:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:V and that is sufficient grounds for deletion. --Alfadog (talk) 14:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this article is deleted, this one also should be deleted: List Of Alex The Soccerbear Episodes and VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 15:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, no reliable sources and nothing to be lost by deleting either of them even if they were not hoaxes as they are in a very poor state needing major cleanup.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Terrible article, should have been speedied. ^Dlae│_here 15:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Totally agree Dlae, should have been a speedy delete. Hoax or no, it is not worthy and not notable.
Strong delete fails WP:V Macy's 123 review me 18:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete fails WP:V and WP:BOLLOCKS. Also there isn't a main Alex The Soccerbear page. So think this could be a hoax Doc Strange (talk) 19:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh did i mention there is zero google hits? So it's definitely a hoax. Also delete Sonic And Alex At the Athens World cup and List Of Alex The Soccerbear Episodes. Doc Strange (talk) 21:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: At this point, I think those would need to be addressed in a different AFD discussion or PROD action. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- If it's not a hoax, it's not yet notable in the english-speaking world. Also delete List Of Alex The Soccerbear Episodes. -- Shunpiker (talk) 20:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 03:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete^2 - is it just me. or is it snowing? LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:40, 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. Keilana^talk_(recall) 01:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester Center[edit]

Very stubby article on a dead mall in Fresno. Claims to be the first mall in the city, but I can't find a single reliable source to verify this claim. Furthermore, the mall's size (460,000 square feet, according to this) puts it well under the super-regional classification that is commonly accepted as a criterion for inclusion. The fact that it's been partially converted to government offices is also of little relevance; many other dying malls have resorted to filling vacancies with office space. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 06:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 06:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:CORP. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:28, 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, Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 13:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 14:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:N Macy's 123 review me 18:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:CORP, which was cited by Vegaswikian, suggests that notability is equated with secondary sources. Such coverage of Manchester exists, but is too old to be located. Secondly, the 460,000 sq. ft. estimate quoted above does not include the 80,000 sq. ft. movie theater. Thirdly, Manchester is hardly a dead mall. It underwent a major renovation within the last decade which included the addition of the aforementined movie theater. Fourthly, Manchester was the first indoor mall in Fresno (in response to Ten Pound Hammer's comments above). When such irrelevant articles as Philosophy and religion in Star Wars and pages for the main characters of the American Pie movie series can be found elsewhere on Wikipedia, surely an article for a real-life establishment can be kept. Wikipedia is going down a dangerous path if the only topics that are deemed acceptable are those that can be searched on Google News. Citadel18080 (talk) 06:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep an article. Even if you add in the extra space it is still lower then the generally accepted 800,000 sqft where size alone becomes significant. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The 800,000 sq. ft. size isn't even a Wikipedia guideline, it's a suggestion. Manchester is 760,000 sq. ft., which is pretty close, and is historically significant as one of the first major shopping malls in the Fresno area, having been built nearly 50 years ago. Citadel18080 (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Apparently it sits on rather historical lands (Cite added). But another source should be found to solidify the Notability. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 10:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 'who grew figs where Manchester Center is now' establishes this as a historic site? That was a single mention in passing from an article about the area. Not really something that establishes notability. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said a historic site, that would imply something totally different. No, what that Cite does explain is why the area, the mall included, is collectivly called "The Old Fig Garden neighborhood". Something that no other area is called, and somewhat notable. I also did mention that more Cites should be found. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:N _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETS}_INTHEGARDEN 22:41, 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. jj137 ^♠ 22:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of books about charisma[edit]

List of books with an arbitrary word in the title; we might as well have a list of books about grass. Habashia (talk) 13:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails a reasonable interpretation of WP:NOT. Not a directory or collection of indiscriminate information. See also WP:LIST. --Alfadog (talk) 14:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Alfadog.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough charisma to keep this article going, unfortunately. ^Dlae│_here 15:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a replacement for doing a Google search for "charisma book". --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 18:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete list that violates WP:NOT and may be personal research in violation of WP:NOR. Mh29255 (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not within scope of Wikipedia. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 15:57, 25 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. Kurykh 01:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Gurling[edit]

Delete Doesn't meet the criteria for encyclopedic notablity as a backroom political operator, brother-in-law of a former party leader, local councillor and member of an internal party executive. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete London borough politician fails WP:BIO. --Alfadog (talk) 14:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN politician Computerjoe 's talk 15:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice against re-creation if coverage by reliable sources if provided; I would expect somebody like him to clear WP:N, but there doesn't currently appear to be any evidence to that effect. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:57, 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. Kurykh 01:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Palace Restaurant[edit]

Non-notable restaurant per WP:N and no references provided per WP:V. Also potential WP:SPAM. Mh29255 (talk) 09:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:N and WP:V at external link: News Paper Reporting Related To the Film and the Restaurant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki2007a (talk • contribs) 2007-12-24 10:34:17 — Wiki2007a (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete. No indication of any notability. Just another of many restaurants in HK. WWGB (talk) 13:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added more details
Delete Already done as a Speedy by myself, per lack of notability, and seemingly as spam as well. Jmlk 1 7 03:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: Non-notable advertisement.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:00, 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. Kurykh 01:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeon Design Panel[edit]

This is an article on a panel assembled by a Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) magazine to judge the 30 greatest D&D games of all time, for their November 2004 anniversary issue. It lacks historic notability, being basically, an ad-hoc group that existed to create one feature article, in one issue of a single fan magazine. A quick google search shows the panel did not have any other significant existence, did nothing else, and the (very few) references to it are either echoes of our own article, or a few blog entries discussing that issue. A search for the feature by its title also gives very few results, namely the publisher's website, Wikipedia mirrors and echoes, and a few blog/wiki/forum entries. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: suggested at Talk:Dungeons and Dragons that this should be noted in a sentence or two in the D&D article. Perhaps best to redirect to D&D? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This in non-notable and should go. An article by committee. --Jack Merridew 10:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — See The 30 Greatest D&D Adventures of All Time; oldid which was merged into Dungeon Design Panel and now redirects to it — the list of 30 games (which was just removed as a copyvio). --Jack Merridew 11:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ad-hoc panel composed for what looks like a single article that is more than likely not notable itself. Lankiveil (talk) 13:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. This was the very first Wikipedia page I ever created, and it's not worth having on the site for a number of reasons. Let's get rid of it.Iquander (talk) 19:12, 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 Snowball keep, eight valid "keep"s in as many hours is obviously a case for WP:SNOW. As Lankiveil said, nobility usually equals notability; furthermore, sources were added to the article during the discussion. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters wish you a Merry Fishmas! • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Joseph Hood, 1st Baronet[edit]

Non-notable Baron, without sources and already speedied once. I cannot find any sources on the man, and am not sure if he is/was even notable even if I could find some. Jmlk 1 7 09:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. What in earth is a 'non-notable Baron'? The man was a UK member of parliament, the mayor of Wimbledon, and was made a Baronet. Blatantly notable. Search for "Sir Joseph Hood" in Google - you should find the same sources I found, and have now added to the article.--Michig (talk) 09:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was an MP and so notable per Wikipedia:Notability (people) - politician in national legislature. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep as Michig and Colonel Warden make abundantly clear. Nick mallory (talk) 12:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nobility is usually considered notable, an MP is usually considered notable, and he was deputy chairman of a major company. I'm not sure what else exactly you want. Lankiveil (talk) 13:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep He was a baronet (hereditary knight), not a baron (member of the House of Lords). Still, nobody gets created a baronet unless they've done more than enough to be notable.--Habashia (talk) 13:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep anyone? Passes WP:BIO for me...--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep I would if I had the balls Computerjoe 's talk 15:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly a keep. I would close this except I've edited the article. The version that got speedied didn't have any details and only used "Bt", an abbreviation perhaps unfamiliar to some. Gimmetrow 16:23, 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. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Space Prophets[edit]

Notability in question. A google search for "Space Prophets" yields 62 results, most of which originate from Wikipedia, or do not reference the subject of the article. Appears to fail WP:MUSIC.
I am also nominating the following related page, which is an album by the band:

sparkl_!sm ^hey! 07:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Punkmorten (talk) 09:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All, they do not meet WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil (talk) 13:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment, please see related discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_December_24#Category:Space_Prophets_albums. Lankiveil (talk) 13:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:V and that is sufficient grounds for deletion. --Alfadog (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both and delete the category. Any band or artist without even an entry on the huge music database rateyourmusic.com (which lists many artists not notable enough for Wikipedia, and presumably all notable ones as well) is definitely not notable.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:27, 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. John254 01:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Republican In Name Only[edit]

AfDs for this article:

WP:NEO, WP:BLP, WP:V among others Uncle Bungle (talk) 07:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is a neologism, which as we all know should be avoided. I realize it is popular in the "blogosphere" but presently blogs are not the definitive source for the English lexicon.

The section general criteria lacks sources and therefore should be considered at best original research. In fact there are only six sources cited for the entire article, less than one per section. Two of those six are from blogs, which are considered self published sources. This has been a point of contention since the 2004 AFD and has not been addressed. It is unlikely that detailed, reliable sources will ever be found for this recently coined and undefined term.

Labeling individuals as RINO (but not limited to) Michael Bloomberg, Lindsey Graham and Chuck Hagel without citing sources is a violation of biographies of living persons. In that regard it is impossible to list any individual here as their accuser may be incorrect. In the words of Jimbo Wales We must get the article right.

Similar articles have survived AFDs, they should be considered separately. This article may have survived previous AFDs but I strongly urge you to consider that in the past three years, it has not improved.

