Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 December 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 5 December 7 >

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 keep --JForget 01:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

28 Days/Weeks Later Characters[edit]

28 Days/Weeks Later Characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the 28 days/weeks movie articles. As such, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this list page is a far superior option than dozens of individual character pages. It shows restraint, so we should too. AnteaterZot (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Stuff like this is allowed, and we've been transitioning to lists for this stuff. ViperSnake151 01:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But do you feel that this list would pass notability, meaning is there a chance that we will be getting any development info like how these characters were developed, or interviews with the actors, or thinks like that? That's my concern. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article can take two paths; if the topic remains fresh in the public's mind, sources will accrue, but if it fades, nobody will care if the infomation is merged to the main article and this article deleted. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which do you see it taking? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fading. AnteaterZot (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename to List of 28 Days/Weeks Later Characters Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This awful article has been tagged for a long time to try to get the fanboys/girls to add sources and drop the in-universe tone, to no avail. However, before I stepped in back in September, the article was spawning dozens of crufty in-universe fansite sub articles on each and every spit and cough of a character. There's no way of preventing this tide of Wikia-style trivia, other than rigorously forcing it back into this list and regularly pruning the paragraphs down to readable, cruftless size. This list is better than the alternative, put it that way. Oh, and agree with the rename proposed by Kyaa. ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 10:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (possibly rename per Kyaa the Catlord). De-cruftifying can be done in cleanup. My experience is that as soon as some notable actors have appeared in a franchise, there are third-party sources commenting on that. I don't question that these sources exist, and therefore recommend a straight keep. – sgeureka t•c 12:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per most of the others here. Rray (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lets not guess, and if anyone has any actual references, lets find them and post them here so we can establish notability, not guess about it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redvers has it right. From any reasonable perspective this is better than the alternatives. Why don;t pe3ople compromise, and accept articles like this? DGG (talk) 05:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because it isn't any good? Because it doesn't meet the requirements of wikipedia policy? I would agree to keep it if it has promise of improving, as many such lists do, but so far I'm not convinced that it will as there has been no proof of any reference or even the promise of them later. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 08:03, 9 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 author request. Kwsn (Ni!) 00:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie Toulouse Oliver[edit]

Maggie Toulouse Oliver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An article of a county clerk, lacks notability. Kwsn (Ni!) 23:56, 6 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. — Scientizzle 16:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

District 1[edit]

District 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the 28 weeks move article. As such, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:55, 6 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. — Scientizzle 16:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International adaptations of Tokyo Mew Mew[edit]

International adaptations of Tokyo Mew Mew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nedelessly excessive amount of indiscriminate information about the various non-English translations of an anime. The Manual of Style for anime and manga articles recommend that non-English release information should be transwikied to a respective language's Wiki, and there's precedent for deleting articles detailing non-notable translation differences. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment While the topic itself may very well be notable, WP:MOS-AM's wording was to limit the indiscriminate listing of every VA who voiced a particular character or every company that licensed the anime or manga. However, the problem with this article is that it simply lists the stations that the series was broadcast on and variations of the characters' names from country to country. What little prose is on the article is mostly original research or entirely unsourced. While the title says International adaptations of Tokyo Mew Mew, it actually doesn't tell how the series was adapted by other countries. --Farix (Talk) 22:49, 9 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 Mark as possible copyright infringement per instructions at Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Instructions—I have done some searching around Wikipedia to find information on lists and copyrights and have come across User:Dragons flight/Evil looking lists which is referenced in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use/Archive 5#Fair use lists. The rationale under which the list here is likely a copyright violation is that it is based on editorial input an not a simple list of facts; being a list based on judgements of the staff of Computer Gaming World ... in fact, the page referenced by the list-article as a reference is itself possibly a copyright violation by this criterion. However, if the list was the result of a reader survey, then it likely would be usable under fair use because the list would then be reporting the facts of a survey that the editors of the magazine did not otherwise alter. With this doubt in mind, I'm not going to delete, but mark as a possible copyvio and let more experienced persons take it from there. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Please see Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 December 11/Articles for the posting I made to the Copyright Problems page. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) —Preceding comment was added at 02:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Gaming World list of the best games of all time[edit]

Computer Gaming World list of the best games of all time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a copyright violation of Gaming World's intellectual property, since it's based on personal opinion and not immutable facts. There is a long record of deleting such articles in the past because of the copyright nature of the lists. Corvus cornixtalk 23:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Examining their actual list on the web, it contain a great deal of other information--there is a paragraph of analysis for each game. [1] so we are simply reporting on which games they chose to talk about--reproducing their text would be a copyright violation. This should at the very least go to one of the copyright discussion pages.
Corvus, did you compare the two pages before you nominated it? DGG (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if they're word for word the same or not, the list itself is copyrighted. Corvus cornixtalk 17:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And we can report on their contents--go actually look--we have less than 1% of the total. DGG (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for fair use, it meets all 4 US tests completely: factual prose, non-profit use, minute fraction oft he original, no influence on sales--since its free on the web. (and it would only have to meet the majority of them , anyway. But it totally satisfyies all 4. We follow US law here, and those are the legal criteria.). Lets move this where the copyright experts here can see it. DGG (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not convinced this isn't a copyright violation. It may be a small proportion of the original text but it is ALL of the salient parts of that text. This is a reproduction of the original (as the article title doesn't shy away from admitting), albeit in a trimmed form. It easily renders the original obsolete for anyone who isn't interested in the minor details of what the reviewers thought of each game. If that's fair use then I'm surprised. Anyway, besides that, where's the notability? Miremare 04:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - is this list even notable? Where are the reliable sources to establish the notability of this list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whpq (talk • contribs) 18:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for notability reasons -- while this article can be a source for articles about the individual games claiming "best-of-all-time", the list itself is not notable. We therefore have no need to get to the copyright violation question. --Lquilter (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - this is not copyright violation. it is a summary of a greater article for research purposes, and qualifies as a fair exception to copyright for most WIPO countries. Cackalackakilla (talk) 20:42, 10 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 as G-d does. Early closure due to obvious consensus. Mangojuicetalk 20:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G*d[edit]

G*d (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The relationship between G*d and the article it redirects to is not clear. CruftCutter (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment censorship? ViperSnake151 23:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a harmless and amusing redirect. How is it not clear? AnteaterZot (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Shouldn't this be at WP:RFD? JavaTenor (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I edit conflicted you trying to say the same thing.  :) Corvus cornixtalk 23:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it is a very reasonable redirect, since many religious Jews will not write "God". So if someone sees this in text then they'll likely want to know what it stands for. In fact, I'd tentatively suggest that there might even be enough information about this that we could have an article on G*d/G-d. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Unless it is a particularily important spelling variant, it may be considered religiously offensive by some people, and may cause some to use "God" as a swear word, which this isn't, although I'm keeping it neutral instead of delete because of JoshuaZ's comment, and it's somewhat like censoring "Good" into "G**d". Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 01:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as Joshua said. - Jehochman Talk 01:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Oh please...--Filll (talk) 02:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JoshuaZ ... and his idea to expand into an article about the Jewish treatment of God's name is a good one. --A. B. (talk)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- A. B. (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to God - (not to Allah as suggested in history) - is fine and makes perfect sense to me. Expanding into a full article is also fine, but I think that the name "writing names of God in Judaism" is a better title. If and when that article is written this article should redirect there. Jon513 (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Names of God in Judaism#In English which substantially covers what JoshuaZ, A. B., and Jon513 requested. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Names of God in Judaism#In English per Metropolitan90 (talk). --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Metropolitan90, and we should make a similar redirect for L*rd --NickPenguin(contribs) 04:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Names of God in Judaism#In_English the same way G-d redirects there. --MPerel 04:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—On a procedural note, this should have been taken to WP:RFD rather than being discussed here. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, per the redirection on G-d. Lawrence Cohen 16:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Names of God in Judaism#In_English. That target makes the reason for the direct clear. WODUP 17:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JoshuaZ. This is a plausible redirect. Some people do "Bowdlerize" the "o" in "God" in order not to spell out the full name. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Redirect, per the redirection on G-d to Names of God in Judaism#In English. (great idea). CruftCutter (talk) 17:32, 7 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.

Anti-Christian violence in India[edit]

The result was No consensus Maxim(talk) 13:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Christian violence in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is part of a series of articles created by User:Otolemur crassicaudatus [2] that have several problems. 1. The article, in it's entirity, is Original research a Synthesis of unrelated facts written semi-intelligently in order to push a particular agenda, which is the suggestion that there is some-sort of institutional anti-Christian problem in the country of the subject, and there are no "reliable sources" (except for a disproportionate focus on a controversial left-wing scholar who was part of a major controversy concerning bias in the Campus Watch list and unqualified reports from an organization who has been accused of bias against India [3]) to make this assertion,2. The article subject is unencyclopedic. No other articles for allegations of violence directed against specific religious groups in a specific country have ever been created.Not a single one, for any of the worlds 10 major religions and 150 major countries (ie not one of 1500 possible articles). Why is India being singled out for opprobrium? What is to prevent somebody from writing articles ranging from Anti-Shinto violence in Papua New Guinea to Anti-Semitic violence in Puerto Rico based on synthesis? 3.This article, together with several articles created by this user, constitute POV-forks of existing articles. In this case, the article is a POV fork of Religious violence in India, from where content has just been copy-pasted over. These POV forks are being edited by the user with what clearly is a tendentious intent to disparage it's subject (India and Indians). Thus, I nominate these unencyclopedic article for deletion Ghanadar galpa (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep - The level of violence against Christians indicates that it could be a good article over time due to the amount of information it would cover. It may be POV, and not well written, and not sourced, but it should be fixed, not deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand my position.I'm not suggesting that the information isn't noteworthy. My point here is that there is nothing in this article that can't be included (and already isn't) in Religious violence in India. Also, the violence allegedly directed against perceived "Christians" isn't religious or theological (unlike, say, the violence between Muslims and Christians) but is primarily due to political and communal compulsions. This article makes the synthesis that the violence is theologically directed, which is false. Given India's religious plurality, an article with a pro-Christian subject, if kept, will lead to others writing about anti-Hindu violence in India from Christians (such as Goa Inquisition or the National Liberation Front of Tripura, or the extraordinarily high levels of anti-Hindu violence from Christian Fundamentalists in Trinidad or Fiji leading to andless flame wars which will interfere with encyclopedia). Best to keep everything organized in a single balanced article. Ghanadar galpa (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am tired of user Ghanadar galpa's misinterpretation on wikipedia and its policies and guidelines. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collection of notable and verificable facts and information in encyclopedic format with neutral point of view. The arguments like flame wars are baseless. The article religious violence in India is specifically for the combination of all religious violence that occur in India. That article is not supposed to depict the anti-Christian violence elaborately. There comes the need for a separate article. In India Anti-Christian violence is widely noted[4]. Hence the need of this article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I have already mentioned that the Vinay Lal nonsense is being given too much attention, given the extremely infammatory and controversial far-left views of this particular academic. Furthermore, given that Christians in secular democratic India enjoy more religious freedoms than, say Christians in Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan, or Yemen, or any Islamic theocracy, and that there are no "Anti-Christian whatever" articles on them (or specifically anti-anyreligion for that matter), establishing their lack of noteworthiness. It is clear that no such noteworthiness exists for India. I'm afraid that this tactic (repeating the same false point is Goebbelian fashion again and again until it seems to be true, is a standard one employed by mr Crassicaudatus (see Talk:Human rights in India, where he tried to pull this stunt off as well)). 72.179.58.61 Ghanadar galpa (talk) 12:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Religious violence in India. It is better than creating lots of articles on violence against particuklar groups unless consensus amongst editors decides that there is enough to warrant a stand-alone article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Capitalistroadster. --A. B. (talk) 02:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The instigator of this article, mr otomelue Crassicaudatus, has been vote canvassing for this article and others from another AfD. [5][6][7]Ghanadar galpa (talk) 12:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Capitalistroadster and Ghanadar galpa's own statement, "I'm not suggesting that the information isn't noteworthy. My point here is that there is nothing in this article that can't be included (and already isn't) in Religious violence in India". At present, the article is too much of a stub, containing one sentence per section. Unlike the other sections of Religious violence in India that have forks to a main article, it does not document individual incidents, but instead specifies statistics. The other forks are either about specific incidents or source some incident reports individually. --Banazir (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The primary instigator of this article, User Otolemur Crassicaudatus, is presently trolling multiple talk pages trying to canvass for votes and making some pretty nasty accusations against me (all tedious, repetitive and unsubstantiated), not to mention full of some of the most offensively hateful bigotry and prejudice that I have seen to date. Voters need to take note of this.[8][9]. [10][11] [12][13].Should I report him? Ghanadar galpa (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have issued Ghanadar galpa and Otolemur crassicaudatus a no personal attacks warning on their user talk pages. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete No need for this article. this user has alread created an article called religious violence in india that this info could go into. Nikkul (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Persecution of Christians has more info than this page, one of a string of useless India-bashing pages created over the past week or so.Bakaman 21:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete information is present in other articles.--D-Boy (talk) 04:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This is subsumed by Religious violence in India and the author is flogging a POV-ridden dead horse. The scale of religious violence in India against Christians is minuscule compared to that against Hindus and Muslims. Ezhava (talk) 03:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    user has only 16 edits since June 2007, all made it yesterday. details. (sock?}.--Avinesh Jose (talk) 10:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable topic. Scale of religions violence *by* Christians in India is more relevant, as there are many instances of coercion and force used in conversion. For instance, denial of jobs and degrees in Christian-run institutions unless a person converts. In India's North-east, dominated by Christians, missionaries and Christians terrorists have banned non-Christian religious activities and demolished Hindu temples, as well as shot dead Hindu priests. Malabarcoast (talk) 04:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    user has only 14 edits since Dec 15. details here. (sock?} --Avinesh Jose (talk) 10:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I was about to agree for the Merge of this article, but then I read these previous statements. Such rubbish being said, its funny how its always the smallest minority that is the (easy) bogeyman for chauvinists, no matter what the faith. Easy targets are what these cowards want. Graham Staines and his little children these people claim were the murder victims of Over "patriotic" youth. What idiots we have trolling the wikipedia. --Friedricer (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User has five edits. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - merge with Religious violence in India. Articles on persecution of specific minorities are destined to become POV hotbeds. Presenting the larger picture will help to provide a larger picture.Osli73 (talk) 09:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Take a look at this article; not much in itself, but there has been an article like it every week for several years from India, and a critical encyclopedic look at this topic should be allowed. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I though, O Lardy, tarnation, another martyr-wannabe. Then I looked at it criticially, and it appears to be a topic notable enough for its own article. There are 5 good cites, and many more could be found easily. My only concern is that this could become a post hoc-POV fork of Religious violence in India. Bearian (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Have a look at Anti-Catholicism in the United States. It is worth keeping this article. Hope this will improve later. --Avinesh Jose (talk) 05:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This is subsumed by Religious violence in India and the author is flogging a POV-ridden dead horse. The scale of religious violence in India against Christians is minuscule compared to that against Hindus and Muslims. Mastercrafter 11:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User has nine edits; only three since August and all of those were made today. Possible sock. --Richard (talk) 09:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Violence against Christians in India is a genuine and valid issue. Conversion to Christianity is a very sensitive issue in many parts of India. And conversion to Christianity or try to convert to Christianity may even result in death. Nomination of this article for deletion is a bad faith nomination. Claiming this article POV-ridden is a bad faith calim. Why this article will be POV? To mention the fact that violence occurs against Christians is POV? Wikipedia is a collection of true and genuine facts. This article depicts the violence that Christians face in India. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:26, 15 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 --JForget 01:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quechev[edit]