Thank you. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 07:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It's not just that "similar articles have survived AFDs"; this one has, and by a clear consensus. Above and beyond the landslide consensus at the previous AfD, the term is a well-documented term that has been in use for years, and is most certainly not a term that falls under the rubric of WP:NEO. This search of The New York Times archive finds 25 separate references, with the oldest use of the phrase going back to 1988 and the first use of "RINO" in 1995, hardly a neologism. This Google News Archive search finds 1,070 articles using the title term, with this link showing a timeline graph of usages from Google News Archive. The article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability, and the hundreds upon hundreds of other sources clearly demonstrate notability. Alansohn (talk) 07:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term is in common usage and if every article which could be improved was deleted then Wikipedia wouldn't have any articles left. Nick mallory (talk) 10:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The term has been in use since the mid 1990s, and name calling really does happen in politics. The article can user higher quality sources, but many WP:RS are available. Examples: Riordan '94 ([11], Chafee '06 [12], Riordan '02 [13][14], Spector '04 [15]. "RINO" is a POV label, like "extremist." That doesn't mean that the term can't be written about in encyclopedic, WP:NPOV terms. • Gene93k (talk) 11:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment. The article has substantial POV problems, but this is a job for cleanup, not deletion. There are plenty of reliable sources available to supply facts for balance. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It survived a previous AfD, with strong consensus. Enough said. Re-nominations shouldn't happen without very good reasons. I know consensus can change, but "nothing has changed" is the weakest possible reason for that. --Arcanios (talk) 12:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One can also find books that record people having been labelled as "Republican in Name Only". For examples: ISBN 0691025487 records how some Republican party activists wore "RINO" badges to a speech given on 1994-05-16 by then Los Angeles mayor Richard Riordan, to protest his close associations with Democrats. ISBN 0813337259 records the same. ISBN 0300108702 records how the Club for Growth labelled Steven LaTourette a RINO in 2003. ISBN 0534647685 records how the Club for Growth labelled Olympia Snow a RINO, and gives the reason why. All of these books manage to report the labelling neutrally. So clearly it is possible to do. Hit the edit button and edit the article. That button is there for more than just adding tags. Uncle G (talk) 12:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, widely used term in American political discourse. Please also see related AfD, which had a clear "Keep" consensus: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democrat In Name Only (4th nomination). Lankiveil (talk) 13:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - a few points - Deletion is never the answer for "an article that hasn't imporved in 3 years" thats why we have {{Sofixit}}. I personally have heard this mentioned in popular culture (a Brothers & Sisters episode) Sources seem to have been added. I am tempted to WP:SNOW this one... but I won't. Fosnez (talk) 13:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable and clearly passes WP:V. WP:BLP and WP:NPOV issues must be monitored but that is not sufficient grounds for deleting this article. --Alfadog (talk) 15:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Used by one non-bias legitimate source, but I imagine its usage by Human Events also served to make it a notable neologism. It needs a good clean up. Most of the refs. are not reliable or are there to support WP:SYNTH. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wikipedia is the only place I found that actually explained it well. It adds to the encyclopedia, which is my only condition for any article surviving an Afd process. -Animesouth (talk) 18:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Yes, the term my be perjorative in political use (and it's use annoys me, personally), but I think this is an important topic for wikipedia. If it survives AfD, I'll be spending some time with it. Besides, it is not a neologism, people use it all the time. --RedShiftPA (talk) 22:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:NEO: "Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities." There is nothing inherently wrong with neologisms. RINO appears to be a notable one, so it is permissible Wikipedia content. --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your quotation is accurate, and it indicates that even if a term is widely used, it is still a neologism. I was going to raise the same point myself. Also from WP:NEO: It may be natural, then, to feel that Wikipedia should have a page devoted to this new term, but this is not always the case.. --151.124.247.200 (talk) 02:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Neither of the two cited "reasons why articles on (or titled with) neologisms may not be appropriate" apply here. The article is not a mere dictionary definition and the term is verifiable. It is also not a protologism. --Evb-wiki (talk) 02:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Verifability requires books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NEO is about creating our own neologisms, or focusing on ones that are transient and not picked up by those other than their creators. This one is clearly not in that league: it was the term successfully used by a group to frame a shift in the Republican Party, rejecting "Big Tent" Republicanism in favor of a more narrowly defined ideological party. - Jmabel | Talk 05:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there are people called RINOs without citation, then that should be either cited for or removed. But clearly, something like Human Events is a rock-solid citation for this sort of thing.

BTW, I count 15 citations, but perhaps most were added after this discussion was started. - Jmabel | Talk 05:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per everyone but the nominator. Is it snowing yet? Edward321 talk) 19:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like we missed our chance for a white Christmas. Alansohn (talk) 05:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mine was white. I was buried under a mountain of random political commentary masquerading as reliable sources. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there so much concern over the whether it should be deleted based on what type of word it is? There are far to many cases of deleted articles that are perfectly relevant and accurate. This article is good. It definitely complies with the rules for deletion. Delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andiburns (talk • contribs) 05:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep We need to be careful about associating anyone as a RINO and make sure that it is a well-sourced accusation to a notable source. However, the subject is itself obviously notable and encyclopedic with many sources discussing the term. There's no NEO issue since we have reliable secondary sources that discuss the term. I believe that covers everything. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep* I agree whole-heartedly with the above editor, JoshuaZ; also, consider that the RINO article is balanced by the existence of the DINO article, and that to delete RINO may lead to the deletion of DINO. Regards. ProfessorPaul 01:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment The enthusiasm for this article is encouraging and embodies the spirit of Wikipedia. Please remember that AFD is not a vote. Any AFD for "DINO" was for that article, not this one. However popular the phrase is in the "blog-o-sphere", it's still recently coined and not discussed beyond various weblogs and editorials of political pundits. Wikipedia is riddled with articles which define terms while circumventing WP:NOR by piecing together bits from different reliable sources. Has anyone written a book or article exploring the phenomenon of "RINO"? I'm afraid "The Drudge Report" or "The Daily Kos" is not in the same league as the Kennedy School of Government. I'm looking forward to the final judgment on this. Best regards. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 19:48, 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 redirect to undo the cut-and-paste move with a trivial edit history, and preserve as a plausible typo. –Pomte 10:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alien vs. Predator: Requiem[edit]

Incorrect page title name. Correct page title exists Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem NorthernThunder (talk) 06:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect & Delete - I could see some people misspelling the name of this movie in this manner (as apparently the article creator must have. After the redirect is installed, the article has no purpose. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:48, 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) 02:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rod of Seven Parts[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This fictional rod has no real world notability outside of the D&D Greyhawk in world setting. There is no information regarding this fictional object independent of the subject causing a failure of WP:FICT. Additionally, real world notability cannot be established whatsoever. Additionally, this is and always will be nothing but plot information from D&D without any relevance or notability in the real world. Pilotbob (talk) 06:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, isn't four weeks an exceptionally brief period to leave between nominations for deletion? But taking this on face value, let's look at what we have. An artifact described in Gygax's first TSR dungeon supplement and one of the tiny few to have appeared in all three editions of the D&D DM guide (there's your real world significance right there). Could use more sourcing. I think a merge to some sutable target would be acceptable but deletion would remove significant information about D&D. I'd honestly back a keep here because it shouldn't be too difficult to find more real world context. D&D isn't that insular these days. --Tony Sidaway 07:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Disruptive repetition per Renominations. Nominator may also be gaming the system by nominating on Christmas Eve. Perhaps nominator's account should be blocked during the Christmas period? As for the article in question, it has good notability and sources. The deletion proposal is really just Bah, humbug! :) Colonel Warden (talk) 09:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AFD had no consensus and this is no more notable than it was previously. Pilotbob (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you have not actually been reading the article or the changes made since your Pointy re-AFD. If you believe it is so, then work to improve it, otherwise leave it to people that actually want to do the work and understand the subject matter. Web Warlock (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can show how this article will have real world context and not fail WP:Plot. 11:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC) (unsigned comment by Ridernyc at 11:58, 24 December 2007 BOZ (talk) 18:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Speedy Keep as per Colonel Warden. Also Comment: I don't think this qualifies Pilotbob for a block. The first AfD was from someone different (though he voted "strong delete")~~, and it's the only AfD he made today~~ (he made three, I take this back, he should be watched, but not outright blocked). If it stays that way I don't see the disruptive intent. --Arcanios (talk) 12:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's bad form to renom so quickly, but while we're here I think that it's worth pointing out that this particular artefact does not appear to have any notability outside of the D&D universe. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a roleplaying source book. Lankiveil (talk) 13:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Weak Keep with the proviso that it needs to be expanded and/or cleaned up to a great extent. The article is marginally sourced, but while the primary sources of the original game guides are only evidence of the fictional items existence, notability is barely established by the Dragon Magazine article. No, it's not the New York Times or WSJ or New England Journal of Medicine, but within the context of D&D, Dragon Magazine is the pre-eminent periodical. (e.g. a featured article about a game in PC Gamer is a starting point for notability about a video or computer game, likewise a featured article in Dragon Magazine is a starting point for an article relating to D&D fictional subjects).

Now, all of that said, it is only a START and enough for me to say the article should be given a chance to be improved, but this does not at all mean I feel it's enough in the long term for a wikipedia article. This needs work, serious work, in demonstrating a unique notability of the subject within the confines of the D&D category. Is this the ONLY item of it's kind to continuously be referred to over decades? Is it the MOST WELL KNOWN example of such a fictional item? And beyond all of that, can evidence of its special nature be demonstrated and footnoted beyond one secondary source to a small print fan magazine? Otherwise we're back to playing with the Pokemon Test, where any and all game items try to base their notability on the existence of this, let's be honest, very weak article. It should be kept since some people have shown a willingness to improve it so far, but this is a sorry article in need of a great deal of work. Six months from now if I saw an AfD on this article with few improvements or no better sources, I would happily shift my opinion to a strong delete. My "Weak Keep" is based on potential, not actual, value (apologies for wordiness) -Markeer 13:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if not Speedy Keep per those who have already voted that way. BOZ (talk) 15:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason to think that consensus about deleting this article has changed since the last AfD, which wasn't long ago at all. Rray (talk) 18:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment As a reminder, that 'past concensus' was: 'no concensus'.

I'm aware of that. There is still no reason to think that this has changed since the last nomination. Rray (talk) 05:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per Colonel Warden. Pilotbob's a sore loser, it seems.--Robbstrd (talk) 23:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; I don't know how you can say that "any and all game items [will] try to base their notability on the existence of this"; its history is unique. There are very few if any other game items that have its 30 year history.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's great, and I happen to agree with you, but if that's the case, it needs to be stated in the article with meaningful citations as evidence that it's true. "Everyone knows this is true" is not a valid argument on wikipedia. This encyclopedia is not about what's true, it's about what can be verified. -Markeer 13:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What "everyone knows" does not require verification. Indeed, demanding source for what "everyone knows," is disruptive. I didn't see anyone here, however, arguing that something should be accepted because "everyone knows this is true." As to the argument, if, indeed, something is common knowledge among those who know a subject, "everyone knows" can be used as an argument against an apparently disruptive demand for source. If it's true. That is, the lack of source for what "everyone knows" may simply be good writing, we do not put references on every comment in an article when the comment is not controversial. But I only add this here as a comment on the assertion, it's not really relevant to this particular AfD. (If everyone knows a thing, then it is easy to verify. Ask anyone. In the case of relatively obscure topics, ask anyone who knows the topic. Is it better to source things, even when they are common knowledge? Depends. Depends on how reasonable is the objection that a source is required. Is there reason to doubt the common knowledge? --Abd (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this was resolved not more than 4 weeks ago. The nominating editor is trying to make some sort of point and is going beyond the realms of being civil. If you need more reasons why it should be kept, copy and paste all the reasons we gave last time, they are all still valid. Web Warlock (talk) 00:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment all the 'keep' reasons given last time were not enough to provide a concensus for 'keep'. And there has also been time, admittedly not a great amount of time, for those who supported 'keeping' the article to find independent sources that would make the article meet WP:N, yet none have surfaced.

Keep. On the previous AfD I took a "weak delete" line, but this renomination reeks of WP:POINT. --Paularblaster (talk) 02:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, speedy keep - and nominator should be warned of WP:POINT violation. [Added afterward]: The closing admin. will probably note that several of the "Keep" !votes, including my own, primarily mention the potential WP:POINT violation as a justification for speedily closing this discussion. There are, however, enough ignoring the obvious bad form and commenting on the article itself, which is a good thing, and there are still significant keep-favoring editors either way. I also want to add "per my arguments in the last AfD" for the record. ◄Zahakiel ► 04:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural speedy keep Per above. Jtrainor (talk) 05:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete as said, its bad form to renominate so quickly, but that doesnt change the facts RogueNinja_talk 09:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - fairly high profile fantasy thingy over at least a 20 year period. i.e. notable cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a fictional gaming item with no sources outside of the official gaming merchandise - no real world significance. WP is NOT a gaming guide.207.69.137.39 (talk) 15:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why does everyone seem to be using "game guide" to mean stuff about games nowadays, when it means "how-to"s for games? --Kizor _{is in a constant state of flux} 20:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no real world significance or WP:RS outside of the source books for the game, what is it other than game guide? —Preceding unsigned comment added by [Special:Contributions/207.69.137.8|207.69.137.8]] (talk) 01:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A description of an artifact found in a fictional world, one described by standard fiction as well as sourcebooks.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete I've played the game for years and still it's only WP:Notable for D&D players and fans a small subset of the general public. Wikipedia is not a guide and this can be found in the Dungeon Master's Guide or at an external Wiki like D&D Wiki. Refer to the deletion discussions surrounding the Star Wars individual items and Wookiepedia. Star Wars individual items and minor characters has much greater and wider general appeal and did not survive much of those AfD arguments so why should this badly written stub about a D&D specific magic item survive? This item fails the WP:PTEST and at best could be included in a D&D Magic Items page. Alatari (talk) 17:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I didn't realize that 1 month was a short time for renom. That being said not everyone celebrates Christmas and find Dec. 24 and 25th excellent times to work on Wikipedia. This decision doesn't have to be made in a week. Alatari (talk) 01:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources were provided during previous Afd. Edward321 (talk) 19:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment while there are now primary sources, there are no independent sources needed to satisfy WP:N.

Procedural speedy keep regardless of article merits - which I'm in favor of, anyway - renominating rapidly with the same arguments in the same situation bases decisions on tenacity and luck, rather than article merit. That's not something that Wikipedia can withstand. Local specialists, volunteers all, cannot be expected to work on the topic in such conditions; "work on" includes making sure the quality of the topic is maintained and dealing with the problems that caused AfDs in the first place. To admonish and then allow it will still be in favor of it. --Kizor _{is in a constant state of flux} 20:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment if the original AfD had been a concensus 'keep' the procedural issues of a renomination within a short period of time would have a lot of weight, but the last nomination did not end in a concensus 'keep' and procedure should not be given more weight than the fact that this article still does not meet guidelinse such as third party sources supporting notability

The procedural issues about not renominating in a short period of time are all about not rehashing things, whether the result is keep or no consensus. Note that if WP were a bureaucracy, everyone would have been out of the office on Monday.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Renominating for the exact same reasons in so short a time is highly unusual. In any case, this is one of the iconic artifacts in Dungeons and Dragons from the very early editions and is significant enough to merit an article. --Polaron | Talk 03:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy KeepDelete votes based on an imaginary distinction between the "real world" and the shared reality of published fiction and games are misquided. Notability is the issue, and there are countless articles on Wikipedia that are properly here and which are of interest to far smaller groups than the D&D player community. (The D&D player community, though, probably does not need this article, it is for the rest of us, so that we might understand some possible literary or other allusion -- perhaps a conversation we hear -- to the Rod of Seven Parts.) Repeated AfD in a short period is abusive, wasting a great deal of editor time to defend articles that could be spent improving them.--Abd (talk) 05:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment notability is clearly an issue here, and the article has ZERO third party references to support the claims that this fictional item is noable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.11 (talk) 05:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - actually, that is not true. Dragon is now a third party publication, RPGNet is an industry leading website for critical (and not-so critical) discussions. There are other references, not yet footnoted but in the article, that are also third-party. Web Warlock (talk) 16:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

question Dragon (magazine) article conflicts with your claim of Dragon being independent third party. Is that article wrong and in need of an update? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 14:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon is published by Pazio (in the later issues), a seperate publisher than the D&D game (which is Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro). Web Warlock (talk) 14:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pazio was the officially licensed publisher - hardly an independent source.

Actually it is. It has it's own editorial review board that is independent of Wizards of the Coast. Plus it has been established in many other articles that Dragon and Dungeon qualify as independent sources. Web Warlock (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paizo is an independent company, and acquired the license to publish the magazine for 5 years. During that time, Paizo's in-house writers, and freelancers, supplied all the content. Wizards of the Coast, who owned the license, had final say on approving the content, but did not tell Paizo what to write as I understand it. Iquander could better answer that one. BOZ (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether concensus has decided that Paizo publications qualify as an 'independent' source (and if the information above is correct that WotC had final say - such consensus would be wrong); the particular Dragon articles cited for Ro7P article are from before Paizo became involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GundamsRus (talk • contribs) 18:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

minor correction OK there IS _one_ independent source used (RPGnet.com), not zero as I stated above. However, this "source" currently mentions 3 artifacts, but NOT the Ro7P, so it is not providing any support to claims of this article's notability.207.69.137.41 (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per Col Warden. Enough is enough with these mass Afds, guys. Give it a rest, eh? Iquander (talk) 19:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator is misguided in stressing the fact that this is a "fictional rod" and therefore has no "real world notability". Many staples of fiction (including such fictitious objects as the Sampo or Tyrfing) can nonetheless have real world significance that is symbolic or cultural. The Rod of Seven Parts does have such cultural impact. It has remained a staple of its genre for nearly thirty years, longer than just about any other comparable creation; it has been the subject of magazine articles; a derivative novel has been written about it twenty years after its first appearance in another literary form. Freederick (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, I think it is scandalous that another delete request should appear so quickly after the first, and that is should appear in the midst of the holiday season, when many editors take a break from Wikipedia. I find it very difficult indeed to assume good will under those circumstances. Freederick (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 04:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this fictional artifact fails WP:FICT. What this article does not provide is any context; if it did, it would be clearly stated that it is one of dozens of minor artifacts used to support a role-playing game by the same name, outside of which it has no significance. There are or never will be any reliable secondary sources, as this artifact has the equivalent notability of a foot stool in a furniture catalogue. --Gavin Collins (talk) 05:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Claiming that there can never be sources for something is a blatant violation of NPOV. It is not the place of anyone but an expert on the matter to be able to make such a statement. Jtrainor (talk) 13:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or people with a crystal ball! (which is also another D&D magic item, by the way, and therefore not notable. Can we make that article and then delete it too?) BOZ (talk) 13:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there's any need for such a sub-article to Crystal ball, as anything related to D&D and Crystal balls would more than adequately fit in that one, which it rather sparse right now. However, there is no equivalent article for the Rod of the Seven Parts, which is a unique artifact as opposed to a generic item. Now there might be some artifacts in the D&D mythos that merit articles and also function as Crystal Balls, but the only one I can think of is the Dragon Orbs. 68.101.22.132 (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my sarcasm generator must be on the fritz! ;) Need more sarcasm! These dull AFDs need more humor... I'm falling asleep as it is. BOZ (talk) 17:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm is a bad way to make an argument on Wikipedia, all you end up doing is not being WP:CIVIL. 68.101.22.132 (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well. In plain English, I guess what I was trying to say is that claiming there "will never be" sources for something is like reading the future, or using a "crystal ball" - one of the things that wikipedia is not. BOZ (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you are going to delete fictional artifacts, why not start at the top with Lightsabre? How does Lightsabre have any "real world" importance outside of the Star Wars universe? Furthermore, how does something like Victorian Essential Learning Standards have any "real-world" relevance outside its own world? Has anyone in the general public who is not from Australia ever heard of Victorian Essential Learning Standards? The last two questions were rhetorical and ironic, not literal. Compsword01 (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it would be more productive if some of these people who know very little about the world of the RPG and its historical/social significance would pitch-in and help strengthen articles instead of lazily asking for deletion. Many of the people who do support these RPG articles are not especially good at putting two words together in a critical, analytical way. They are often more passionate than factual or bureaucratic, which hurts the articles and adds fuel to the fire for deletionists, elitists, and those who would dismiss the RPG genre out of hand as "trivial". Strengthening these RPG articles with historical information is not easy, as much of the supporting data that appeared in large or even smaller publications (third-party, or otherwise) was printed on paper, and between 1973 and the mid-1980's. The people who have of late who made it their mission to eliminate RPG articles of course know this supporting information is all "analog" paper data, and is unlikely to surface. They use this weakness as a point of attack and as a leverage bar to have their way and "win" some deletion requests. However, the fact that these printed reviews and commentaries do not exist online or in any other electronic form does not eliminate the significance, impact (culturally/socially) or scope of these RPG items in any way. For example, even my childless aunt knows what the Monster Manual is. The job for Wikipedians is to take that level of awareness and quantify it with sources and background perspectives that are tangible and verifiable. That my childless aunt knows about the mentioned manual is significant. There is some reason why a person who knows nothing of the RPG world would know what a Monster Manual is. Somehow, the manual broke free of its fictional environment and penetrated the culture at large, if only in name. Like, perhaps, LaserDisc players: Millions used them, but few know about them now, and even fewer still have ever seen a LaserDisc player in action. Does this dismiss the LaserDisc as an item that never had relevance, simply because it is less relevant today, or less relevant to the larger populace who never used a LaserDisc player or ever even saw a piece of LaserDisc media? Reinforcing that, who do you know that is not aware of the term Dungeons and Dragons, or what D&D is? You would have to have lead a very isolated life or perhaps live in some non-industrialized society to not ever have heard of D&D (or Star Wars, for that matter). Wikipedians who support RPG articles have plenty of precedent to get these articles saved. The task for the RPG community on Wikipedia becomes, find a way to get this information online, in some electronic format (since that appears to be the only "reality" acceptable to many here, which is odd since Google is not an accurate reflection of reality). Find a way to bring quality, non-fanboy editing into these article. Recruit some university faculty. God knows there's many a PhD who has spent (and may still spend) the long, long hours sitting around a table with Keep on the Borderlands and a giant bag of Doritos. They know the situation. Find these people and put them to work. Bring authority to these articles. Thanks for reading. Compsword01 (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It does not take an expert to know that Lightsabre is notable, because it is well known outside of Star Wars, even by people who have not seen the film. However it seems that the Rod of Seven Parts is not known even amoung so called experts, who have not been able to provide any reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. What we are seeing is RPG endless stating that every single item in D&D is notable; today it is claimed that the "Rod of Seven Parts" is notable, next it will be Rod of Thirteen Parts etc etc. In my view, this article needs to be transwikied to Fancruft.net or some other game guide where game players can find this information easily, as it falls outside the scope of Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how antagonizing fellow Wikipedians by accusing them putting every single item in D&D into Wikipedia, at the same you demonstrate your ignorance by making up the Rod of Thirteen Parts instead of, say, Quaal's Feather Tokens, helps anything. --Prosfilaes (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, to continue on the tangent for a moment... Notability is not determined by whether something "is well known outside of" its element. In fact, the Lightsabre article does not include any reliable secondary sources, and does not assert its own notability. Most of the links there are to fan sites. It has been tagged as such since August. Obviously no one has fixed in that time because it can't be fixed. Therefore, it should be deleted as non-notable fancruft. BOZ (talk) 00:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are literally hundreds of thousands of artifacts in the many worlds of the Role-Playing Game. In Dungeons & Dragons alone, when you consider the endless manuals, arcana, and supplemental publications, you are probably dealing with at least 10,000 or more artifacts since the early 1970s. Of these, only a handful are as legendary in the sphere of the game as is the Rod of Seven Parts. Not all D&D artifacts deserves a page, nor even a mention in the most obscure article. But some, like this particular rod, are pivotal bits of lore, not merely a wand of continual light, or what have you, nor more than the One Ring is a hobbit pipe. Compsword01 (talk) 10:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although there is ample coverage, none of it is independent of TSR/WotC. Hence, the topic fails WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - more refs added including independent ones. Web Warlock (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2 - added more including a novel based on the Rod. Now getting ready to go through some old magazines. Web Warlock (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warlock, if you or someone else has the time, could someone add some info on the Ro7P boxed set from the 90s? I'm feeling that there should be more info on that set in the actual article. I think I mentioned this during the last AFD, but no one's had a chance to fix this yet. BOZ (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I can. I want to add it, but if I run out of time I'd rather add something from White Dwarf or something from one of the independent magazines from the early 80's. I seem to recall Judges Guild having something on it in thier magazine The Dungeoneer. Web Warlock (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per consensus above. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources are adequate and sufficiently independent. But Compsword, since many sources for articles like this are on paper and are very rarely found in libraries, it might help to include key excerpts from them either in the footnotes or at least on the talk pages. It will be easier to accept your expertise , and easier to improve the articles, if we have more to go on. Please don't assume we know about them and are ignoring them. DGG (talk) 01:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Added one more reference to the Rod of Seven Parts boxed set. With the box set, the novel, coverage in every edition of the D&D game and magazine articles this make the Rod the most covered D&D artifact there is. In fact it may even be unique in this respect with only the Wand of Orcus or the Dancing Hut coming close. Being covered this many times in multiple types of publications should be in and of itself merit for inclusion in this encyclopedia. Web Warlock (talk) 20:23, 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 Redirect to List of Greyhawk deities. Keilana^talk_(recall) 02:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beltar[edit]