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

PROD template removed. This is a neologism, if not actually a hoax (zero ghits); and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. JohnCD (talk) 22:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete clearly a neologism. AnteaterZot (talk) 23:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Euryalus (talk) 02:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails the notability guideline - there is no significant coverage in reliable sources (in fact there is no coverage anywhere at all, insignificant or otherwise). Fails both points at WP:NEO - the article is an attempted dictionary definition and even the article creator acknowledges there is no evidence to support its widespread use (other than vague statements about growth in "major population centres"). With respect, this has the classic signs of something simply made up one day. Euryalus (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR "...is not currently accepted by any major literary bodies" seems to be confirmation of this. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no secondary sources at all. Possible hoax? Lankiveil (talk) 09:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment—{{Copy to Wiktionary}} added. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment—JohnCD asked on my talk page about my tagging this for copying to Wiktionary, arguing that because there are no sources, it is probably a hoax. No google hits and no sources does not mean that something is a hoax. A large percentage of the world is not touched by the contents of Google and I really dislike people making notability arguments based on "number of ghits". The consensus here so far does not say "hoax", it says not notable or original research more than anything else, which does not equate to "hoax". --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, if we are assessing whether something is a new, up-and-coming slang term or just something made up one day, a total absence of ghits is quite a good clue. It's also perhaps relevant that no one has come forward in support; all that has happened to the article is that an anonymous IP removed the PROD tag once and the AfD tag twice. Still, it's Wiktionary's problem now. JohnCD (talk) 11:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence that it is not a hoax has been presented, and it is certainly not notable and has no independent sources.--Grahame (talk) 23:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:NEO. Nasty. Bearian (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. --Roisterer (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NEO, WP:NOT#DICT and quite possibly WP:BOLLOCKS. Orderinchaos 18:46, 9 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. DO11.10 (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nineteen;twentynine[edit]

Nineteen;twentynine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article does not establish notability. Google searches for article's title (with and without punctuation) fail to turn up references on sites other than Wikipedia and the theater's homepage. Created by a user named Felixmortimer, an account likely owned by Felix Mortimer, the artistic director of the theater. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 22:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, clearly non-notable. Zero Google hits for a search for '"Susanna Davies-Crook" "Felix Mortimer"', the company's website isn't even at a high level domain, no reliable sources, and COI issues. Corvus cornixtalk 23:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been listed on the talk page for WikiProject Theatre. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After searching using various terms, I cannot find any independent items of coverage. spryde | talk 14:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The arguments proposed make sense as a cause for deletion. Robotic Sam (talk) 02:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unable to establih any notability as no reliable sources could be found -- Whpq (talk) 18:05, 10 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 to delete. Davewild (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchism in India[edit]

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

This article is part of a series of articles created by User:Otolemur crassicaudatus [14] that have several problems. 1. There are precisely zero Reliable Sources that back up any of the assertions made about Anarchism in India.The only "source" offerred is a forum post. 2. The article, in it's entirity, is Original research a Synthesis of unrelated facts written semi-intelligently in order to push a particular agenda. 3. This article, together with several articles created by this user, constitute POV-forks of existing articles. These POV forks are being edited by the user with what clearly is a tendentious intent to disparage it's subject (India and Indians). Thus, I nominate these unencyclopedic article for deletion Ghanadar galpa (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment surely there is an anarchist movement in India? AnteaterZot (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though this article is in need of help, the claims presented here could use some help as well. First, the source provided for the article is not a blog, as Ghanadar claims, but a book published by Zabalaza Books. The text of it just happens to also be posted on raforums.info. This article has the potential to become good part of a series on anarchism in different regions of the world, including Anarchism in Spain and Anarchism in Cuba. All the other problems can be fixed better by good editing than cold deletion. Murderbike (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete "In India, anarchism never took the form of formally named "anarchism"." This article is not talking about Anarchism in India, but about what the article's creator believed to be similar to anarchism. Zazaban (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment actually, it's talking about what Jason Adams, the author of the source given percieves as anarchism. Murderbike (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This delete vote is based on fallacious reasoning; we are not voting on whether the article as it stands is worthy of keeping, but whether the subject merits inclusion in the encyclopedia.
  • Commment actually, it's talking about what Jason Adams, the author of the source given percieves as anarchism. Murderbike (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The subject is part of an established series on anarchism by region, and is the subject of at least two non-trivial reliably sourced academic treatments, the books The gentle anarchists : a study of the leaders of the Sarvodaya movement for non-violent revolution in India by Geoffrey Ostergaard and Melville Currell, Oxford : Clarendon Press, 1971, and Anarchist Thought in India by Adi Hormusji Doctor. Anarchism in India is further referenced in Dillon's "The Perennial Appeal of Anarchism" in Polity, Vol. 7, No. 2. (Winter, 1974), pp. 234-247. I recommend a little stronger due diligence googling before nominating for deletion in future. Afd is not cleanup. Skomorokh incite 02:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep:Nominanation of this article for deletion is cleary due to malicious intent. The nomination of this article for deletion is part of the serial attacks on my articles by user Ghanadar galpa. This article has nothing to do to disparge subject. This article is part of the broader anarchist movement. In wikipedia there are articles like Anarchism in Brazil, Anarchism in China, Anarchism in England, Anarchism in France, Anarchism in Israel which depict anarchist movements on those specific countries. Thus this article depicts the anarchist movement in India.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would request Mr. Crasicaudatus to please calm down and not resort to histrionics. There is no vast evil conspiracy against him, unlike the anarchists would have people believe :-) .This debate is clearly going well, and valid points are being raised by all parties concerned.The main point here is that one or two sources are not enough to establish what the subject of the article tries to convey (i.e that there is a systematic anarchist movement going on in India). I would like a source that makes this explicit claim, rather than a disparate set of sources strung together by the author of the article to advance the notion that there is an anarchist movement in the country worth noting. As far as I can see from the article itself, there isn't, not as much as the other countries on which anarchism articles do exist. Ghanadar galpa (talk) 11:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment More issues: Statements like "the Satya Yuga is a description of a possible anarchist society in which people govern themselves based on the universal law of dharma", one of the key statements that form the backbone of the article, is puzzling. Is Mr. Crasicaudatus trying to use wikipedia to write a research paper on anarchism, or is he actually citing a reliable source here? Where is it? 99% of the article is such synthesis. If this article (which has been around for a while now), can't pick up any reliable sources that state that there is any noteworthiness to any alleged anarchist views and attitudes in India in the context of standard (western) definitions of the term, then the article is clearly junk. The notion of political anarchism is an entirely western one, and applies primarily to western or strongly westernized societies (like Cuba and Israel, and even non-western China, where anarchism is a by-product of European Communism applied to Chinese society). Some scholars have tried to fit the mold of anarchism into existing political movements in Indian history, but that is all supposition and interpretation. It's armchair reasoning at best. I fail to see anything in the article that describes that a strictly anarchist movement as it is understood literally by mainstream sociologists exists in India (or ever existed in the past). Hell, if someone publishes a paper alleging that the Toltec Empire may have been based on ideas similar to "anarchist principles", would we immediately have an Anarchism in the ancient Toltec Empire article? On the other side, I have read sociologiss saying that the Indian Freedom Movement was predominantly organized capitalism, others saying it was predominantly Communist, others (American neoconservatives basically) saying that it was fascist. Now we have some saying that it was anarchist. What was it exactly? Could it be that it was neither of these things, and that people are merely trying to fit their notions into it? Why should the idea that it was "anarchist" be given special priority over the other views? Ghanadar galpa (talk) 11:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment, for what it's worth, someone from the Indian National Party wrote an article titled The Growth of Revolution in India for the explicitly anarchist magazine The Blast. Murderbike (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment, regardless of the potential anarchic qualities of the Toltecs, there is room in an Anarchims in India article for a subsection on anarchic interpretations of Indian political movements. While the bulk of the article should not be comprised of such information, its original publication lends itself to the article, and can at least be referenced. The article should be improved and expanded to encompass such interpretations within the context of any genuine anarchist project in the Indian subcontinent.--Cast (talk) 09:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the speculations in the article are completely unrelated to the modern concept of Anarchism. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and should not be a place to launch speculations and discussions on hypothetical theories, even though such speculations might exist in a printed book. --Soman (talk) 13:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If they're published in reliable sources, they aren't being launched and do have a place in Wikipedia.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Anarchism in India is a valid subject.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a genuine article, for a genuine subject, that happens to have disingenuous content. Nothing we haven't seen before, and won't see again. It just needs editing.--Cast (talk) 09:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The topic is notable. The article needs cleanup & various cleanup tags. --Lquilter (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete The topic is borderline interesting, but the author is a known pusher of dubious POV supporting various agendas. Ezhava (talk) 03:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is an argument about the user, not the article. Problems with the article do not justify deletion; why is this topic non-notable? Skomorokh incite 03:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, meaningless topic. Anarchism is not a visible movement in India. The article content is unsubstantiated and vacuous. Malabarcoast (talk) 04:36, 11 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. — Scientizzle 16:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Links Hollywood[edit]

Radio Links Hollywood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A website offering MP3 clips from movies. Obviously written by someone with a COI (using words such as "ours"), and failing notability. Jmlk17 22:30, 6 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 02:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bettina Bush[edit]