Fails WP:NOT#PLOT because it is only a plot summary. Fails WP:FICT due to lakc of secondary independent sources. The problems with this article cannot be resolved. Pilotbob (talk) 06:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, D&Dcruft. This fictional character is not notable outside of the D&D universe. Lankiveil (talk) 13:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, or at the very least redirect to List of Greyhawk deities. BOZ (talk) 15:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 19:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Suel pantheon.--Robbstrd (talk) 23:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Suel pantheon. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete plenty of coverage, but none of it third-party. I expect this is true of the whole pantheon. Percy Snoodle (talk) 17:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Robbstrd. Iquander (talk) 19:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Problem is, there is no Suel pantheon article, which is why I suggested List of Greyhawk deities for the merge destination. BOZ (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but the exisitng Greyhawk deities article is a list and would be hard to put text in there as it would make it a very long article indeed - a subarticle would allow for the text to be conserved. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but would the article have to be created before the merge, or would the article be redirected or what? BOZ (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this deity has no notability outside Suel pantheon, let alone the role-playing game for which this stock character was created. --Gavin Collins (talk) 05:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Stock character? You really should read both that article and this one before making the claim. Edward321 (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Better idea: Let's Merge this article to user:Pilotbob or User:Gavin.collins so they can work on improving it.--Robbstrd (talk) 11:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gavin.collins and Pilotbob are not alone in their belief that these articles are not encyclopedic. If RPG articles are to be retained on Wikipedia, they must be sourced. If sources cannot be found, articles should be deleted until they can be recreated with sources. AnteaterZot (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is sourced. Did you not see the "references" section?--Robbstrd (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Greyhawk deities or Merge somewhere, as appropriate. Subject is not strong enough to warrant an article of this magnitude. Compsword01 (talk) 23:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is a character from a notable game series with references provided in the article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources found in that article independent of the subject. Pilotbob (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources simply do not establish real-world notability. They barely establish notability for the topic within the game. AnteaterZot (talk) 03:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Boz. Edward321 (talk) 22:09, 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) 02:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of YuYu Hakusho abilities[edit]

Solely plot information for the yuyu series. No stretch of the imagination could establish a real world context due to a serious an unresolvable failure of WP:FICT (lacks secondary reliable sources independent of the subject), WP:NOT#PLOT (this is only plot information from the series), and lack of independent verifiability. Also, this appears to be either original research. Pilotbob (talk) 05:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a particularly notable part of the series, and individual characters each have their respective abilities sections to go by. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable on its own and already covered by individual character articles. Collectonian (talk) 06:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say delete, but I'd like to note that the article has been around since 2005, and it's probable that some content has been reused in other articles. In any case, delete or redirect; what is here should not be here. -- Ned Scott 06:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indiscriminate, best confined to individual characters. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of deleted Wikipedia articles. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 12:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yu Yu Hakusho, if as people say it is already covered by the particular character pages. --Gwern (contribs) 18:16 24 December 2007 (GMT)
Redirect redirect to main article RogueNinja_talk 09:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to main article or character pages. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reason to redirect since no will search for this term, nothing can merged since it's all original research and has no sources. Ridernyc (talk) 04:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the creation date of the article, it's possible some content has been copied to other articles. I'll see if I can identify any. -- Ned Scott 02:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indiscriminate and completely trivial plot summaries. --Farix (Talk) 01:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into the list of characters. But as for the arguments, First, plot is different than character. A list of character traits is exactly what can help to illuminate the otherwise confusing articles about plot, but they are basically different aspects of fiction. anything that may be said in the guidelines about plot applies to plot. Not characters, not their properties and behavior, not setting. Indiscriminate does not apply to a list of all the more significant characters in fiction--I doubt its applicability here anyway, but it appears that only the ones are being discussed about whom there is something to say the opposite of indiscriminate. Trivia does not apply to a list of the characteristics about a work of fiction; it would apply to trivial references unrelated to the work. Putting this sort of detail --however appropriate-- in the main article is not necessarily a good idea--most such merges either result in unwieldy articles or lose the information. But there appears to be almost total duplication with list of characters. A minor edting matter which should never have come here. DGG (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Character without real world context is nothing more then a plot summary. End of story, stop trying to rewrite policy. Ridernyc (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree, a list of attacks, which is what this article is about, is a very good example of trivial and indiscriminate information. Also, since the article covers these attacks from an in-universe perspective, doesn't describe any real world context, and relies entirely on the work itself, it is a plot summery. To say that because this is related to characters and not the story, it therefore can't be a plot summery is utterly ridicules. In fact, character related articles are much more then likely to violate WP:NOT#PLOT then articles on the work itself. --Farix (Talk) 14:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect-I lean more towards Merging, but which ever doesn't really matter. H*bad (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:04, 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) 02:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of YuYu Hakusho chapters[edit]

Wikipedia is not an episode guide, nor a list of indiscriminate information. Also this article doesn't really contain any information Pilotbob (talk) 05:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - notable list of items for a well known manga series. See List of Naruto chapters (Part I), List of Naruto chapters (Part II), and List of Claymore chapters (all featured lists). Cleanup is in order, not deletion. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even though the title of these articles says "chapters", these pages pretty much just focus on things at a per-volume level. It's pretty comparable to a list of episodes. It's a reasonable depth of summary that also has the potential to include other real world facts about the manga. -- Ned Scott 05:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but needs expanding. ^Dlae│_here 15:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all foregoing, although a rename may be in order... --Gwern (contribs) 18:17 24 December 2007 (GMT)

What rename would that be? It follows the naming convention set for such lists. The only notable article that deviated from this was List of Naruto manga volumes, which was because List of Naruto chapters (Part I) and List of Naruto chapters (Part II) were split from it. As this is not the case, the article's name is appropriate. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 18:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of volumes, maybe? -- Ned Scott 05:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was ultimately decided that chapters was the name of choice. Again, "volumes" was only used in List of Naruto manga volumes because List of Naruto chapters (Part I) and List of Naruto chapters (Part II) were created, thus removing all chapters from that particular article (as only a table of volumes was left). Volumes are just the organizational tool used to divide the chapters, and offer useful methods of organizing plot summary. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sephiroth BCR - cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. Many lists of this type have achieved FL quality, so why can't this one? --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 16:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nom shouldn't involve making up WP policy out of thin air. WP:EPISODE shows the nomination's first statement is nonsense and the complete opposite of actual WP policy. Respectfully asking for this to be CLOSED. 75.65.91.142 (talk) 02:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reasonable conclusion given the state the article is in. There's no sense getting mad at someone for nominating an article for deletion. -- Ned Scott 05:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note for the record that the nominator does not know what he's talking about, as he is claiming that an article about a comic book series is about a television series. Futhermore, a list of chapters/volumes / episodes/seasons / players/teams / and/so/on is EXACTLY the sort of encyclopedic information that is a) not indiscriminate, in that it's very precisedly defined what's included, and b) is strongly desired by the relevant projects overseeing those sorts of lists. Not to mention strongly desired by Wikpedia, given the number of such lists are listed as FL. Strong keep and a strong request to the nominator that he Pay Attention when nominating. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's understandable that the nom did not know what exactly was going on, giving that the article is so bare, and that many people are not aware that YuYu Hakusho was a manga before it was an anime. -- Ned Scott 05:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that "manga" is in the first line, the headings are by numbered volumes, and the title has "chapters," I find it hard to believe that anyone who is taking care wouldn't be able to tell this article is about a print rather than a broadcast medium. This nomination does not show signs of being made with due consideration. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a time I didn't know what a "manga" was, but I knew what anime was. *Shrug*. I've talked with a lot of people that "sort of" understand anime, and I don't think it's unreasonable to think it was just a minor misunderstanding. -- Ned Scott 07:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like this is the first time the nom has rushed into an AfD with having little to no knowledge of filing an acceptable nomination. This lengthy entry on the Administrators' noticeboard and his talk page alone shows that he has done this on numerous occasions. If this were a first offense, I would have no problem, but the nom has repeatedly done this and it's getting to be disruptive (again). 75.65.91.142 (talk) 08:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, ~~reformat,~~ expand, and rename to List of YuYu Hakusho manga volumes. --Farix (Talk) 19:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and reformatted the entire article. It still needs expansion and filling in of the details. But given the track record of similar lists, there is good reason to assume that this list has the potential of becoming a featured list. --Farix (Talk) 18:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep as per everyone else. Just needs a bit of work. H*bad (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:01, 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 Kept. Nomination withdrawn. -- JLaTondre 03:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tzvi Hersh Weinreb[edit]

Non-notable community leader. No google indications of notability, google news hits are all him commenting on events, no coverage of him as an individual. No outside sources. Mbisanz (talk) 05:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He is the head of the Orthodox Union, the largest Orthodox organisation in the World. Lobojo (talk) 06:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My blunder, the article now asserts and sources it notability in terms I can understand. Sorry for the confusion. Mbisanz (talk) 02:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he is a very notable rabbi indeed. He can be found 137 times in the google news archive, he is mentioned 13 times in a non-trivial fashion in published works in the google books, an a further six times in scholarly journals. He is also a regular contributor to major publications including the Jerusalem Post and the Jewish Week. Quite apart from being the effective head (the president is a figurehead role) of the largest Orthodox Jewish organisation in the world, and a major opinion former, mover and shaker.
You say that many of the articles are merely comments from him, well just picking two at random are this and this one and this one andthis one and this one which described his appointment as VP, a role that the article describes as being that of the head of the OU, as I pointed out to you before the EVP role is the top job in the top Orthodox group in the world. "Non-notable community leader" - LOL. Lobojo (talk) 06:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree he is notable both due to his position and due to coverage by WP:RS. --Shirahadasha (talk) 07:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Would caution that statements like ~~"He is the effective head of the OU" and~~ "The president of the OU is merely a figurehead" appear to be original research and cannot be included in Wikipedia unless previously printed in a cited reliable source. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 07:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm satisfied that in this context, "Executive Vice President" has the meaning of chief administrator (what in most non-profits is termed "Director" or "Executive Director", the professional who helms the day-to-day operations and reports to a Board of Directors or Trustees).e.g. I'm not sure why this title is used, but non-profit terminology is variable. --Dhartung | Talk 07:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is established based on his position and role in the Jewish community and through the reliable and verifiable sources that satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 07:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he is the head of the OU which makes him automatically notable. He was picked to lead the OU after the Baruch Lanner scandal, itself very significant. This nomination is puzzling and troubling. IZAK (talk) 08:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Non-notable community leader" seems to be an oxymoron. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep he is also notable as one of the few a Rabbi with a phd in psychotherapist who can give an orthodox perspective on issue relating to mental health. He is the rabbinical liaison for NEFESH (the North American Network of Orthodox Mental Heath Professionals). Jon513 (talk) 11:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK (talk) 11:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly a notable leader of the Orthodox Jewish community. Lankiveil (talk) 13:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Now that the nominator has retracted his nomination this discussion can be closed as speedily kept. Jon513 (talk)` —Preceding comment was added at 11:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Jon513. Culturalrevival (talk) 03:09, 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. Keilana^talk_(recall) 02:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rent (albums)[edit]

Article is nothing more than a list of songs from the Rent musical soundtracks, which violates policy at WP:NOT. –Dream out loud (talk) 05:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - per nom. This information is already in the article Rent (musical). This is unnecessary repetition. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & LonelyBeacon. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all information in the article is available elsewhere in a superior form. Lankiveil (talk) 13:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep These albums were released in 96 and are still charting with Billboard. — Music Maker 5376 14:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That may be fine and good, but then there should be some information out there to establish notability ... for example: that it is an album that has charted for an unusually long period of time. My searches do not turn that up. In the absence of that, the article is nothing more than a repeated directory, and that is specifically verboten by WP:NOT#DIR. If the importance of this album (independent of the musical, which has indisputable notability) is notable, then it should be easy to find information on it besides a track listing. LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went to www.billboard.com and searched for "rent". I may have read the information wrong; apparently, as of 1/17/07 it was #15 on the Top Cast Album Chart. It peaked at #2 and was on for 47 weeks. To get more information requires a subscription.

I created this article by forking this information from the main Rent article, as I thought it was repetitive and unnecessary. I hoped that someone else would come along and add some actual information, but no one has. I fear that if this article is deleted, the information may creep back into the main article, which is actually coming along rather nicely. — Music Maker 5376 17:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, i've re-arranged some things and it now looks just like 80% of any other music album article looks.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 18:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'll admit that it looks better, but I still don't see why the few extra tracks and notes cannot be included in the article on the musical itself? I'm still not seeing how this album meets WP:N. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:MUS: "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." The musical is certainly notable; the composer is notable; the actors (for the most part) are notable. Ergo, the album is notable. Again, this article was forked from the main because it made it entirely too long. Merging it back is a bad idea. — Music Maker 5376 03:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree totally with what you are saying, and if you added the whole list back to te article, I wcould see it being long, but a small section highlighting additional tracks should cover everything without unduly adding too much length to the article. I did read the WP:MUS section that you are refering to, but I think cast albums would be different? In the spirit of notability not being inherited, I'm not sure that this follows. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why should cast albums be different? It's not like these albums didn't sell; the notability stands on its own. They were charting TEN YEARS after their release. That's not notable? — Music Maker 5376 13:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My line of thinking: Individuals or bands may produce many different albums, each one with different songs. A cast album for a musical essentially produces one album, and that is all that will ever be produced (I know, there can be a reordering of songs, songs can be deleted/added over time as the production changes), so in my thinking, it is a slightly different entity than say an album produced by a band. I think these differences can be noted in a short section within the article without adding too much to the length of the article already. As an aside, if I were looking for song information about Rent, I would look for the musical, not the album. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then your argument is that every cast album is inherently NN, which doesn't make any sense. — Music Maker 5376 14:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. If the album were otherwise notable, then I would think it warrants an article. From what I am seeing, this article was forked simply for length, and not for notability. From what I see, the essential information can be readded to the article wihout adding substantially to the length of the article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 14:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've said that it charting for ten years is not notable enough. You've said that it being a recording of one of the most popular musicals of the late 20th century is not notable enough. In your estimation, what would make the recording of a musical notable? — Music Maker 5376 16:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The one thing (and only one thing) that would make it notable is any citation in this article that would fulfill WP:V to support notability as an important album. I've heard that it has charted for ten years, but I see no evidence. If you look below, I am in doubt that being a cast recording, even from a notable musical, fulfills the album requirements at WP:MUSIC LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only citation I can give without buying a subscription is this one. It's only for the highlights album and doesn't paint the whole picture. — Music Maker 5376 19:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily fulfills WP:MUS criteria The Steve 09:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I, with resepect, disagree. WP:MUS claims that albums are notable if the individual or ensemble are notable. While Rent(musical is certianly notable, the cast of the musical (who recorded the piece) is not notable per Wikipedia (there is no article on the cast of "Rent"), and while a few members may have been notable, they are not inherently notable as a group. Aside from that, the album would need to stand on its own to meet notability requirements, and I'm not sure that, aside from Billboard rankings, there is much sustained coverage to meet WP:V on its own. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's like saying a "supergroup" like Oysterhead isn't inherently notable. That's a group comprised of three notable members of other groups. Regardless of what they've accomplished, the formation of a group (with a name, rather than just getting together to jam) is notable. If those actors' notability comes from what they've done, and the recording is the physical manifestation of what they've done, the recording is notable. — Music Maker 5376 19:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The musical Rent is highly acclaimed, with a huge number of very prestigious awards, including a Pulitzer. Since the music is a major part of a musical, I don't think its a stretch to say that the album, with works by the cast, even if not as famous as the musical itself, is certainly notable enough to warrant inclusion here. The Steve 06:04, 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) 02:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Moon[edit]

Cannot be cited with reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to meet WP:RS and WP:FICT. Additionally, contains no real world context whatsoever and cannot be improved to meet Wikipedia policy. Contains only plot information (WP:NOT#PLOT). Pilotbob (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fictional character with no wider significance in the real world. Lankiveil (talk) 13:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Lankiveil.--Habashia (talk) 13:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Let this page stay. He is a much important character in Kamen Rider Black, Kamen Rider Black RX, and Kamen Rider World. Rtkat3 (talk) 11:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete as above RogueNinja_talk 17:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was thinking I would be looking at Lilith (hypothetical moon) (Dark Moon) with something of this title. 70.55.84.132 (talk) 00:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Bad faith nom. Jtrainor (talk) 05:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment If we are to follow WP:AGF, what evidence do you have to support this uncivil comment?207.69.137.39 (talk) 15:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment It appears that no other editors have voted for a keep.--Habashia (talk) 15:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This comment does not address any of my concerns with this article. Simply accusing me of bad faith will not help you keep this article. If you want to keep it, make a policy based argument. Pilotbob (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no real world significance shown and unlikely to be any from WP:RS. 207.69.137.39 (talk) 15:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it appears notable enough for that Japanese series. Just because I am not personally familiar with the character or Americans may not be, it still has potential importance for thousands or millions of other people. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:22, 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. John254 02:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Robert Krueger[edit]

Minor writer, did not win a major award or establish lasting contribution to field. Strong POV and weasel words, but not much in the way of biographical description. Mbisanz (talk) 05:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Would appear to meet this standard of WP:BIO: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." I see several distinct reviews of Tsafendas here. POV doesn't seem to be much of a problem to me. Zagalejo^^^ 06:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - There are certainly writers whose entire claim to notability is a single work, and this one work seems notable enough within a large nation. He was nominated for a major award, and I would think that this satisfies WP:N. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable SA writer. IZAK (talk) 09:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears to be notable in South African literature. Lankiveil (talk) 13:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. I removed Mbisanz's PROD and added the award nomination and press coverage. On that basis, I believe it easily meets notability per WP:BIO for creative professionals. As the "strong POV and weasel words," I have reworded the line about press coverage to be more neutral and acceptable to all, including, I hope, the nominator. Thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per LonelyBeacon.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:29, 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 00:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bonny Jain[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Subject does not meet WP:N. Specifically, coverage of the subject was WP:N#TEMP, and was for one reason only. Aside from brief mention, I think this is covered by the spirit of WP:LOCAL. Some of the better articles sustaining notability are from the contests themselves, or their sponsors. The article has existed for almost a full year, and has had little editing except for vandalism. I do not think this article will be expandable beyond current content; at least for several years, if at all. Prior outcome was "no consensus". LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If he becomes notable in some other way, he can then get an article, and his youthfull spelling prowess can be mentioned within this. -- Hoary (talk) 05:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If this were ever a yardstick for notability we'd be swamped! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Biography of a 14-year-old who has won several children's academic contests. In other words, non-notable.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:31, 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 Delete. Keilana^talk_(recall) 02:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Ho[edit]

We're told that Ho is a commercial photographer. His own website suggests that he's a photographer second and the proprietor of a commercial photography company first. The scale of the company would make it unusual, though nothing else about it is obviously noteworthy. (For all I know, it got big and stayed big thanks to excellent work, sensibly priced; and Ho himself is first among equals of first-rate photographers. I'm not criticizing either the company's work or his.) The problem is rather that this article has been unsourced for ten months, and obviously so. People have fiddled with it during that time, but they haven't touched the Sez who? templates with which it's liberally splattered. Not verifiable. -- Hoary (talk) 05:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 05:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well argued nomination. Subject would fail WP:BLP; scores 216 Ghits, the vast majority are directory entries. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I went through the Google hits, and while most of the first ones to come up were directed to his studio, others confirmed that he is a published author on the subject of photography, and has a strong connection to a technical college ... in addition to what appear to be "numerous celebrity clients." I am a little shocked that there is not more information, but if I am reading this right, deletion is not the proper way to get something cleaned up. What I am concerned about with the sources that I did find: Do they qualify as genuine enough secondary sources to establish notability? LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletion is indeed not the proper way to get something cleaned up, but it is an appropriate way of dealing with articles that look as if they'll never been cleaned up. ¶ Celebs: north America is crawling with them. ¶ Notability as a photographer: Has he had any notable solo exhibitions, or are there books devoted to his works? ¶ Do your sources qualify? For what my own comments on their suitability would be worth, I can't make those comments till I see what the sources are. Why not edit the article to make it more credible, or at least specify the sources here? -- Hoary (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not critical of this article being up for deletion. I am not critical of anything here. I find it odd that there seems to be a lot more out there on him than his own website seems to imply (the opposite of a vanity page?). I lack the expertise in photography to really judge if the sources that are out there are legit sources. I could see it either way. I also agree: 10 months is a long time to go without some sourcing. LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep as per LonelyBeacon, and considering there is no deadline. --Arcanios (talk) 12:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is indeed no deadline. But ten months have gone by as a few editors have made changes here and there without sourcing the material. How much time is needed for this? Or could it be that there are no sources? Even Ho's own website says almost nothing about him. (Incidentally, WP:DEADLINE is a mere essay, not a guideline.) -- Hoary (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- [User:Arcanios|Arcanios]], my read of there is no deadline leads me to the opposite conclusion as you. To me, the essay is clearly saying "to wait before creating a new article until its significance is unambiguously established" and to work on an "article in your userspace or scratchpad until you have the best possible article, fully referenced, a masterpiece of neutrality". That process did not take place here. Moreover, if we are to read this essay as a caution to wait before deleting an article, as you suggest, how long should we wait? In my opinion, this article has been given plenty of time to improve. The first PROD request was made in November 2006 and a second request was made in Feb. 2007. My request for sources was posted in Feb 2007, and little progress has been made. TheMindsEye (talk) 17:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Another small point: "weak keep as per LonelyBeacon" is slightly odd, as LonelyBeacon is neutral. -- Hoary (talk) 01:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per the opposing arguments of the three editors above. As it stands the article has no third-party sources and unless there's proof of multiple non-trivial reliable published sources, we should just delete it.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:33, 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 delete under the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy, with all of the requirements for restoration that a deletion under that policy implies. This article is not a biography. It is not even a pretense of a biography. It is a news article, plain and simple, reporting arrests and charges. It is sourced to 8 news articles, spanning just 2 and a bit days, that cover a single event. In Wikinews terminology, it is a straight news summary, or synthesis, article, synthesising a single news article from 8 news sources.