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

I know from the edit history it looks like I'm AfDing this a few minutes after creation, but the history's deceptive; a previous version of this has already been speedied. This is sufficiently different to warrant its own discussion IMO. Apparently non-notable; singer with no releases, and whose sole apparent competition win is on a website, not anything that confers notability by Wikipedia rules. There is maybe a faint assertion of notability through the voiceover work - the sole reason this is at AfD and not prodded - but IMO voiceover artist isn't in and of itself enough to confer notability. — iridescent 22:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bettina's song "She Is" is on Billboards "Hot Singles" Chart and has gone to #4. This justifies her notability by Wikipedia rulesBlacciebrie (talk) 00:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Helena[reply]

  • Keep I'm not sure how this could have been speedied, since she clearly has notablity. The first result is her IMDB page, which lists over 20 notable works she has been featured in. --NickPenguin(contribs) 04:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The version that was speedied was very different, which is why it's come here - otherwise, the original A7 would still apply. (The previous deletion was by Kubigula, not me, incidentally.) — iridescent 17:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep -- where are the WP:RS? Bearian (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to meet notability; she's the voice of Rainbow Brite! =) I've done a bit of cleanup to hopefully make the article less fan-page-y. Added some RS per Bearian guyzero | talk 22:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks much better. Bearian, a/k/a Bearian'sBooties (talk) 03:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is now sourced and established notability for mine. Well done to Guyzero for the rewrite. Capitalistroadster (talk) 03:18, 9 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 and redirect to the University. This is the usual and long-standing practice in the case of such student organizations, and nothing said in the very verbose arguments below refutes its application in this case. In closing, I take due notice of those arguing from outside policy, apparently on the basis of personal taste. Xoloz (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Southampton University Students' Union[edit]

Southampton University Students' Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another completely non-notable Students' Union. The article asserts no notability through external links to credible independant sources, and as such fails WP:N. TheIslander 22:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Surely there are reliable sources for student unions? Wouldn't publications from the university itself class as independent information? I know in the case of Exeter University Student's Guild it is technically and legally a seperate entity from the university.
  • As for notability, surely it is notable for being a part of a large and recognised university? Man from the Ministry (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Standing by itself, no, it's not notable. Redirect and merge to the University article. Corvus cornixtalk 23:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response to Man from the Ministry Publications from the university itself would definitely not count as independant information, for one main reason: In trying to attract prospective students to the university, the university is hardly going to be objective about it's union - it's going to make it sound as good as it can. You're quite right that technically and legally they're (on the whole) separate entities entirely, but in this case there's a large conflict of interest, so for all intents and purposes here they're the same institution. I would personally disagree that they're notable for being part of a large and recognised university. For a start, I'm a part of a large and recognised university, but I'm certainly not notable :P. Also, all (I think) universities in the UK have SUs, but they're all much of a muchness. There's the odd one here or there that's organised in a particularly unique way, or has something notable about it, but in the majority of cases (like this one), there's no particular factor that makes it any more notable than any other union, or, for that matter any different from any other union. TheIslander 23:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I accept the point about universities having a vested interest, I was more referring to using Uni sources for 'facts and figures' information, rather than for opinion. I at first thought this was unsuitable for merging, as a lot of information would be lost, but having read through the article, I agree with Corvus cornix that it should be condensed, then Redirect and Merge.

  • Note: This discussion has been listed on the talk page for WikiProject Universities. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the article is not written from a NPOV, lacks adequate citations and needs a lot of work to bring it up to standard, but this doesn't seem to be the point being made here. The argument made by TheIslander of lack of notability fails when you think about it for more than a nanosecond. TheIslander states: "Also, all (I think) universities in the UK have SUs, but they're all much of a muchness. There's the odd one here or there that's organised in a particularly unique way, or has something notable about it, but in the majority of cases (like this one), there's no particular factor that makes it any more notable than any other union". If I didn't see from the profile that this was a genuine user, I'd suspect this was a joke! On this reasoning, we should delete a lot of articles on wikipedia about institutions that are "much of a muchness". For example, why not delete the articles for the National Union of Teachers and the Association of Teachers and Lecturers as they are "much of a muchness"? They're just like any other trade union, no? What about government local authorities, they're all "much of a muchness" on this absurd logic (and incidentally, they are part funded by the Government, just like student unions that are part funded by the Universities). Hold on, what about the Universities themselves? They're all "much of a muchness" too! What particularly differentiates Durham from Bristol? Or Oxford from Cambridge? They're all doing a bit of higher education here and there, but aren't they also much of a muchness. Why not delete the articles for all Universities! Come on folks, why not put the effort into actually improving the articles rather than silly discussions about deleting the articles for student unions up and down the country. Student Unions are institutions that are decades old, or in the case of Southampton, over a century old. Each Union can represent tens of thousands of students and have influenced the lives of millions over the years. That makes them notable. User:Sce1313 14:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nomination and WP:ORG. The article fails to establish any sort of notability and I don't believe this notability will ever exist. Student unions are not notable.—Noetic Sage 16:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities has a set of article guidelines stating that student unions are not notable. However, you may consider merging this article's key points, shrink it into a paragraph or so, and add it into the Student Life section of Southampton's main article. See Florida Institute of Technology#Student life. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 17:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't find the guidance in Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities stating that student unions are not notable. If that is the case, then every Students' Union wikipedia article should be deleted and this discussion, regardless of the merits or demerits, is pointless? What a moronic policy. You may as well start with the list of English_students_unions and work your way across the world from there... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sce1313 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Take a look here, under 'Student life', specifically the line "Also, per WP:ORG, student unions/organizations/governments almost never should have their own article.". TheIslander 18:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Note that the guidelines are, as stated at the top, currently just proposed and 'References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy"'. Indeed this specific part of the proposed guideline is under discussion on the talk page (not least because of the differing international understandings of what a students' union is) - please do not consider it to a standing consensus for AfDs. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow... "moronic"? Ahem, I believe the people who don't sign their posts as such, but I'll hold off my other comment, as I have certain respect and assumption of good faith. However, the article is not notable nonetheless. I merely pointed out that as per the proposed set of guidelines (as I worded back on my original post, not policy) that the argument that this article is not notable would be strengthened, not base the entire argument over this article's notability solely on this set of guidelines. This is a AfD on the article, please don't make it a battle on policy. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 05:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The main student union or student organization for each significant university is notable, and should be considered so because it's a major component of the university, gets a large amount of material off a page which will have n immense amount of other content, and serves as a home for what would otherwise be a large umber of separate article. Jamesontal should rethink his proposed guideline. We dont want an accumulation of very small articles, not ones that will be excessively long. This is the way to do it.DGG (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • I have a serious problem with this set of guidelines. As an editor from the United Kingdom, it is very obvious that these guidelines have been written with the intention of regulating the entries for Colleges & Universities in the United States of America, and from an American point of view. It troubles me that University & College systems internationally are different to that found in the United States of America, and the guidelines per se could (and already are been) used by deletionists to remove student organisation articles en masse from the project, especially Students' Unions. In the UK, with exceptionally few exceptions, Students' Unions are seperate legal entities from the institutions they are associated with. It is misrepresentative for the project to concider them non-notable as an excuse to push them into the same articles as their associated institution. The Legal status of UK Student unions are also changing to a registered Charity status in line with the Charities Act 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TorstenGuise (talk • contribs) 22:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Oops. forgot to sign my comment. TorstenGuise (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Uh, I wouldn't say that "troubling" would be the word when describing differences there mate. If you believe that the guidelines needs to be changed for student unions, you may write your own set of guidelines and propose them to be adapted, just like how this set of guidelines is trying to achieve consensus before adaptation. Yes, there are significant differences between the education systems in UK and US. However, student unions exist in just about every university. Whether the student union is a separate entity or not, its existence is based solely off of the university - meaning if (for example) Oxford University seizes to function tomorrow, its student union, however notable from the hundreds of years of history, would be not notable unless you are trying to describe the previous history of the university only. Now, I don't know (I'm American) whether the student union also serves as an "alumni association" for university graduates or not, but seeing that universities in America have their own alumni association separate from student unions, this topic would definitely needs some clarification. However, as for establishing notability for other international student union articles, you may state in the article's lead that the student union is a non-profit organization (or in UK terminology: Charity) with its non-profit registration listing made readily available. This should steer away from the university guidelines and begin to adapt to corporation guidelines on Wikipedia.- Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 17:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
    • "Whether the student union is a separate entity or not, its existence is based solely off of the university - meaning if (for example) Oxford University seizes to function tomorrow, its student union, however notable from the hundreds of years of history, would be not notable unless you are trying to describe the previous history of the university only." - agreed. There seems to be a lot of weight placed on the fact that 'legally' an SU is a separate entity from the university. However, that's about as far as the separation goes. The SU wouldn't exist without the university; the university has a vested interest in the SU; the SU is comprised solely of people who also comprise the university etc. The two are undoubtably linked. Putting this entire argument to the side for a moment, and assuming that it was completely 100% separate, so what? All (UK) SUs are pretty much the same - there's little that differentiates one from the next, which is why (on the whole, with one or two examples) they're really not notable. TheIslander 18:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
      • "Whether the student union is a separate entity or not, its existence is based solely off of the university - meaning if (for example) Oxford University seizes to function tomorrow, its student union, however notable from the hundreds of years of history, would be not notable unless you are trying to describe the previous history of the university only." - Disagree if the university folded the student union would continue functioning with the core focus of getting some compensation for the students and/or aiding there enrollment in other institution to complete their degrees, and fighting for the rights of the students in that situation it would cause a massive change in how it was run & it's aims BUT IT WOULD STILL EXIST! --Nate1481( t/c) 11:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Please let me know if there are still uncertainties regarding the issue. Hopefully we don't have to battle out the same conversation twice on two different fronts every time someone thinks their student union is somehow "more notable" than others. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 23:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep(You get one vote only. Additional comments are to be formatted as Comment - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 00:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)) The main student union or student organization for each significant university is notable, and should be considered so because it's a major component of the university, gets a large amount of material off a page which will have n immense amount of other content, and serves as a home for what would otherwise be a large umber of separate article. Jamesontal should rethink his proposed guideline. We dont want an accumulation of very small articles, not ones that will be excessively long. This is the way to do it. the above argument says all UK SUs are similar, which they are to a certain extent, but the details of the student organisations included in the articles will vary widely--they are each of them individually notable. . I dont see how dependence on the University makes one bit of difference-- the Medical School, etc., at a university usually also wouldnt exist separately, but the major divisions of a university are notable in their own right. DGG (talk) 00:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the double vote, I was coming back a day later & forgot. DGG (talk) 05:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to DGG: Figure out how to spell my name. Student union and organizations are not notable unless they are affiliated by a national network participating in several universities nationwide, like a fraternity/sorority. Since a university's student union is part of the university and cannot survive as an article by itself, it is not notable. Yes, a medical school or department (or in UK, a faculty) may not be notable IF the medical school does not have valid notability, such as having their own hospital, medical research facility, or so forth. Refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florida Institute of Technology/College of Engineering. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 01:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
bad move, that one. I think we should try to reverse it. Since it ended up as a unilateral editing decision, that wont take a Deletion Review. Consider the size that the article on a major university would be! But I agree with you about fraternity and sorority chapters, student clubs, and almost all academic departments. they are third-order, and should be lumped together. First-order divisions, like Colleges (in the US sense of academic divisions of Universities) are another matter. If the Wikiproject has been advocating nonsense like this, it may need broader participation. I can see why it would have been bothered by the influx of fragmentary articles, but the solution is not to go overboard in the opposite direction. Since every medical school I have ever head of runs a hospital, you may not have picked a good example just above. 06:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
You haven't seen every single medical school though. That really isn't the point. If you believe that the policy is unreasonable, this is not the place to argue policy. Please move your argument to the article guidelines discussion. As for this article, until the article guidelines gets a major overhaul, this article will still be as is, not notable. If, later on, the article guidelines allow student unions/organizations to be reinstated, I'm sure this university's (and many many countless other universities') student union pages will return. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 09:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't almost all student union's in the UK affiliated to the National Union of Students? I also think you are confusing the US definition of student union with the UK's definition. Please take a look at Students' Union for more information. As you can see, there is no such thing as a fraternity or sorority in the UK.
Comment They are, although Southampton is currently one of the few exceptions (having pulled out in 2002). Mind you Imperial have just joined after being out for over twenty years... There does seem to be some confusion on this - it also doesn't help when people use the term "student organisation" when that is a redirect to student society which a UK SU definitely doesn't come under. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can't see the benefit of deleting articles about Student Unions. It is impossible to create a catch all article as each student union is run in a different way and have different policies. This discussion would be far better served by having it on all student unions and not individual discussion. There has already been an AfD discussion for SOAS Students' Union that reached no consensus, and I feel that the current AfDs will reach the same conclusion. Andy Hartley (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I did consider creating one AfD for the lot, but wasn't sure, and as per the guidelines for creating AfD's "...if you are unsure of whether to bundle an article or not, do not". You state "...each student union is run in a different way and have different policies". Well, not really. Granted there are slight variations here and there, and there are one or two unions that are just run in a completely different mannor that probably are notable enough for their own article, but on the whole all SUs are pretty much the same. There's pretty much nothing that differentiates one SU from the next, and I've made very sure that I've only nominated those that don't appear to have anything particularly notable about them. There are others that I may nominate, depending on the outcome of these few, but equally there are others that I won't nominate, 'cause I feel that they are notable enough to satisfy WP:N. TheIslander 23:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Deletionism is possibly the greatest threat to Wikipedia. Per User:Andymmu's argument i can't see the arbitary rejection of every SU article as benefiting the encyclopedic nature of wikipedia Francium12 (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not sure how satisfaction of WP:N and WP:ORG is arbitrary. Not all SU articles should be deleted - some do satisfy Wiki policies, but most do not. I get the impression (but I could be completely off base because I'm American) that there has been historical inclusion of SUs in Wiki due to lack of AfDs and as a result many people feel that this sudden interest in deleting them is unwarranted. I encourage everyone to check out arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. —Noetic Sage 03:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hopefully the last one... Once again, ladies and gentlemen, please be objective on the issue at hand, the argument that this article should be deleted is based off of lack of individual notability as well as a direct conflict with WP:UNI's article guidelines. I suggest editors who want to keep this article not battle out on policy viewpoints, as it really doesn't help this article's AfD progress. Instead, if you really want to see this article survive, add more substantial references that would in fact substantiate this article's individual notability instead. Constructive debate is always encouraged, but this type of stalemate "well...too bad" arguments are really getting sad. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 08:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Given the policy on deletion, rightly or wrongly, suggests that all UK student unions should be deleted the discussion is therefore on whether Southampton is notable enough to be saved. I note that Oxford University Students' Union (OUSU) is not proposed for deletion, despite being smaller, younger and far less active in the lives of Oxford Students than Southampton (SUSU). (note that comments above have confused OUSU with the famous, older, and more significant Oxford Union - the debating society). So what are the criteria for escaping deletion? It isn't based on age as Southampton predates OUSU by over half a century. It certainly isn't based on size, either, as OUSU is far smaller than SUSU, in turnover, staff, involvement in funding student activities and so on. Looking at the OUSU article, it contains a total of two (minimal) references, and yet is surviving the chop? Looking at another Union, Nottingham Union, a comparable Union at a comparable University also seems to have survived the chop, despite a minimal number of references in their article. Almost every Union is notable in some way. In the case of Southampton, they still stand out as the biggest English University to NOT be a member of the NUS (National Union of Students). That suggests a notability (notoriety???) that makes it worthy of a separate wikipedia page. In this regard it would be interesting to see this point developed more in the article. Finally, I don't get the impression that the decision for proposal for deletion was a very objective one, certainly as no criteria seems to have been presented for discussion. It seems to be down to the less-than-objective criteria applied by TheIslander: "There are others that I may nominate, depending on the outcome of these few, but equally there are others that I won't nominate, 'cause I feel that they are notable enough to satisfy WP:N." I say keep this article, but improve it. --Sce1313 (talk) 10:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sigh... I guess that wasn't my last comment... I love it when people respond to my thread, yet they don't read my thread before posting. It is truly remarkable. Sce1313, I don't know who you are, but taking consideration of the many sock puppets surrounding this AfD, I cannot assume good faith and consider you a unique user until proven otherwise. Sock puppet or not, you still are arguing over policy, something I just mentioned not to do...because it doesn't change the outcome of the AfD. Just focus on getting more notable sources to counter the WP:N part of the argument and let the closing admin decide. OK? I'm tired of hearing the same reiterations over and over again (it's almost like the Wikipedia users who want to keep this article are thinking in a collective...perhaps SUSU has a Borg hive?... which brings me to the conclusion that many of the voters who have nominated to keep is actually the same person) Note to the closing admin I strongly suggest you check the IP logs, etc to authenticate the voters on this AfD in particular to double-check the use of sock puppets. Thanks. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 10:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Firstly, I realised I hadn't voted. Secondly, I'm not a sock puppet, as any admin will be able to see from the IP logs. Indeed at least one of the names on the posts above I recognise, and can easily be found by googling, as a well known Student Union hack who has no direct connection with Southampton! Thirdly, I still don't see the objective criteria that the proposer implies, as I illustrated with my comparisons of SU articles. In my experience being involved at 4 students' unions in the UK from the very best Universities to the decidedly mediocre, and in quite different capacities, I fail to see how the proposer is applying the objective requirements of WP:N. It just seems to me that this is an unwinnable argument when the porposer will not state their criteria. Finally, my apologies for offending the admins on Wikipedia, but not everyone has copious free time to learn all of the nuances of wikipedia policy and practice, but we're willing to learn from those with the patience to help, rather than patronise us, less experienced users. --Sce1313 (talk) 13:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can assure User:Jamesontai that I am also not a sock puppet. More to the point, I have never been to Southampton in my life! But I also want to ask, at what point do student unions come under WP:UNI? They aren't universities or institutes of higher education. They are (in the UK) legally defined as independent of their parent institutions. WikiProject Universities say in their first paragraph that they aim to improve coverage of universities and colleges, it says nothing about student unions other than they should be mentioned under a heading like Student life. The policy of which you speak is only a provisional guideline, and one that is under dispute. Andy (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment - I diagree with a comment which has been made in this AfD. However as an unregistered user I don't know the best way to contest it. Do I...