Our policy on single events is clear. We cover the event, not the person. We certainly do not misrepresent the arrests of eight people, and the indictments of several organizations, as being a biography of just one of those people. I am unable to find any actual biographical information on this person after doing some research, and no editor below has presented any after being challenged to do so, which leads me to believe that a biography can not be written here. The claim that this person was a publicly documented figure before this news story broke is unsupported by sources. I am unable to merge, to refactor, or to rename the article into an article about the case, as I have done in several past situations like this, because there is no publicly documented case yet. There have been no convictions. There has not even been a trial. There is no publicly documented subject for an encyclopaedia article.

Our policy on what the encyclopaedia is is also clear. Wikipedia is not a news service. Wikinews is thataway, and n:Eight men and several Spinka charities charged with tax fraud in Los Angeles awaits the attention of the lost journalists wandering the encyclopedia in search of a newspaper in which they can write a news story about a single event. Uncle G (talk) 13:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naftali Tzvi Weisz[edit]

Has nothing to do with his biography or person, just a single story. Looks more like once agenda to put this story on WP. He is not notable enough to have an article of his own, but if a normal article about him is created I don't think I would object. Shmaltz (talk) 04:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material this should be deleted.--Shmaltz (talk) 05:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CSD#G10--Shmaltz (talk) 05:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BLP--Shmaltz (talk) 05:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These policies are not relevant here. Are the NYT and the LAT "poor sources"!! BLP is only a problem when there is poor sourcing and that certainly does not apply here. Lobojo (talk) 08:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep simply a ludicrous nomination. The man is a Hasidic Rebbe, with thousands of loyal followers. The man has been notable for years as a major Hasidic rabbi and player in the Yiddish speaking world. For such a prominent religious figure to be charged with laundering hundreds of millions of dollars through charities in a major FBI bust makes him notable beyond the Jewish world where he was already very notable. Note the reference include links to full length by-lined articles in both the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times. Lobojo (talk) 04:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the nomination, the problem is that the article was created just for that one story and still has only that story in there.--Shmaltz (talk) 04:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so feel free to add more BIO information on him. There is nothing wrong with that. It would be very good if we could source more details o nhim and his activities. Lobojo (talk) 04:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, just because there is good story that you want on WP doesn't mean that it gets onto WP, even if it's because he is noted. In it's current form it doesn't qualify as an article, and violates WP:BLP. If you can't find sourced details on him, then perhaps he is NOT as noted.--Shmaltz (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, this is a major figrue in the Jewish world. This in no way violates BLP. It has the very best of possible sources, including the nations two most prominent newspapers. Lobojo (talk) 04:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, but only for that story, not for who he is, but for what he is. Because he is not notable, but his job is, which makes for an excellent story, but not on WP.--Shmaltz (talk) 04:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what are you suggesting - an article on "his job" and another one on "the scandal" but nothing about him? I am lost. Lobojo (talk) 05:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are WP:BLP concerns here for me and he's only notable for this single story. Maybe if the trial played out something interesting, but right now, no. Mbisanz (talk) 04:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No he is notable as a Hasidic Rebbe. A sort of autocratic ruler of a large group of loyal followers, and as the CEO of a conglomoration of charities, schools and yeshivas under his groups control. just for that alone he is notable. Lobojo (talk) 04:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No he is NOT notable for any other reason than his arrest.--Shmaltz (talk) 04:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NO no, he is a mojor hasidic rebbe with a large following and tremendous power and financial and reliigous clout, and that alone would make him notable. Lobojo (talk) 04:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source???????--Shmaltz (talk) 04:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is in the Hamodia every second week as well as the various Yiddish lnaguage papers. He barely speaks english himself and has no presence on the internet. I think you actually know that he is notable Shmaltz. Lobojo (talk) 06:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources about the subject, all of which satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 07:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very regretfully and with sincere and heartfelt understanding for my good friend User:Shmaltz. While the article is now about this very sad story of Rabbi Weisz's arrest that is being splashed all over the media and that in and of itself cannot be ignored at this time (perhaps in a year or two this story will be deemed insignificant, but unfortunately at the present time it is making big waves in the world media and we cannot adopt the strategy of ostriches here, sticking our heads in the sand.) This rabbi is also notable as the leader of the Spinka Hasidim and could easily have had an article about himself for his notability in the Hasidic world prior to his unfortunate arrest. The article should and could be improved by adding non-controversial information about Rabbi Weisz's accomplishments in leading his community, its educational insitutions, and no doubt the great deeds of goodness and kindness that he has done for most of his life. IZAK (talk) 08:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK (talk) 08:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With great regret, and with respect to User:Shmaltz, understanding that an event like this is never a good situation, the article satisfies Wikipedia policies for notability and verification so I see no basis to delete it. As the grand rebbe of a significantly sized Hassidic group he is independently notable in the Jewish world, and for very unfortunate reasons he has become more notable in the outside world as well. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 09:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable as a Hasidic leader, plenty of references and verifiability supplied in the article to that effect. Lankiveil (talk) 13:28, 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 00:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Tarver[edit]

Maybe not notable, college basketball player. No references or sources, just one sentence, infobox, and a few high school awards. jj137 ^♠ 04:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Let's wait for him to either win a college-level title or be drafted in the NBA before creating an article on him. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 04:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to meet minimum standards for WP:BIO regarding athletes, and has no other support for notability. LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tagged it for speedy deletion, the user's {{hangon}} reason was "Seth Tarver has amazing potential as a basketball player. He is the lead scorer so far in the 07-08 season for OSU's Beavers as a sophomore." The author probably knows Seth. Article fails WP:BIO as well. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 21:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As Wikipedia's unofficial OSU representative, I can attest that Seth Tarver probably isn't notable enough for a page on Wikipedia. I personally believe that no NCAA athletes should have a page unless they get at minimum All-American status or something equally notable. However, Mr. Tarver currently meets the minimum Wikipedia policy measure for keeping, however unfortunate that is. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryce Taylor, a nearly identical person in terms of status and what they have accomplished (which ended up as a keep). I would like to see this article deleted, but only if similar people's pages are deleted as well. What I don't want to see is a double standard, which deleting this creates after keeping the Bryce Taylor article. In terms of sources, it would be quite easy to find media coverage. The relevant portion of WP:BIO states: "Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)." This has been interpreted to include NCAA athletes, however much I disagree with this absurd level of inclusion. VegaDark (talk) 23:50, 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. Wizardman 00:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bartell LaRue[edit]

Non-notable voice actor. 6 star trek voiceovers and 13 total appearances in film is not notable. No indication of large contribution to genre or top-status in profession Mbisanz (talk) 04:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep IMDB credits him with appearances in 18 different films or series, for a total of 38 appearances, not 13. He also gets about 90,000 ghits and appears to be well-known within the Star Trek community (quote "his voice was haunting"). Certainly a minor actor, but nom doesn't quite do him justice. --Arcanios (talk) 12:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he does indeed appear reasonably well known to the Star Trek community for his contributions Alastairward (talk) 22:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. Article needs expanding. TGreenburgPR (talk) 16:13, 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 Nomination withdrawn per changes made to the article after nomination. Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 04:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crispus Attucks Communication and Writing Magnet School[edit]

The article was renamed after this AFD was started. The Old name was Crispus Attucks Elementary SchoolJERRY ^talk _contribs 21:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PROD tag removed without comment. This elementary school was named after a notable person, but the school itself fails WP:SCHOOL. Delete. The article as it existed at the time of the nomination did not establish that we are dealing with a special school. Which changes everything. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 04:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete many elementary schools are named after notable people (I went to Edgar Allan Poe Elementary ^_^) JuJube (talk) 04:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to No Vote since this is apparently no longer about an elementary school. JuJube (talk) 03:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ elementary school. AnteaterZot (talk) 04:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the school's own website states numerous great men and women of the past, present and future have been educated at Attucks School, but seems unable to name one. Fails WP:N. LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable alumni can start with Roger Wilkins here. TerriersFan (talk) 23:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And continue with Charlie Parker here and here. TerriersFan (talk) 23:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not forgetting Bennie Moten here. TerriersFan (talk) 23:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken .... its a shame the school does not make a note of them because they certainly are notable. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable article about non-notable elementary school. Mh29255 (talk) 08:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 13:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable elementary school --Mhking (talk) 21:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing vote to Weak Keep; the work that Jerry and Terriers Fan have put in have certainly worked in favor of establishing a modicum of notability, though I personally have a problem with elementary schools being truly notable enough to warrant inclusion as separate articles. There are certainly many other elementary schools that would qualify were this one to be included, which goes to one of the core issues I have with elementary schools in general. That being said, the work they have done does, as I mentioned, establish notability, and despite my other misgivings, the article merits keeping. --Mhking (talk) 03:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep significant context has been added since AFD started. The "edit" button still works! JERRY ^talk _contribs 21:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - First, let's everyone keep things nice and friendly, as in WP:Civil. Second, the single reference is absolutely out of the bounds of WP:V. That is a study that had nothing to do with the school itself. The school was used as one of three subjects regarding magnet school and the comparison to other schools. Any magnet school could have been used for that study. Just because it happened to be this one, does not make it any more notable. WP:V requires that the article be focused on the subject, and that you don't start connecting the dots from the article to the subject, which is what I am seeing with this reference. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please recheck this. It is actually a comprehensive study of the only three magnet schools in the communication and magnet theme as of the writing. It compares and contrasts this specific school to the other two, and also all three of them as a group to other themes of magnet schools, and lastly all magnet schools to comprehensive or traditionaal curriculum schools. The source is not related to the subject, provides critical commentary (both positive and negative), and mentions it non-trivially. This passes WP:V as far as I can tell. JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:V is not, I suggest, at issue here. What is pivotal is whether there are multiple sources to meet WP:N. The abstract says "A formative evaluation documented the progress made by three elementary schools (Crispus Attucks, New West, and Troost) during the second year of implementing the communications and writing theme ...". Of course any school could have been chosen but these three were chosen and since the report evaluates them it is an entirely permissible reference. TerriersFan (talk) 23:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - the school is the subject of a published report. In addition there have been controversial incidents here, the court case two down, here, here etc that provide the sources to meet WP:N in addition to the notable alumni above. TerriersFan (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - TerriersFan, assuming good faith, here, check those links, because only one of them links to anything related to the school, and that is to a commemoration ceremony by the school district. As they are, I clicked on them, and they were filled with fragmented stories that had nothing to do with the school. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you reading the same article? Please go back and read it often, it is evolving. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - upgraded !vote in the light of phenomenal work by User:Jerry who by supplying multiple, independent, verifiable sources has achieved compliance with WP:N and beyond. TerriersFan (talk) 02:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Wow! This article has been improved dramatically since nominated at AfD, with props due to User:Jerry and User:TerriersFan for basically rewriting the article. The ample reliable and verifiable sources provided clearly satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 02:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral numerous tangential references added. Charlie Parker might have attended the school, but he did not credit the school with any influence on his development. Encyclopedic content could be transferred to a district article and elsewhere. I recommend that this case not be taken as a precedent for what would be enough to retain an elementary school article. But at present, since so much work was done on the article, I'll change my opinion. But I would rather see all elementary schools consolidated to their district pages. AnteaterZot (talk) 03:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The incorporation of famous alumni of this school merits a keep. -Mastrchf91- 03:34, 25 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. Wizardman 00:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Text2Speech[edit]

The topic of the article is not notable. It is not a widely used program, and has not gained enough public knowledge and interest to have an article. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 03:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of WP:N and no WP:RS for this specific attempt to solve a notable problem. JJL (talk) 03:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, unless third-party sources are provided.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although it does get some Google Books hits.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note The TTS software mentioned in the e-books is actually called SoftVoice, not Text2Speech (the homepage of the software is text2speech.com). Stephenchou0722 (talk) 00:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Should this be deleted, a redirect to Speech synthesis is probably a good idea -Halo (talk) 11:36, 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 00:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Revolutionary War (video game)[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Article is advertising for a non-notable RPG. Neither the article itself or the links provided give any indication of notability. Half of those given are either run by the article creator or associated with him, and google returns nothing. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the game came out like 4 days ago, do u expect Google to have crawled all the fan sites in 4 days?--Xgmx (talk) 05:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the game was notable it would have Google hits months in advance, an entry in IGN, or anything like that. It does not. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just answer this question, do you even play the game? Because I do, I got it on the day it came out (December 14, 2007), I waited outside GameStop for 2 hours in line for this game. When I got it, I created an account, and joined as the United Colonies (which is the United States in the begining of the game).--Xgmx (talk) 05:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to play the game to know GameStop doesn't sell it. Lying will not help. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Check the Gamestop.com store.--Xgmx (talk) 05:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Careful what you ask, people might actually do it. This isn't sold at GameStop. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actaully it is, u can preorder The French Conversion, it says so on the official website.--Xgmx (talk) 05:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no point in continuing this nonsense, as you obviously are not even trying to form a valid argument. If you can find something to satisfy WP:N, I'll bother replying. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hope u don't mind, but I invited some of my fellow gamers here to help convince u otherwise.--Xgmx (talk) 05:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OMG I love this game--68.228.47.249 (talk) 05:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)— 68.228.47.249 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .[reply]

ya me to, so I'm defending it--Xgmx (talk) 05:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability, a Google search of "American Revolutionary War" +video game brings up no relevent results. Hell, I can't find evidence that this game exists anywhere other than the website of the developer. Also, there may be a COI since the creater of the article wrote 2 of the 3 reviews listed on the games official website: [16] (both of which are from sources i've never heard, and the SS Free one is a teen blog). TJ Spyke 06:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wtf is ur problem, everyone else is against u and someguy, how do I know ur not someguy on a diff account?--Xgmx (talk) 06:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem, you appear to have anger problems (just by looking at your talk page). I am not someguy and never even heard of him before this AFD. Please read up on guidelines and policies, stop removing the AFD notice from the articles page and stop attacking other editors (not just here, but on your talk page too). TJ Spyke 06:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how about we make a wikipedia rule wheere u can't try to diss a game that you haven't played.--Xgmx (talk) 06:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is dissing the game. We are stating policies and guidelines it fails, wheras you haven't even be able to proof that the game EXISTS, yet alone why it should have an article. TJ Spyke 06:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's gone. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 06:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per this. I have a feeling that Xgmx and his/her 'fellow gamers' are deliberately trolling. J Milburn (talk) 14:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. non notable game. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed... non notable game.--Pmedema (talk) 17:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All the people who just came here to defend it needs to note that incorrect spelling will not help you in debates. This is not notable and thus, will be deleted. Find some other website to troll because it will not work here. Tavix (talk) 17:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Tavix. Despite whether or not you like the game, it's still not notable per WP:N. The AFD discussion is not about whether the game is good or not. Doc Strange (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COI, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:N, - article was created by person with agenda.--WaltCip (talk) 19:30, 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 No consensus, default to keep. Keilana^talk_(recall) 02:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mimi Fuenzalida[edit]

Non-notability per WP:BIO. Minor actor with one appearance on a television show. None of the movies she has been in appear notable.

This article is part of an ongoing COI case at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#MetaphorEnt. COI-affected editors have been instructed to mention any affiliation with the firms involved when commenting. BlueAzure (talk) 03:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. None of the films she has been in have their own articles. According to IMDb she was just an extra in the move Broken (Women at accident). Deflagro ^C/_T 03:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Keep She has the scene from Broken on her reel on-line and it is not an extra (fyi extras don't get credit in the titles of movies or television). She was also in Aaron Spelling's 10-8 as Mrs. Barrahona. When I first started this article there was a link on a website to her work in Chile, where her work as Soap Opera actress was noted. This link was since "cleaned up" since it was no longer available. Is there prejudice against foreign actors who don't have all of there projects on WP, and just because they aren't on American sites and search engines?HollywoodFan1 (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been tag teamed by User:BlueAzure & User:EdJohnson for weeks now. User:EdJohnson already put an Afd on the article, and when his didn't work out the way he wanted, he convinced User:BlueAzure to put another Adf, on Christmas Even no less. Look at the article history.

Here's the tag (literally) team history:

User:BlueAzure first put me on a COI notice board under a complaint for MetaphorEnt along with a lot of other editors, and didn't notify any of us on our talk page.

User:EdJohnsonjoined the discussion and once other editors agreed there wasn't a conflict with the article I started. User:EdJohnson responded by putting on an Adf tag on the article (along with several others) I started without notifying me (or the other editors of the other articles). Several editors thought the article (and the others) was legit and helped to clean it up and removed the tag.

User:EdJohnson wrote that he wasn't satisfied then blamed me for using two accounts HollywoodFan1 and SJR2008. He then wrote "Thanks for clarifying, and sorry for the false alarm. EdJohnston" when I showed him his mistake.

User:BlueAzure then put the sockpuppet tag on me. The sockpuppet for overturned as "nonsense".

User:EdJohnson then convinced User:BlueAzure to put another Afd tag on the article I started, since his didn't work out.

User:BlueAzure has been targeting me, along with other editors with several tags, trying to get us all off Wikipedia, even though we don't even know each other. I don't know if he has a beef with he clients of the Management company he's targeting or against me as an editor personally, but these Adfs are part of a string of WP:Stalk User:BlueAzure has been attempting.

Conduct versus Harassment

Are there any guidelines prohibiting users from placing multiple and duplicating tags on multiple articles, talk pages and boards targeting the demise of an article or fellow editor?

I've tried to be civil, by asking them for help and for advice, but they just continue to WP:BITE. HollywoodFan1 (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)HollywoodFan1 (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no strong argument why this should be deleted. If the argument is resubmitted, with something substantial, I may vote differently. Wikipedia rules do not dictate that we remove articles just because someone does not like them.Fredsmith2 (talk) 00:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep: Per smith. Ombudsman (talk) 02:36, 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 Delete, the keep arguments failed to turn up substantial non-trivial coverage. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 11:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Milena Lukich[edit]

Non-notability per WP:BIO. Minor actor with one appearance on a television show and a role in a non-notable direct-to-video movie.

This article is part of an ongoing COI case at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#MetaphorEnt. COI-affected editors have been instructed to mention any affiliation with the firms involved when commenting. BlueAzure (talk) 02:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete there appears to be a little more about her out there (a role in some Blade series, but I couldn't figure out if it's anything major) but everything is pretty thin. Unless someone else can find more, my vote is on delete. --Arcanios (talk) 12:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete without prejudice she isn't notable just yet. --Paularblaster (talk) 00:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep Milena Lukich also has a credit on the major television series "The Shield" as Albina. Acording to her article, she had a career in previous war torn Yugoslavia. Is there prejudice against actors from foreign countries just because their body of work isn't known to Americans and they don't have WP pages up. With what her country has been through, it's no wonder she is here trying to start a new life, but shouldn't we know what her history as a talent is even though it's not on the net and not American?HollywoodFan1 (talk) 18:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:BlueAzure has been WP:Stalk me and the article I started along with MetaphorEnt and the clients they manage for weeks now. This is part of that WP:Stalk. See Mimi Fuenzalida Adf for more details.HollywoodFan1 (talk) 18:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. See below. Per WP:Bio, Ms. Lukich does not yet meet Wiki notability guidelines. Here is, in my opinion, the most applicable part of WP:Bio:

Entertainers: actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:

With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions.
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

To me, she clearly does not meet these guidelines. If HollywoodFan1 could show references where she meets these guidelines, I would reconsider. A brief GS revealed nothing notable. Tanthalas39 (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tanthalas39. In reading Milena Lukich's article today, I saw her original name was Lukic. In googling that, I found that Milena Lukic(h) is also a Musician, published writer & filmmaker, in addition to being an actress. Here are some of the links. I'm trying to help with these articles because I feel strongly that BlueAzure has a beef with the company that represents this actor based on all of the steps they have taken to invalidate all of their clients. I am not I the entertainment industry and have never met Milena Lukich.

Musician: [17] Writer: [18] Filmmaker Actress [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] Again. As with the article I started, foreign actors/artists should be treated with respect as to the work they did prior to coming to the US as being valid work in the arts.HollywoodFan1 (talk) 21:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although I cannot determine the reliability of all of HollywoodFan1's sources there, there are a few that seem significant and all of them mention Lukic(h)'s name. I think notability has been shown. Tanthalas39 (talk) 22:15, 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. No sources. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 12:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Is My Time Tour 2006[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/This Is My Time Tour 2006

This article offers no sources. I find it hard to believe that this tour ever occurred. I am a big Raven-Symoné fan and have never heard anything about it, and surely it was not sold out. As if this weren't enough, the article looks like it was written by a 10-year-old (as all other Raven-Symoné-related articles do), and is not only inaccurate but quite blatantly false. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 02:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, seems to be a hoax. I couldn't find a single source about it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters wish you a Merry Fishmas! • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but it does need to be rewritten. At least some parts are true might be true as a Google search turned up these sites that have that same list of tours. Deflagro ^C/_T 04:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Are you serious, well your obviously not a big Raven-Symone fan, if you never herd of the tour, Everything written is true. I actually attended a concert back in 2006, and took notes. But I don’t have the time to go search for a links, but ask any Raven fan site webmaster and they will tell you indeed there was one, this is not a joke. Also this article has been up for a while now and all of a sudden you have a problem with it. Although I do agree it can be rewritten. And the tour was sold-out Raven stated it in an interview (it's not like she was doing huge venues to begin with), Rhythmnation2004 you're full of it, and you clearly need to watch Raven on TRL back in March 2006, when she stated it. Some fan you are, HA hypocrite, if anything needs to be deleted is that fourth studio album article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravenfan4ever (talk • contribs) 00:19, 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. jj137 ^♠ 03:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Polhill[edit]

Speedy and prod were both removed...doesn't pass WP:BIO, makes no assertion of notability. Smashville^BONK! 02:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete very minor and local notability if any. JJL (talk) 04:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails every aspect of WP:MUSIC. I also listed the band he's a part of. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters wish you a Merry Fishmas! • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources to verify notability. Just a note: The article asserts notability. He just doesn't actually have any. --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probably failing WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO and WP:V.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:41, 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 delete a7, webgame with no assertion of notability, not yet released. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Patriot[edit]