a) Own the page. Write a comment as long as War and Peace to prove the admin that closes this that I must be right b) Discredit everything everyone else says by refering to the Arguments to Avoid in Votes for Deletion regardless of an arguments quality c) Oh dear, its not a vote but if it was I would be losing - must be hundreds of sockpuppets! d) Stick to a wikipedia policy so strictly that I risk falling foul of Don't be a dick' 137.222.229.74 (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now A somewhat longwinded position, in the hope of bringing this in some direction (and also not from a sock-puppet either). I admit this is a bit stepping onto the broader policy areas, but I think this is needed. There are a mixture of problems flying around this AFD, of which one of the main ones is whether or not there is something such as inherent notability, and if there is whether or not students' unions (on the UK model) qualify.

On the basic concept of inherent notability I think there generally is agreement that some subjects are automatically notable and each individual article doesn't need to "[assert] notability through external links to credible independant sources" although it does help (and cited sources are useful for fact checking). Picking one utterly unrelated example at random, there aren't yet any cited on the article for George Gardiner (politician) (who was the Member of Parliament for the area nextdoor to where I grew up) but the article gives an indication as to why he qualifies - former member of a national legislature. That article has not yet been proposed for AFD but I think any attempt would have a snowball's chance in Hell. This is primarily because for that subject area the idea that all members of national legislatures (or at the very least of the UK House of Commons) are inherently notable is generally shared across Wikipedia.

With students' unions I think a big part of the problem is a lack of agreement as to whether there is inherent notability for them. This I think has contributed to the lack of cited sources actually asserting it (along with the fact that in my experience many of the SU articles have been worked on by less experienced Wikipedia users who don't always know the basics of policy; it also doesn't help that some obvious internal and external sources ranging from SU minutes to back issues of the local papers are often not easily accessible) as many of those working on the articles don't immediately realise the need for them (and often by the time they do, an AFD is stacking up making it seem like a waste of time to try at this stage). It's almost one of those "if you know the subject area well the notability is obvious to you; if you don't it isn't" (although sweeping generalisations never encompass everyone) and we're getting into minutae as whether SUSU is notable on the bais of currently being "the largest SU not in the NUS" (it's not unless Open University Students Association has just joined) as a quick substitute for a process of encouraging the articles to get sorted out.

Now WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is one of the easiest arguments to invoke in an AFD discussion, but I think that term is overused. In particular it shouldn't be asserted when someone cites another article on a very similar subject - to give an example from this discussion, the article Oxford University Student Union doesn't have any external sources either and when such similar subjects have had articles for a considerable period of time and not come in for AFD it does make people wonder about the objective criteria (especially as the OUSU article is easily reachable from the SUSU one by both the Aldwych Group template and the category). This is probably one where a group nomination would have been better than only having some articles up for individual discussion. It could also help guide the drafting of the policy which is provoking concern in the various debates.

I can't immediately spot whether anyone has previously tagged the article with comments about the need to assert notability through sources, and there's certainly nothing on the talk page. So my suggestion for now is 1). do not delete this article (and the others up for AFD); 2) put a clear suggestion/request about notability and sources on the talk page that explains it rather better than some of the templates that don't always scream "THIS ARTICLE MAY BE DELETED IF IT DOESN'T GET THIS"; and 3) try and get an actual policy in place on the inherent notability issue rather than just a current proposal. Then the outcomes of either 2) or 3) will give a better position for a way forward that can command consensus. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Quick response to Timrollpickering. The issue here is not WP:CITE or anything with references, it is WP:N and WP:ORG. A lot of these AfD'd articles don't even establish notability in the text of the article. If these SUs were notable wouldn't the creators of the page at least say why when it's created (even if it's not accompanied by a reference)? Perhaps not because they are new to Wikipedia, which is fine. But that is still no reason to keep the articles. —Noetic Sage 03:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well the problem with that assumption is that you're overlooking that many of the article creators are, I suspect, assuming that a students' union is automatically notable, and so if they are aware of the need for notability they assume the article does assert it by definition - hence the reason why this debate keeps coming back to policy. And CITE is a side effect but often articles that are backing up the facts with decent citations are usually generating assertions of notability through independent sources by default. IMHO very few articles actually say "the subject is notable because..." but usually the citations do some of the job for them. Timrollpickering (talk) 04:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What you think is not what it is. As much as you want to defend the student union, it still does not establish notability and fails the WP:ORG guidelines. Let's put it this way, sure, we have guidelines for university related articles for WP:UNI. It says student organizations are not notable unless there is significant proof with references (not just that the organization exists, but why it is notable). Remember: I was the one who suggested in one of many AfDs revolving this same issue to establish SUSU as an independent organization separate from our Universities Guidelines, yet no one has improved upon the article to show that. It still fails both WP:N as well as WP:ORG. Editors defending this article were urged (many times) to find proof, yet it was not done. And don't forget, we're editors that can edit any article inside and outside of our WikiProjects we participate in. I do new pages patrol alongside many (countless) other editors, which means it involves me patroling a myriad of articles that come through. Right now the issue at hand isn't sock puppetry if the users are different people, it is the original issue at hand: notability. Notability still isn't established, and the defending editors keep whining but the article isn't being properly improved to survive the AfD. Let's put it this way, I'm tired of this discussion, and I'm sure whoever the closing admin is will have a nightmare reading all of this (to the admin: much sympathy for you). If you want this article alive, I suggest notability be established ASAP so we can all get on with our lives. I look forward to deleting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southampton University Students' Union from my watchlist. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 04:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said above, the term "student organization" is an especially unhelpful term when that's a redirect to "student society", an article which (implicitly) says it does not encompass students' unions and only further confuses the matter. And also it's not a guideleine but a proposed guideline - invoking proposed policy as holy writ in AFDs, especially when the specific part of the proposed policy is under discussion, is not conducive to consensus. Getting the notability sorted out is, I agree, a key point (and one best handled by those who know where to look, although if they're going to spot these comments I'd be very surprised) but I do reiterate that very often the first time a lot of more causual Wikipedia users see that there is a problem and that notability is challenged is an AFD debate filling up with "deletes" - where prior to the initiation of the AFD was it raised on the article/talk page that inherent notability isn't automatically assumed for SUs and that it needed to be asserted individually? As for digging up sources I'll have a go (although as it's the last week of term at many UK universities this may take a bit of time) but I think the wider issues need to be thrashed out rather than having the same debate umpteen times and getting precedent all over the place. Timrollpickering (talk) 04:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Off Topic Comment By the way...any chance Southampton University will change its name to the Southampton Institute of Technology? (Referring to the movie, if you don't get it, the forget I said anything) - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 04:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Off topic reply IMHO absolutely not. "Southampton Institute" is the short form of the old name for Southampton Solent University. From what I've seen, Southampton Uni people would never do something that could lead to the two being confused. Timrollpickering (talk) 04:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, have you seen Accepted? I know... it's Southampton, not South Harmon, but the connection is still there... lol - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 04:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah not seen that movie - but you've probably not heard the way some Soton people referr to to Solent as "the Dimstitute", which is why I doubt such a suggestion would ever be remotely considered. Timrollpickering (talk) 04:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, watch the movie when you get a chance (remember it's American English, so use closed captioning... lol it's a trick I picked up from watching Top Gear on BBC America...hahaha), see the movie and you'll smack the next person who will EVER suggest a rename to Southampton Institute of Technology. :D - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 04:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Considering the breadth of this discussion would the village pump be a more appropriate venue? It also needs to be said that as SU's are different in different countries any guidelines should be specific to that. --Nate1481( t/c) 11:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Jameson L. Tai suggests that editors should improve the article to prevent it being deleted, but why would anyone waste time editing an article that is, according to the wikipedia policy, automatically non-notable. What a waste of an editor's time! The wikipedia masters need to decide what the policy is: if all this article needs is references, remove the deletion tag, put a tag requiring references and we can then "put the effort into actually improving the articles rather than silly discussions about deleting them" (quoting from my first post on this page...). --Sce1313 (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point of information 1 - Southampton University Students' Union (SUSU) is actually a charity under English law (I don't remember which one). It's not a trade union. Dedkenny66 (talk) 02:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point of information 2 - From a NPOV, I'm definitely sure that SUSU is going very strong out side the NUS (National Union of Students). Dedkenny66 (talk) 02:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Considering this article for deletion is laughable (from a NPOV). Keep This article needs time to be improved. Dedkenny66 (talk) 02:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestions taken to the letter I'm glad people are actually reading some of my comments, but I distinctly remember suggesting editors to either improve the article so that it wouldn't be deleted or else my vote would be to delete. Wikipedia does not need to rewrite their policy to suit your individual needs. The world does not revolve around you (surprise!) and established policies, including WP:N and WP:ORG both have reached consensus by a majority of Wikipedia editors. I'll once again try to steer this AfD back on track, but seeing how people only read parts of what I write and take them out of context, I don't see how this will work. But here it is anyways, this is a AfD, not RfC on notabilty guidelines. Please focus your comments on the article. Thank you. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 04:45, 13 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, with no bias against re-creation in the future, should reliable third party sources be found to establish notability. Pastordavid (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wessex Scene[edit]

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

Completely non-notable students' radio station. Article asserts no notability through external links to independant sources, and thus fails WP:N. TheIslander 22:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge into the Main university article, along with the Student Union article (See nom above). Man from the Ministry (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge Notable, but I think the content is more valuable presented in the university article, which looks like it could use some improvements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NickPenguin (talk • contribs) 05:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn. I nominated this article for deletion in good faith, as it did indeed seem non-notable to me. However, from the comments below it is clear that this is not the case, so I withdraw my nomination, and appologise for any inconvinience caused. Non-admin closure. TheIslander 23:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SURGE 1287AM[edit]

Completely non-notable students' radio station. Article asserts no notability through external links to independant sources, and thus fails WP:N. TheIslander 22:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Marginal keep and rewrite. This LP station has history and a part-time city-wide FM signal. Some 3rd party sources added. Article still needs better sourcing and a rewrite for NPOV. If article survives AfD, I suggest moving it to "Surge 1287AM," as the station calls itself. • Gene93k (talk) 04:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep and improve. While the article can still be improved, references have been added including several legitimate awards. --Rtphokie (talk) 13:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - This article asserts notability as the subject is award-winning and serves a significant populated area as a licensed broadcast station. The article could stand some rewriting but that's no cause for deletion. - Dravecky (talk) 14:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been listed on the talk page for WikiProject Universities. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been listed on the talk page for WikiProject Radio Stations. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While improvements can be made here, the standard for inclusion of student radio stations is no different than the standard for inclusion of commercial radio stations; that is, the fact that it's a student radio station is not, in and of itself, a deletion criterion or an automatic mark of non-notability. This one seems notable enough to me, and several independent references are present. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Fair points, I hadn't thought of them. However, strike the word 'student' from my initial comments, and the rest still apply. Is a radio station inherently notable? I doubt it, and if so, what makes one notable? I still feel that this station lacks notability. TheIslander 00:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC
      • Comment Yes, radio stations are generally considered inherently notable. There are some caveats to that. It must be licensed (which isn't a problem here). Also, it must be producing it's own content, stations which simple rebroadcast 24/7 a signal originating elsewhere aren't notable to warrent their own pages and should be covered on the page pertaining to their parent station (which also isn't a problem here). Student radio and even low power radio stations, as long as they are active, licensed and have enough of an audience (such as the college campus in this case) are notable enough for Wikipedia.--Rtphokie (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While this is a low-power station, it has apparently been in operation for nearly 25 years, and has won some awards. Some references have been added and given the long operating history presumably many more could be found. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:06, 9 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 Placebo Effect (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Armstrong (Home and Away)[edit]

Brad Armstrong (Home and Away) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fictional characters from Home and Away with no verifiable sources showing real-world notability, following the precedents set at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ric Dalby (second nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matilda Hunter (2nd nomination). Please review the arguments made in those discussions before repeating them here. Pak21 (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination includes:

  • Delete all - They lack WP:RS to satisfy WP:FICT, and are mostly just plot synopses or fancruft... please note also the following related articles that have been PRODed:
I would recommend that the closing admin also check to see if they have expired yet, or should someone add them to this AfD? Happy Editing! —72.75.89.38 (talk · contribs) 07:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all (that does not apply to the four above). Fictional characters are notable, and like characters for EastEnders and Coronation Street, they should be covered. Yes these articles need working on, but that is no reason for deletion. Also, deleting them, without even a redirect, is making Wikipedia a worse place (I always why editors nominate these pages, you may not like them, but they do no harm. There are many pages I don't like and think are unnecessary, but I don't go round AfD-ing them. I prefer to improve and create articles, not destroy other people's hard work, why don't you spend your time doing this?). If a page were to be created where all the characters could be on one page, with a little about each one, that would be good, but just deleting them you lose all information. Instead of deleting, we need to work on them and were necessary merge to a big article. And when I say merge I mean actually merge, not just create a redirect with merge information.--UpDown (talk) 08:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All per the IP above. These articles do not appear to have any secondary sources to verify them or indicate notability. Lankiveil (talk) 09:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Redirect all to either a List of Home and Away characters or to the main Home and Away article (especially, those characters where(home and away) isn't part of the article name).Garrie —Preceding comment was added at 12:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all no real world sources showing notability outside of the soap. RMHED (talk) 14:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - not notable and no real world sources.--Grahame (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The Matilda Hunter article is being deletion reviewed. Auroranorth (!) 01:37, 8 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 due to notability not being temporary. Davewild (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chrismahanukwanzakah[edit]

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

I nominated this page for deletion 2 years ago and it survived, I still think it was a neologism and and advertisement for Virgin Mobile and believe that no one uses it anymore. CastAStone//(talk) 21:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Google refs seem to be from 2004 and 2005. If it was ever notable, it isn't now. JohnCD (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Gtstricky (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- It is a made up holiday Frog47 (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It did get some media coverage from major sources and all that, keeping per all the statements in the original nom nom nom ViperSnake151 23:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While the term began only as an advertisement, it is now a notable meme. The argument if it was ever notable, it isn't now isn't correct because notability isn't something that comes and goes; if it's ever notable, it's always notable. The argument that no one uses the term anymore isn't correct because the term was used at least by the University of Cincinnati student newspaper as recently as 3 December 2007. WODUP 01:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Various articles in newspapers and on the internet establish notability. See [15], [16]. --Hdt83 Chat 06:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Granted, the original use was for the purpose of advertisement, the term has come to embody the universal spirit of celebration that occurs during this specific time of the year. My friends and I use it as a title for our December celebration when we come together across religious and cultural boundaries to embrace the spirit of togetherness that is shared by all religions and cultures. In response to a previous comment that states Chrismahanukwanzakah is a made up holiday, all holidays are made up, usually substituting prior holidays and mythology with newer ideologies. So how is this any different or any less valid? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.147.205 (talk) 09:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. CastaStone and JohnCD seem unaware that notability does not expire. Having been notable in the past is sufficient; 99% of Wikipedia is things that have been notable in the past. Second, this is a campaign that received news coverage and won an EFFIE award, so it's notable as advertising apart from whatever notability the concept of a mixed-up holiday may have going forward. --Dhartung | Talk 12:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Its primary notability is as advertising, and should be documented as such. It is also a neologism that has been adopted into popular vernacular, although I find no external sources on OneLook for it yet (meaning that it probably hasn't been adopted by any notable dictionaries yet). Banazir (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As mentioned above, notability certainly does not degrade over time. Lawrence Cohen 16:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Do they celebrate this holiday in Philiwarepragicago? :) Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepIt's been adopted into the language as a humorous reference to what was once the Christmas season now expanded to include other practices besides the traditional Christian holiday. Virgil61 (talk) 08:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Dhartung and Lawrence Cohen - notability does not expire. NRTurner (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I see only the 04 ABV story and some web references. If there are more RSs,add them to the article. It is claimed to be into the vernacular, but it is said above that there are no sources for this yet. DGG (talk) 08:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Chrismukkah. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As noted above, current notability is not necessarily relevant; at the very least, the subject was notable 2-3 years ago.--GregRM (talk) 02:40, 11 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 03:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mims-Pianka controversy[edit]

Mims-Pianka controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable tempest in the creation/evolution blogosphere, only 329 hits at google. CruftCutter (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Can be covered (and is) in the main subjects article. Gtstricky (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable and interesting. Google hits, although an interesting method of determining interest, are not the only thing that matters. Well, Joshua makes a good argument too! OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The article as currently written has 16 sources. Now some of those used are blogs, but by my estimate 12 of the sources are reliable sources. Furthermore, even before we get to the irrelevancy of google hit numbers there are many google hits not covered by the above google search. For example, googling without the hyphen turns up many additional sources (many overlapping), and simply googling for Mims+Pianka turns up even more sources. And a search of google news shows many additional reliable sources even beyond those used in the article, as seen here which include Fox News, the Boston Globe, and CBS. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Joshua. Guettarda (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia's notability guideline tells us "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Articles in the mainstream media are secondary sources, and these 18 [17] show it is a notable enough topic to warrant an article and it characterization as a "non-notable tempest in the creation/evolution blogosphere" by the nom is flat wrong. Furthermore, his search engine test for notability is poorly formed for both search terms and operators and so gives a misleadingly low number of hits. A properly formed search engine test would be Mims + Pianka which returns 9100 + hits, rather that his "Mims-Pianka+controversy". FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Non-trivial coverage in a number of reliable secondary sources. spryde | talk 14:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable; was notable, will remain notable. Notability does not degrade over time. Lawrence Cohen 16:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Filll (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reasonably well-sourced. I would call it notable. Tim Ross·talk 01:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Astrosociobiology[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism, article created by the originator, no use outside of originator's personal definition. Michaelbusch (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have removed the section on Wikipedia editing from George Dvorsky, since it isn't really that notable - and links almost entirely to deleted pages. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Good argument, Uncle G. The blog you mention seems to have quite a bit of 'looky me, I made up a word' to it (on Dvorsky's part as well as others), which if allowed to propagate, can only lead to bad things. If what the nom said is the case re: use outside Wikipedia, then not understanding the term is hardly cause for holding on to it. This should be discouraged by a speedy delete and a weeding out of other such terms in this blog (as appropriate, of course). Psinu (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant delete—While at first glance the article seems decently well put together, I could find no evidence that this is an actual scientific discipline. A "speculative scientific study" almost seems like a contradiction. This is more like reasoned philosophy than testable science.—RJH (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and other comments. I don't have much to add. It's an exemplar of neological original research, and the content doesn't even have much in common with the neologism. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, trimming and moving to a new title if necessary. A big chunk of the material currently in this article was ported over from Kardashev scale, which had nothing to do with the originator of this article. Why shouldn't we have an article about the general concept of theoretical work on extraterrestrial intelligence? It's a subject that's been treated seriously in other sources and we do have some references already. Bryan Derksen (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not the question. The question is "Why shouldn't we have an article on astrosociobiology?". And the answer to that question is that, contrary to what the article claims, there is no such field of scientific study. You'll find no schools or universities teaching courses in it, and no-one publishing books, papers, or articles in it. It's an entirely fictitious field of endeavour — the product of one man making things up in the shower. That editors have over the intervening period added a hodge-podge of content taken from various other articles (Kardashev scale isn't the only one. Several other articles have been copied wholesale into this one.) into a single article that is about a non-existent field of study, with no possible coherent goal in mind for how these subjects are joined up in the literature (because there is no literature), is classic original research. If these topics indeed do belong together under the umbrella of extraterrestrial intelligence, then extraterrestrial intelligence is where they should be, not here. Uncle G (talk) 02:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, contrary to what Dvorsky claims, he didn't actually invent the entire concept himself. The very fact that later editors have found a whole bunch of additional content and sources to add to this is evidence of that. And if this stuff does belong in extraterrestrial intelligence (I have no objection to a merge myself) then that's definitely a keep situation because we can't legally merge and delete. Bryan Derksen (talk) 02:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You can if the content was taken from other articles in the first place, which much of this content was. I've already pointed you to the edit where you yourself took content wholesale from another article. Deleting this article doesn't prevent a merger from the original articles that the content came from.