Contested prod, future game release, no notability asserted Acroterion _(talk) 01:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:N Macy's 123 01:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V. Blogs, except in rare cases, are generally not considered reliable sources. LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as web content that doesn't assert significance. I'm tagging it!--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:42, 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 00:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christy Marks[edit]

Doesn't pass WP:N or WP:BIO. Epbr123 (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, only vague assertations of notability made. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters wish you a Merry Fishmas! • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable Macy's 123 01:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article seems to be an advertisement for a nonnotable glamour model. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 04:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. There are literally thousands of girls like her whose pictures are floating around the Internet. But wow, she's hot! Probably the hottest chick I've seen in a porn star AfD in a long time... she is totally my type of woman. Thanks!--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually got her as my desktop background now. Doesn't mean she's anymore notable now, though. :D.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:32, 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 Keep (no consensus). jj137 ^♠ 22:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Janesville Mall[edit]

In its current state, this page is quite indiscriminate in nature (the study about right turns is a neat, if unsourced, factoid). Beyond that, some sentences are POV ("financial pressures from a weakened economy" and "...land-locked store at Beloit Mall was now unbearably cramped" for instance)... and on top of it all, I can't find a single source to verify any of the information contained here. (The article has two sources, but one is from the mall owner's website.) The only sources I could find reporting on the mall were trivial in nature (e.g. opening/closure of a store at the mall). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nominator is right. Happy Holidays!! Malinaccier (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is a complete mess Macy's 123 01:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep the article covers a large regional mall that makes credible claims of notability. Sources are cited, but need to be brought inline, and additional sources are available. Issues with prose are exceedingly poor justifications for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 08:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for many of the same reasons given by Alansohn. Malls are long-lasting structures with a fair amount of importance for their local areas. Good sourcing is generally available with work. The mall owners' own publications can validly be used for non-controversial detail. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there seem to be sufficient sources [24] they just need to be integrated into the article. --W.marsh 00:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are mostly about events at the mall, not about the mall itself. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - the sources are there, but I don't currently have the time to integrate them myself. Calling an article "indiscriminate" and "a mess" is vague - provide constructive criticism and specific examples, not blanket statements. Finally, if you don't like the prose - or believe it to be POV - you have stated a desire to be an editor, so EDIT IT. Deletion is a ham-handed technique for effecting change. DiogenesNY (talk) 06:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to use the condition of the prose as a rationale for deletion. I'm sorry if I made it seem that way. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've given the page a thorough copy edit.Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:58, 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. PeaceNT (talk) 08:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of Bradford City kits[edit]

After a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Gallery of Bradford City kits, I have decided to nominate this gallery for deletion. Wikipedia is not a repository of images. Relevant kits or significant changes should be included in Bradford City A.F.C.#History or History of Bradford City A.F.C.. Most kits pictured here are simply redefinitions of an existing pattern. This is common among football clubs, for merchandise reasons. A ecis^Brievenbus 00:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletions and in the list of England-related deletions. A ecis^Brievenbus 00:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable collection of images. – Pee Jay 08:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Highly unnecessary level of detail, any truly significant kits can be mentioned in the main article (see for example Gillingham F.C.#Colours and crest, which mentions the club's original colours which were significantly different, when the change to the current colour scheme was made, and the controversy over the proposal to change the colours again a few years back), everything else (changes of sock colour, etc) is just unnecessary and much better covered here ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Bradford City A.F.C. as failing WP:NOT.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not worthy of an encyclopaedia (and I'm saying that as the article's creator!) GiantSnowman (talk) 18:55, 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. jj137 ^♠ 02:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Princess vs. Da Baddest Bitch[edit]

Article is about non-notable mixtape by Trina. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:N. Admc2006 (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they also fail notability:

Delete all, mixtapes are usually considered non-notable as they can't usually be sourced. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into Trina. Although it may be difficult to find a good source for the tracklisting, MTV seems to think that Diamond Princess vs. Da Baddest Bitch and Rockstarr are notable enough to write about, and I see no reason why this content can't be accomidated in the artist's article. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 04:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mixtapes alone are not notable. ^Dlae│_here 15:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as non-notable crystalballing.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since only Diamond Princess vs. Da Baddest Bitch hasn't been released yet, can you give your votes/justification for the other two mixtape articles? --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 16:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No third party sources on either unless anyone cares to prove otherwise.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, thanks. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 17:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it so funny that anytime I either add a page to WikiPedia or even edit a page, it gets deleted. I source, I clean it up, I do everything told to do, and it still doesn't cut it. Meanwhile, there are thousands of other pages that remain up that do not even have ONE sourced material.--FSX-2007 (talk) 05:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They aren't really notable for an article, but if they're official, they can definitely be mentioned in her discography. Spellcast (talk) 19:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So your vote is not delete, but rather merge? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 21:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pretty much. If they're official, they can at least be mentioned in the discography. Spellcast (talk) 00:20, 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 by WP:SNOW as unverifiable. Bearian (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Lanterns[edit]

Article looks like a hoax. The external links point to nowhere relevant. --Ouzo (talk) 05:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - first, two of the four reference links don't exist (I would have deleted them, but I think people need to see that). Second, their last show was at the "world famous" ALF House, which is so famous that no one has ever written an article about the place. The ALF house link goes to a fan site for the fictional character ALF. This article is a fraud per WP:DUCK. LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article that fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC. Further, not all of the references exist, thus the article fails WP:V. Mh29255 (talk) 08:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. Sensiblekid (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:N pretty miserably. Most likely a hoax. Pete Shan osky 17:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:N and appears to be a hoax Macy's 123 review me 18:41, 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. Whether the article should be moved is outside the remit of AfD. Kurykh 02:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman[edit]

Sorry, I have to try again, getting this non-article deleted.

Previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Newman (inventor)

It got worse.

Whereas arguments can be provided (not all good ones IMHO), to keep articles about notable crackpots, I don't see how their "inventions" can become encyclopedic -- at least until reliable, third-party, sources and presence in mainstream media come into play.

But this current article is just a distilled backup copy of JosephNewman.com.

Yes, there is media presence demonstrated in the article, but it describes the inventor, not the invention.

--Pjacobi (talk) 21:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ:

I'm not sure how these sources can point to a distilled "backup copy" of JosephNewman.com.Kmarinas86 (talk) 21:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See e.g. self description of "Beyond Invention": Beyond Invention is a series about the scientists, inventors and researchers -- a biography source, but not a source which tells us about the workings on an electric device -- some IEEE or IET jornal article would be called for.

The wipo.int link doesn't help at all -- patents aren't sources for anything, except the date a patent claim was filed and granted.

The Science News article would be a fine biography source and is a good a but singulat third party reliable source for anything about the device, the efficency. That's fine. But it doesn't say a bleep about the alleged working and buildup of the machine -- which is as of now the central point of our non-article.

--Pjacobi (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This renom is null via WP:NOTAGAIN Doc Strange (talk) 21:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read what you've linked? --Pjacobi (talk) 22:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem: The pictures provided are original research by Kmarinas86 himself. --

What pictures of this electric motor wouldn't be? We're just going to leave the article without pictures of what the motor even looks like?Kmarinas86 (talk) 22:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No original research#Original Images.Kmarinas86 (talk) 01:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

“

Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from this policy, in that Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles. This is welcomed because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. Also, because of copyright law in a number of countries and its relationship to the work of building a free encyclopedia, there are relatively few publicly available images we can take and use. Wikipedia editors' pictures fill a needed role."

A disadvantage of allowing original photographs to be uploaded is the possibility of editors using photo manipulation to distort the facts or position being illustrated by the photo. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. If the manipulation materially affects the encyclopedic value of the image, they should be posted to Wikipedia:Images for deletion. Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed, such as a diagram of a hydrogen atom showing extra particles in the nucleus as theorized by the uploader.

”

Very, well. But how do you assert equivalence of your demonstration model and Joseph Newman's? Your model and photograph would be fine illustrating a simple DIY DC permanent magnet motor (demonstrating that it is not necessary to reverse the current flow, but only to switch it of for 180°). Or do you claim to have observed over-unity-performance and mass loss? In fact, as Newman's motor distinguishes itself only by the immaterial claims, it is hard to get a photograph or image of any sort capturing this. It's like trying to photograph Holy water to show its different to plain water. --Pjacobi (talk) 11:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that in previous versions of the article, the caption said the model is "a replica" of the Newman machine. Restoring that wording would help. -Amatulic (talk) 18:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Move back to Joseph Newman (inventor) - The article was moved on 11 December. It should be moved back. As regards notability, Newman and his invention are one entity. The invention is not notable of itself, but as a part of his struggle for recognition (if I threw in "quixotic", would be over the top?). Seriously though, there is no point in having an article about the invention but not the inventor. --Alfadog (talk) 03:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Move - The article appears to be sourced sufficiently and I see little value in removing it. Morphh ^(talk) 18:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons in the prior AfD, which are still valid today. I don't care what the article is called; inaccurate naming isn't a reason to delete. The point is, this is a notable invention (whether it works as claimed or not) that achieved national attention, both by the U.S. government and the media. So Newman is a crackpot, big deal. He's a notable crackpot, and as such, Wikipedia needs an article about him and his invention. The article's title should reflect the majority content of the article; if it focuses more on the man than the invention, then rename it. I'll note that Pjacobi nominated this article for deletion before. That's fine. The nomination failed for good reasons. However, nominating it again, after the article has been improved significantly, seems like tendentious axe-grinding to me. -Amatulic (talk) 18:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move back, and possibly rewrite the article a little so it is about him. He is a notable crackpot. I dont think the machine is separately notable. His notability is a combination of the machine, the theory, and the court case. DGG (talk) 19:24, 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. John254 01:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Plaza Mall[edit]

I don't think this meets A7, but written like an ad, and doesn't seem truly notable. Jona than ^{I wish you healthy and happy holidays.} 22:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but needs to be sourced and edited somewhat for style. Malls, as long-lasting structures with lasting influence on their surrounding areas, can often be usefully given Wikipedia articles, and there is generally sufficient sourcing within the local and specialist press to document them adequately. Since there appear to be sufficient mall enthusiasts to maintain these articles, that makes them worth keeping, in my opinion. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm seeing several sources, [25], [26]. --W.marsh 00:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters wish you a Merry Fishmas! • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This Article does not yet have the AfD template applied to it. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters wish you a Merry Fishmas! • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks .... wasnt sure about the How in that case. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think in this perticular case there is no 1 thing we can point to and say "That is notable". However looking at the overall history of the building, it does seem to be unusual in the fact that it went from 'strip mall' to 'enclosed mall' then back to 'strip mall'. A reversal of fortunes would be notable. References would be highly recommended. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've seen many other malls go from strip mall to enclosed mall, and then back to a strip again (Southland in Portage, Michigan, for one), so that's not necessarily an unusual conversion. However, this mall does seem to meet WP:V, although a good copy edit and removal of external links is in definite order. Once I'm more coherent I'll see what I can do. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep While not the worst shopping centre article i've seen, its not the best either. If the article was cleaned up to meet WP:MOS and the background and history could be better sources, then its a keeper. Thewinchester ^(talk) 13:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article makes claims of notability regarding its presence in the Charleston area, and provides thorough details regarding the mall's history. Alansohn (talk) 18:00, 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.