          And your reasoning is invalid. The fact that later editors found a whole bunch of additional content means nothing, because that content is on a range of disparate subjects. Editors have found zero sources on the subject of astrosociobiology. (I challenge you to point to even one source, apart from Dvorsky who made the idea up, on the subject. I also challenge you to cite a source showing that someone other than Dvorsky made up the concept of astrosociobiology. I've pointed to him saying outright that he did. You need to prove your claim that someone else invented this concept. I've actually done research on this, and I've found no-one else. Please demonstrate how you know that someone else did.) The content defining the methodologies and assumptions of the field is all simply made up, by Dvorsky himself (see Dvorsky's initial version of the article, which is a simple elaboration of his web log posting), in the shower as he said.

          The additional content, what there actually is of it, is editors subsequently adding to the article, assuming that what was previously there was correct. The sources used by those editors, when they have used them at all, have been on the subjects of the Intelligence Principle and megatrajectory — which this article is simply duplicating. And that is how this article has arisen: a mish-mash of other article content copied and pasted here, along with a whole bunch of original research, defining a field of science that does not exist outside of Wikipedia as an introduction and basis. Uncle G (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

          • I don't really think it matters who coined the term since it's a hodgepodge of pre-existing terms, however the material could be related to a storytelling term for creating a possible extraterrestrial culture in a fictional universe, the sort of thing that happens in videogames, comics, and cartoons all the time.--Lichtlied (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The point is that he didn't just coin the name, he also invented the whole idea, and then came here and wrote up his invention. Uncle G (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • And bragged about it to the world (or at least some portion of it). I'm totally with Michaelbusch on this one... drag it (and its co-conspirator terms as appropriate) behind the barn and kill it. Psinualways forgetsto sign 19:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please end this. The problem is not 'could this word mean something'. It is 'this word is not used by anyone' and the article was created for the sole purpose of promoting something Dvorsky thought up while taking a shower. Michaelbusch (talk) 02:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • And so the problem would be completely solved if we just 'moved the article to a different name', therefore no longer using the forbidden neologism, yes? Bryan Derksen (talk) 07:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • No. Because it would still be an article about something that doesn't exist outside of Wikipedia. There's simply no such field of scientific study as the article claims, and what the article says about the field of study is a wholesale invention. Uncle G (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • But again, it's not. A lot of the stuff in the article is referenced, it's from sources other than Dvorsky. Bryan Derksen (talk) 10:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete A concept and word invented by Dvorsky for the purpose of inserting it into wikipedia, used by nobody else anywahere. The subject matter is covered in full by other articles. DGG (talk) 08:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not really, as content was moved from some of those articles to this one. Bryan Derksen (talk) 10:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bryan, enough. If you are going to vote, please do so. But be aware that there is nothing in this article that doesn't already exist elsewhere. All Dvorsky did was to think up a word, make a plausible definition, and then cobble together an article out of pieces of other articles, such as astrobiology and SETI. Based on the above, do we have consensus for deletion? Michaelbusch (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If there was ever a place where no original research applied this is it. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per cogent arguments of Michaelbusch, ScienceApologist, DGG, and others above. Tim Ross·talk 01:17, 11 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. The Placebo Effect (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Periphery (BattleTech)[edit]

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

This fictional entity has no out-of-universe information and no real-world notability. It does not satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). I am also nominating the following related pages, which detail fictional entities in the Periphery, for the same reason:

Bandit Kingdoms (BattleTech) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Circinus Federation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lothian League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Magistracy of Canopus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mica Majority (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Niops Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Oberon Confederation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Taurian Concordat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pagrashtak 21:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've started to condense material from the subordinate articles into the main Periphery page. Huwmanbeing ★ 14:04, 8 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. There is no consensus to delete the article at this time, but I do note that there does seem to be a consensus that this article is in need of major editing and contains a strong element of original research and POV. I also note that this AFD is rife with irregularities, including movement of editor's comments and the comments to the effect that this is somehow a "vote". I'm sure this was all done in good faith, but it wasn't particularly helpful to sorting through this mess and the parties responsible are strongly cautioned to not do this in the future. Those irregularities alone nearly made me relist this for another, cleaner AFD and I would say this close is without prejudice against another AFD at some point if the core issues here are not sufficiently addressed.--Isotope23 talk 17:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms[edit]

Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Closing Admin: Please see the talk page of this AfD for additional yakkity yak about this nomination, including some votes that will inevitably get lost in all the discussion that doesn't belong here. AvruchTalk 04:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I am proposing that this article be deleted because of A7, and possible G5.

It appears to be a transparent attempt to boost the image of the group calling itself Messianic Jews (henceforth: MJ) by means of presenting it on equal footing with Christianity and Judaism.

It has been argued on the article's talk page that using MJ helps to illustrate differences and commonalities between Christianity and Judaism. I would contend that the Christianity and Judaism article does this sufficiently, and this article is redundant at best.

MJ is a fringe group which is rejected (often with much venom) by all Jewish groups, and is looked askance at by many Christian groups as well. Those which support it do so as part of missionary efforts.

In short, MJ is more of a tactic than a group, and to the extent that it is a group, it is a marginal one, and does not merit being set on an equal level with Christianity and Judaism. LisaLiel (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions[edit]

Please place your vote here with a brief description of your reasoning. If you wish to use a lengthy rebuttal, please take it to the talk page or use a {{hidden begin|title=''See replies to this vote''|toggle=left}} TYPE COMMENTS HERE {{end hidden}}. Please keep all further replies within the previous tag.

The first 11 votes have been extracted from lengthy comments and discussions. Please see the talk page for complete reasonings.

Please note: as votes change - the most recent vote is often below in the comment section - users are not updating this vote summary consistently:

  • Strong Keep - Egfrank (talk) 22:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC) - [ though for reasons described below (see User:DGG vote comments) I believe the neutral terms column should be removed. Egfrank (talk) 09:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)]. - problem column is in the process of being has been removed.Egfrank (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • article provides useful roadmap through a large number of religious terms and links to their associated articles
  • article covers notable concern of Jewish and interfaith leaders - see article intro
  • changes have been made to address many of the issues raised in this AfD - how does one reliably interpret the votes made prior to those changes?
  • article is verifiable - multiple sources available - see talk
  • article is actively under construction - sources are being added every day
  • nominator appears to be using AfD to resolve edit dispute (see WP#Discussion). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egfrank (talk • contribs) 20:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: The person nominating the AfD is actively making changes to the page she is trying to have deleted. That, if nothing else, should invalidate the request. It's much easier to disrupt a page you want destroyed than to improve a page you want kept. Although many valuable entries have been made by the nominator, there is a definite conflict of interest involved, and Wikipedia should be above that.Tim (talk) 00:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Invalid deletion reason -- Lisa writes "It appears to be a transparent attempt to boost the image of the group calling itself . . .Tim (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See replies to this vote
Disagree: It's true that I'm making changes. This is because no AfD is a sure thing, and if the article is not deleted, I want to minimize the damage done to (or by) it. That's not a conflict of interest. -LisaLiel (talk) 00:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly suggest the nominator's reasons for deletion be reviewed -- a primary being that this is some kind of promotional ploy for Messianics. That is obviously false, since there aren't even any Messianics contributing to the page. As long as that charge exists, I'll know that the reasons for the AfD aren't sincere.Tim (talk) 01:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please put your comments on the talk page, and kindly refrain from making personal accusations here. The page will stand or fall on its own merits, or lack thereof. Trying to preserve it by attacking me isn't going to impress anyone. -LisaLiel (talk) 01:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try -- the charge of insincereity is yours. It's only fair to point out that your charge of my starting an insincere promitional ploy is itself insincere. Please remove the insincere charge of insincerity.Tim (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Actively making changes to an article you nominate does not invalidate your nomination. It is simply using good faith to help others save an article that otherwise might need to be deleted. A vote for keeping should not be made based on the nominators intentions unless you are accusing them of trolling, which is a serious accusation. 15:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)--EnhancedDownloadBird (Upload) -
Comment -- WP:NOT#DICT does not apply to glossaries. See Portal:Contents/List_of_glossaries --EnhancedDownloadBird (Upload) - 20:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Java7837 (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Despite its references almost completely WP:NOR, leaving alone the egregious WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT violation by suggesting messianism is on equal footing with Judaism and Christianity. Not salvageable in any form, IMO. JFW | T@lk 21:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. A glossary of commonly used terms in Judaism and Christianity with links to longer terms has the potential to be a valuable guide. The original research can be removed. Capitalistroadster (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mikka. AvruchTalk 19:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC) Obvious keep - G5? Banned user? Bwuh? I don't understand the usage of CSD criteria in the nom. In any event, undue weight etc. are content concerns, not reasons for deletion. AvruchTalk 01:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per WP:NOT#OR and WP:NOT#DIR. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: A clear case of promoting a fringe group and attempting to use Wikipedia to make it seem more mainstream. -LisaLiel (talk) 03:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A lot of invalid reasons for removal based in part on unsourced OR and misapplication of NOTs/NOs. WP:NOT#DICT/DIR, WP:WEIGHT not applicable to multi-religious phenomenons, WP:POV/NOR not applicable to entire article, etc. etc. -Bikinibomb (talk) 03:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, the undue weight given here in objections to the includance of Messianic Judaism as a qualifiable Abrahamic faith , are precisely the reason for qualifiable includance .Pilotwingz (talk) 07:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Content fork with promotional original research. -- Olve (talk) 13:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, very useful list explaining allot more in-debt that just a mere dictionary the terminology and its basic meaning, in the Judaic-Cristian faith that shaped and formed so much of our existence. Very encyclopedic indeed. Although i would add more sources it should not read like OR--יודל (talk) 13:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, review in a couple of months. Article appears to be being heavily worked on, and has already been substantially improved. Especially with the deletion of the "neutral" column, this is already a substantially different article to the one which was nominated. Article shows potential for further improvement, and to become a valuable encyclopedic resource. It's a serious article, increasingly better referenced. Let's see where the editors can take it. It doesn't deserve to be strangled at birth. Jheald (talk) 13:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See replies to this vote
    • Note Article could perhaps be renamed to "Glossary of Messianic Judaism terms, in comparison with Christian and Jewish usage", or some such. It could then no longer be accused of over-representing the importance of MJ; rather, this would be natural, in an article specifically examining MJ. Such an article would be valuable. Alternatively other ways could be found to reduce the profile of MJ - eg by renaming the MJ column "Others", and including along with it other sects, when these have distinctive views. Either way, the editors should be given some scope to fix this. Jheald (talk) 13:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I support Jhead's proposed renaming. It addresses the undo weight issue; the editors should be given time to address the OR issues.--agr (talk) 15:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Renaming is not a big deal, I just don't feel real warm and fuzzy about manipulating article structures for the specific purpose of pushing editor POVs that MJ is lesser in "value" than C/J, Judaism is lesser than Christianity, etc. Article cites with adherent numbers should really be used to express factual majority/minority status, plus WP:NOT#DIR, WEIGHT, etc. issues are already addressed in the article introduction by presenting MJ as a phenomenon intersecting with C/J. But at this point, whatever it takes. -Bikinibomb (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not a glossary, this is a full-blown exegesis. And its long descriptions combine into one long multi-fork, with all its problems: difficulty of maintenance of several texts, problems with synchronization and POV subtleties. Each term must be treated in a carefully referenced way in a single place, which is its own article. `'Míkka>t 19:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Mikka above correctly points out that this is exegesis. It's also POV--the selection of terms for a "glossary" implicitly comments on one person's perspective of what the points of conflict or dispute are between these faiths. If this were written out in prose, it would be apparent that those points would need references & cites. This article simply attempts to route around that problem by presenting the information in tabular form and calling it a glossary. --Lquilter (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The detailed discussions on the talk page amply demonstrate why this is not an appropriate article for Wikipedia. This is not a matter of simply trying to figure out whether something is reliably sourced; the discussions are amounting to doctrinal discussions. Massive amounts of citations on all sides will be adduced which further highlights Mikka's point that each one of these items really should be a separate article to be addressed adequately per WP guidelines. Again, the tabular format attempts to disguise the conceptual difficulties here. Tables should not be used for substantive content, and this article is a beautiful example of how doing so can be so entirely problematic. --Lquilter (talk) 16:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a glossary is good for a small amount of terms in a particular field. A glossary to doesn't give definitions but instead compares and contrasts the terms in different religions (many have no relevance in one or more of those religions) confuses the issue much more than it explains it. Jon513 (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a WP:COATRACK Mayalld (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Cleanup as per those who voted for this combination above. Possibly Rename as per Jheald's Note. Nahum (talk) 02:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a glossary of terms. Will never be anything more than a glossary of dictionary definitions, and effectively unnecessary as most of these terms have their own articles already. I'd suggest considering a transwiki to Wiktionary, but I doubt they'd accept it. Neıl ☎ 16:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Process Note... I changed the header from "Votes" to "Opinions". Articles for Deletion is not a vote and it is a bit misleading to those who may be less familiar with the process to label it as such.--Isotope23 talk 17:16, 11 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, because, while a product it makes may be notable, the company is not, and efforts to prove its notability have failed consistently. Bearian (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AtTask[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created and now maintained by several WP:SPA accounts with no other edits other than related to "AtTask" . Was speedied twice under WP:CSD#G11. Has a few links but they seem to be merely self published or trivial coverage and mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. Advert. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Refernces are only press releases and product reviews. JohnCD (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After the first debate [18], it was decided that AtTask is a legitimate corporation per the WP:CORP criterion. The sentences I added about AtTask's integration features have been removed. Also, with respect to notability, I've found a few more independent references that cover AtTask in-depth: [19], [20], [21], and [22]. Furthermore, the references for Wikipedia articles for project management tools such as Vpmi, 24sevenoffice, and ProjectInsight seem even more secondary and trivial.Vpdjuric (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)vpdjuric— vpdjuric (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS--Hu12 (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is fair. I do think, though, that the arguments for notability are valid. Vpdjuric (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)vpdjuric[reply]
I see you only started contributing on 4 December 2007. Try to keep you comments on this page, rather than the talk pages of the participants here. You are enthusiastic which is good, however all you contributions are related to AtTask, may I ask whats your relationship is with this software company?--Hu12 (talk) 01:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understood. I work for a company that has a business relationship with AtTask and a couple of other project management software companies, so this can certainly be perceived as a conflict of interest. On the other hand, I have been researching project management software for over a year, I have used a number of project management tools during this period, and I have gained a good amount of expertise in the field. I think that my knowledge about project management software is valuable and could be used in a way that advances the aims of Wikipedia. I would also like to note that I did not create the article on AtTask. The AtTask article was created in February, and I have only made a few minor edits. Because of my COI, I am more than happy to delete all of the changes I have made, or consult another editor or administrator about them. What would you recommend?Vpdjuric (talk) 05:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)vpdjuric[reply]
  • Delete The product may be notable, the CEO may be notable, but the company is not. I have spent the last half hour going around each source presented so far to see what they actually contain. All either lead back to a press release or deal with the product or CEO. The software product has been reviewed by the rev2 and eWeek sources. SoftwareCEO and CIO deal with Scott Johnson (the CEO). The rest are based off of press releases. Nothing that truly deals with the company itself has been put forth to establish notability. At this point, the article needs a reboot to discuss the product itself and an article on Scott Johnson can be written using the CIO/softwareCEO sources. Until some reliable source deals with At Task itself and not the product or actions of its CEO, an article about the company is not right for Wikipedia. Furthermore, I am not even sure how this survived the first time around. spryde | talk 15:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fair viewpoint. I can write an article about the product to replace the one about the company and propose it on the talk page. Vpdjuric (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)vpdjuric[reply]
  • Comment After checking that reference, it is a passing mention/trivial coverage. The focus of the piece is not on AtTask the company. spryde | talk 18:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agreed. I am working on re-writing the article to be about @Task the software rather than AtTask the company. While AtTask the company may fail WP:NOTABILITY, the software has been written about extensively in secondary independent sources and is a well-known project management software tool. I will post the proposal for the new article on the talk page shortly.Vpdjuric (talk) 01:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have posted my draft/proposal for the new article about @task (the software) on my user page. I used the Vpmi article as a model for this one. I'd love to get everyone's feedback.Vpdjuric (talk) 01:43, 13 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 --JForget 01:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wizard of Oz (1995)[edit]

The Wizard of Oz (1995) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This does not appear to have ever existed. Five didn't start until two years after it was supposedly broadcast and it's not on IMDB or elsewhere. AW (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no non-wikipedia references, fails WP:V. Be sure to correct any inbound references. --Dhartung | Talk 21:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Can not find any record of it. Gtstricky (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I spent a good chunk of time looking for any reference to this. Any combination of any of the actors and any of the major themes of "OZ", in case it was simply a mistake on the title, or some such issue. Came up with zlitch. Searching the page creator's contributions, I did find a couple of gems like this. The only conclusion I can reach is WP:HOAX. -Verdatum (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    also Note If the conclusion is that this is a hoax, the "What links here" should be reviewed, as the existence of this supposed production has been promulgated to a few other articles on WP. -Verdatum (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Whether or not it exists, if there's no listings for this anywhere, particularly IMDb, that renders it NN. BTW wasn't this article nominated a few weeks ago? I'm getting deja vu. 23skidoo (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If it is found to exist than it should be recreated. Wgfcrafty (talk) 05:51, 8 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. Tikiwont (talk) 09:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jabber component software[edit]

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

This is a list of external links which violates "Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic." in WP:EL. Also look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of free Go programs Anshuk (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete and redirect to America's Next Top Model, Cycle 9. Pastordavid (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jenah Doucette[edit]

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

This person's only claim to notability is an appearance as a contestant on America's Next Top Model, Cycle 9. She has not received significant press coverage (except for one article in her hometown paper). It's possible that she will become notable at some point, as many other former contestants of this show have, but she certainly isn't at this point. Eatcacti (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Let me say it like this: if the notability criteria allow someone who competed in a nationally televised event without winning it, and was covered in their local paper for doing this, while they were 18 years old, then I could have a Wikipedia article about myself, too. It's just not enough public exposure or significance. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There needs to be significant events that overshadow the show they are participating in to even warrant their own page if they are simply a contestant. If she wins the cycle then the page stays and who knows at this point. Shalom: I'd have my own page too if that were the case. I was a fierce carry over champ on Wheel of Fortune =) --AussieJess talk —Preceding comment was added at 08:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For now. The series is not over until this Wednesday, and she is still in the running. According to the America's Next Top Model page, the winner and first runner-up of each cycle all have pages attributed to them. Jenah has a great chance to make it to the top 2. So, if that is the case, going by tradition, she would get a page. Anyhow, there are certain other non finishers in previous cycles that do have pages as well 69.90.207.137 (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)samusek2[reply]
    • The non-winners, including runners-up, who have articles have them because they satisfy notability guidelines. That is, they have done something notable (modeling, acting, etc.) other than their appearance on ANTM. Kahlen Rondot, for example, is one runner-up who does not have an article. Simply being on a reality TV show, ANTM or other, does not confer notability, though it is true that many contestants later move on to bigger and better things. Eatcacti (talk) 23:54, 9 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. no reason for deletion This is a Secret account 23:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katy French[edit]

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

Lion Red (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, I think the fact that she is headline news on the BBC is enough grounds to warrant her an article. Tomber (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable Irish model. Stifle (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the person is notable enough, the article just needs a massive cleanup. --Tocino 20:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Google News search] proves notability beyond a doubt.--CastAStone//(talk) 20:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, If she wasn't Blonde and a model, no one would care --Johnny 0 (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CastAStone. Nom would do well to include a detailed deletion rationale from now on. GlassCobra 20:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it doesn't matter what colour her hair was. Her profession made her famous - would that mean Kate Moss or Twiggy shouldn't have articles? I'd back up User:GlassCobra - what grounds was this put in Articles for Deletion? sheridan (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For the record, I understand why this was nominated; the article was dreadful pre-nom.
  • Keep, well known in Ireland .William Avery (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others and ghits. BBC report notes subject went from unknown to top model in two years. This AFD is questionable given that the nominator has made no other contributions. Brad (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, she's well-thought of in Ireland as a celebrity and that will only probably be further enhanced now. Just needs some clean-up. --Candlewicke Consortiums Limited 21:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, She is very Popular in Ireland and there has been international coverage of her death. Done some very good charitable work too. Thumbs up (Colm finlay (talk) 22:49, 6 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. Tikiwont (talk) 09:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Macabrismo[edit]

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

Humourous hoax about a non-notable neologism. (Website author states his poetry constitutes a new genre.)Nehwyn (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Delete- and I urge the other votes to reconsider. The word may be a neologism, but it is definitely in use in Italian, Spanish AND Portuguese. Judging from the 820 hits I got for the term on Google, it's not spurious, but serious. I suspect there is a lot more text available out there on the Internet that could support a decent article. Cbdorsett (talk) 14:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would urge you to reconsider, actually. Even should that be the case, the article in its current form is little more than a joke. The first sentence reads: "The major representatives of this current, beyond the literary and philosophic, go under an alias because common mortals (you non-poet folks) are not yet able to understand them (a lot of exercise needed for that); They are:" And what follows is a list of made-up names with a small poem for each one. It's not an article; merely a hoax. --Nehwyn (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If you look at the only website sited in the article it states that the only use of Macabrismo (in the sense) is by the web page author. The other google hits you found are a different meaning. The term does not exist in English and they article leads you to believe that it does. Gtstricky (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No claim in article (at least, in the English portion) of meeting WP:Notability. Just 11 ghits in English, none of which are showing notability. If the word is notable in Italian, Spanish and Portuguese, then it belongs in those wikipedias; without notability in English, it doesn't belong in the English wikipedia. (And usage does not equal notability.)--Fabrictramp (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again - please understand this is not a serious article. A foreign poetic trend might be notable even if it's not part of English language literature - only this is not a serious article; it's a humorous hoax written (mostly) in another language. --Nehwyn (talk) 15:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I should add that in the meantime, the author has been blocked for repeated vandalism on Macabrism - he was trying to re-insert his hoax there. --Nehwyn (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you all for the open discussion. I have reconsidered. Personally, I don't feel like writing an article about Macabrism in Portuguese, Spanish and Italian literature - I've got plenty to do already. Yes, 'tis clearly a hoax, which becomes quite apparent when you consider the history, starting with changing a redirect page into an "article", continuing with a triple revert and other gems, then the re-emergence into a page with non-English title and non-English text. I also note that there is no article in Wikipedia in any of the other named languages. Cbdorsett (talk) 05:06, 9 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. The Placebo Effect (talk) 22:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newcastle University Union Society[edit]

Newcastle University Union Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another Students' Union which completely fails to assert notability, for example through a lack of external links to independant sources. Fails WP:N. TheIslander 20:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as no evidence of notability. Hal peridol (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All such societies are important, as a major division of their respective universities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 08:43, 9 December 2007
  • Keep (anon. IP vote) This article is no more or less notable as University of Manchester Students' Union, University of Leicester Students' Union, ect and I don't see them being picked on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.184.52 (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2007
  • Keep I can't see the benefit of deleting articles about Student Unions. It is impossible to create a catch all article as each student union is run in a different way and have different policies. This discussion would be far better served by having it on all student unions and not individual discussion. There has already been an AfD discussion for SOAS Students' Union that reached no consensus, and I feel that the current AfDs will reach the same conclusion. Andy Hartley (talk) 22:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I did consider creating one AfD for the lot, but wasn't sure, and as per the guidelines for creating AfD's "...if you are unsure of whether to bundle an article or not, do not". You state "...each student union is run in a different way and have different policies". Well, not really. Granted there are slight variations here and there, and there are one or two unions that are just run in a completely different mannor that probably are notable enough for their own article, but on the whole all SUs are pretty much the same. There's pretty much nothing that differentiates one SU from the next, and I've made very sure that I've only nominated those that don't appear to have anything particularly notable about them. There are others that I may nominate, depending on the outcome of these few, but equally there are others that I won't nominate, 'cause I feel that they are notable enough to satisfy WP:N. TheIslander 22:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable Francium12 (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable - It's attached to a Russell Group University, the building itself it a Grade II listed building according to the article, and the organization seems pretty alright at organizing their fresher's week, something that seems to be a big deal amongst student unions, I'd say this sounds like one of the more notable ones. EditorInTheRye (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "...and the organization seems pretty alright at organizing their fresher's week, something that seems to be a big deal amongst student unions, I'd say this sounds like one of the more notable ones." Huh? Your other arguments I can see completely, but this one I don't get. Freshers' weeks are always organised by the SU, so how's this one any different? TheIslander 19:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was referring to the praise from the 2002 Guardian article mentioned in the events section. EditorInTheRye (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now As this AFD and others touch of exactly the same issues, see my lengthy comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southampton University Students' Union about a better way forward of encouraging people to get decent sourcing whilst at the same time getting an actual policy about inherent notability in place, rather than the current mess of individual AFDs on the same basic issue having different outcomes. Timrollpickering (talk) 03:01, 12 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. -JodyB talk 22:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newcastle University accommodation[edit]

Newcastle University accommodation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Completely non-notable list of halls of residence at one particular UK university. Fails to assert notability through use of external links to independant sources (only one included, and is only for one single fact). Reads like part of the university prospectus, and (in my opinion), fails WP:NOT#DIR. Has been nominated for speedy twice in the past, but has been contested/disagreed with, so time for an AfD. TheIslander 20:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Beginning (novel)[edit]

In the Beginning (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NN book. Author of the article, User:Trabuen, is a WP:SPA that has only posted material (mostly promotional) about the book and its sequels. Appears to have been posted by author (Trabuen backwards). Failed {{Prod}} by this nominator. Toddst1 (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Toddst1 (talk) 19:51, 6 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. Pastordavid (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim terms[edit]

Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim terms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Evidently this page was already deleted by User:Kingboyk, see message: "18:54, 7 December 2007 Kingboyk (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim terms".) This is a violation WP:NOT#DICTIONARY and WP:NOR in its attempt to equate terms from opposing religions. This is stealth "interfaith ecumenism" that just does not fly. Perhaps some of the key notions on this page can be elaborated upon in the Interfaith article or in the Christianity and Judaism and Judaism and Islam articles, but the way the columns are constructed here conveys the false perception that each religion gives equal weight or significance to these ideas. For example, "anti-Christ" does not exist in Judaism, since they do not accept Jesus as Christ in the first place, and indeed some Christian groups view Judaism as the religion of "satan" and "the anti-Christ" so that this entire exercise is doomed as an exercise of the absurd. The columns cannot disguise the violations of WP:NOR. (A similar situation has arisen at Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms created by the same editors.) IZAK (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for above reasons. IZAK (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. IZAK (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. IZAK (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : Per WP:POV & WP:NOR Shoessss |  Chat  13:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - User:IZAK has made a clear and compelling argument for deletion. —Travistalk 14:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:My previous vote to delete was deleted! I said this: The format is not appropriate for the topic. Wikitables are hard to edit. It is religious opinion written in stone.--12.72.150.104 (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per OR and other cited policies Mbisanz (talk) 17:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#DICT, which I think covers this precise situation. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Java7837 (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unsubtle use of a "glossary" (which we don't need in any case) to further a biased agenda. Sweeping generalisations, WP:NOR etc etc. Not salvageable. JFW | T@lk 21:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Possible neutral term column is a POV assertion that will probably satisfy no one but its author, even if properly sourced. And it will be so just by being different than any of the three "non-neutral" views. As for all other columns, they are all properly exposed already in articles relating to each individual religion and/or articles relating to the terms themselves. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 22:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the very least, ditch the Possible neutral term column completely and without compensation. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 22:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and delete neutral column. Initial reasons for deletion are a bit POVish, possibly inaccurate, and an imposing of extraordinary requirements.
    • There is at least one parallel idea of Antichrist among Hasidic Jews who say he would be Jesus (False Prophet).
    • Statements like "Islam and Judaism both consider the Christian doctrine of the trinity and the belief of Jesus being God as explicitly against the tenets of Monotheism." in Judaism and Islam imply both religions give equal weight and significance to objecting Trinity. If such comparisons are forbidden on Wikipedia then it is probably necessary to delete most Interfaith articles unless for every concept discussed we also state exactly how much a weight each religion gives to it, if that is even possible (45% vs. 90%, most of the time vs. some of the time, etc.). Is that really what is being requested here? Per IZAK's earlier admonishment about turning it into a forum discussion that's all I want to say. -Bikinibomb (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR and WP:POV. WP:NOT#DICT does not apply here. Glossaries are a part of wikipedia. See Portal:Contents/List of glossaries 03:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)--EnhancedDownloadBird (Upload) -
  • delete as unsalvageable pov/or. where there are real similarities (or differences) in usage these can be better dealt with in the interfaith articles mentioned by izak or in the articles on the terms themselves.  ⇒ bsnowball  06:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, most of these terms aren't used in Islam at all, and the "neutral" column is POV. However, a comparison of Christian and Jewish interpretation of terms might be useful. --MPerel 06:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, review again in a couple of months. The article is only 3 days old. It has clear potential for improvement. It could be, at least potentially, a very encyclopedic and useful overview for comparing/contrasting key usages and acting as a portal to more detailed presentations on specific words. WP:NOT#DICT does not apply here -- this is not a dictionary. The editors should be given a chance to remedy WP:NOR and WP:POV concerns by more comprehensive citation to WP:RSs. The "Neutral" column, in particular, is not sustainable without detailed references. But I see no reason why the other columns should not be sourceable. AFDs are supposed to consider the potential of articles for improvement. This article has potential. Jheald (talk) 13:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, very useful list explaining allot more in-debt that just a mere dictionary the terminology and basic meaning in the 3 abrahamic dominating religions that shaped and formed so much of our existence. very encyclopedic indeed. although i would add more sources it should not read like OR--יודל (talk) 13:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a glossary is good for a small amount of terms in a particular field. A glossary to doesn't give definitions but instead compares and contrasts the terms in different religions (many have no relevance in one or more of those religions) confuses the issue much more than it explains it. Jon513 (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve The neutral column should of course be removed as inherently OR. Butt he rest is fairly straightforward. It would probably be better to do this in paragraphs, not as a table, so the entries could be a little fuller.DGG (talk) 16:14, 11 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. Davewild (talk) 18:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moros Eros[edit]

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

A band. The article does not say they ever charted, and does not give any indication of significance. Guy (Help!) 18:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep two albums on Victory Records passes WP:MUSIC. A little digging would turn up scads of album reviews, an Allmusic profile, and plenty of touring. Chubbles (talk) 19:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:MUSIC is a guideline; per policy, we need reliable sources. Can you find any? I didn't, but having already deleted this at least once before I did not look very hard. Guy (Help!) 20:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article now cites the Allmusic profile and an SXSW blurb; I also added six nine album reviews (I can continue adding more if desired). Chubbles (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS is a guideline, too. WP:MUSIC is a guideline for inclusion, which this article fully passes. Rockstar (T/C) 21:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is All Music Guide not considered a reliable source? Doc Strange (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very very weak keep I fully expected to find loads of reliable sources on them, but a little Google News digging turned up little more than a school newspaper and a bunch of concert listings in which they were among several bands to appear. I still think reliable sources exist somewhere, but I might change my vote if none show up by the end of this AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:MUSIC without fail. Rockstar (T/C) 21:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & Andrew's research. Eusebeus (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    ...And my research? Chubbles (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How exactly does this article not pass WP:MUSIC? Rockstar (T/C) 21:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That's my question. I created this article, and the only reason i did was because they were signed to a record label that passed WP:MUSIC and had an All Music Guide entry. They pass WP:MUSIC from: "having released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." Well, Victory Records is certainly notable as they have released albums by notable artists Taking Back Sunday, Hawthorne Heights and Straylight Run. Doc Strange (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per discussion and improvements to article during discussion. Davewild (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bang Gang[edit]

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

A band that has (unusually for a band) released a couple of albums. Oh, wait, that's normal isn't it? No independent sources, no evidence presented of notability per WP:MUSIC. Guy (Help!) 18:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSIC. No albums on any important labels, and no other criteria either. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Usually I would say delete but based on their tour schedule and this review I will say keep. Gtstricky (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Spin article cited above is nice; also, see Barði Jóhannsson. See also The Phoenix and Japanese press. I'll add these to the article later tonight. (rest assured, they will be ignored until I do, and maybe even after I do). Chubbles (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Slim notability based on media refs. Peter Fleet (talk) 09:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable for the two quite popular albums, and the Barði Jóhannsson is ofcourse a celebrity bambinn (talk) 23:41, 7 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 Consensus to delete. 1 != 2 23:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

York University Students' Union[edit]

York University Students' Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another non-notable student's union. This article doesn't assert any notability through use of external links to independant, reliable sources, and thus fails WP:N. TheIslander 18:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:ORG. Again, the more of these I see, the more I'm convinced that they're all non-notable. I haven't seen a solid claim of notability in any of them yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Starblind. Stifle (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Starblind. This should be on the YUSU website, not in Wikipedia. Akiyama (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge to the University article. Corvus cornixtalk 23:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Starblind. Lawrence Cohen 16:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can't see the benefit of deleting articles about Student Unions. It is impossible to create a catch all article as each student union is run in a different way and have different policies. This discussion would be far better served by having it on all student unions and not individual discussion. There has already been an AfD discussion for SOAS Students' Union that reached no consensus, and I feel that the current AfDs will reach the same conclusion. If this article is deleted then why not delete all the other UK student unions in one fell swoop? Andy Hartley (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Each article stands on it's own merits. Whereas one may be notable, another may not, even if on similar subjects. I did consider creating one AfD for the lot, but wasn't sure, and as per the guidelines for creating AfD's "...if you are unsure of whether to bundle an article or not, do not". You state "...each student union is run in a different way and have different policies". Well, not really. Granted there are slight variations here and there, and there are one or two unions that are just run in a completely different mannor that probably are notable enough for their own article, but on the whole all SUs are pretty much the same. There's pretty much nothing that differentiates one SU from the next, and I've made very sure that I've only nominated those that don't appear to have anything particularly notable about them. There are others that I may nominate, depending on the outcome of these few, but equally there are others that I won't nominate, 'cause I feel that they are notable enough to satisfy WP:N. TheIslander 23:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now As this AFD and others touch of exactly the same issues, see my lengthy comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southampton University Students' Union about a better way forward of encouraging people to get decent sourcing whilst at the same time getting an actual policy about inherent notability in place, rather than the current mess of individual AFDs on the same basic issue having different outcomes. Timrollpickering (talk) 03:00, 12 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 nominators strong argument. Davewild (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Student LifeNet[edit]

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

Quoting from WP:ORG: "(An organization) is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. (...) The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered." One of the reasons for this requirement is that the article should be based on these secondary sources, allowing for neutral coverage.

Despite two AfDs, the article under discussion is still based on primary sources only. A number of secondary sources (press coverage) have been cited in the previous AfDs, see also the article's talk page. However, these do not seem to contain in-depth coverage. Some of them are republished press releases, such as here. Others (such as this one) just state, "XYZ from Student LifeNet said..." and do not tell anything about the organization. They do not have the organization as their subject; rather, they are about abortion in the UK, and mention the organization only in passing. Also, since those quotes are quite similar in some places, I suspect that the quotes are very close to republished press releases as well.

In short, substantial independent sources have not been presented, and I doubt they will ever be. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per excellent explanation by nom. Most student organizations are non-notable, not covered in independent sources. This one is no exception and I fail to see an independent source that does not conform to the model that Wolterding showed above. Epthorn (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Additional Comment: The previous decisions on this topic's deletion seem very strange to me, particularly the first one. I hope that arguments and not vote numbers are what decide it this time. Epthorn (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No notability. --Nlu (talk) 19:42, 6 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 — Caknuck (talk) 07:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IEvo[edit]

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

This doesn't appear to be a notable or widely-disseminated scientific theory. JavaTenor (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable, looks like it could be a hoax. No mention of the theory, the journal or either of the people named in the article on Google or Yahoo. --Snigbrook (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find Connie Furmzorçis, who is referenced as the proposed theory maker, anywhere. iEvolution has many references but all to business oriented articles. High probability that it is a hoax.--Pmedema (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obvious hoax or non-notable, laughable attempt at science. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My bet, too, is that this is a hoax. Even if not, it's clearly non-notable. Tim Ross·talk 00:54, 8 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 per WP:CSD#G5, as evidenced by[24]. Anyone is welcome to recreate this page in good faith without stalking Jimbo, but serving as Brandt's proxy is unacceptable. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 19:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SureFire M6 Guardian[edit]

SureFire M6 Guardian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The item is not notable. Delete. Lawrence Cohen 17:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as an advert for a trivial household item ➥the Epopt (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Arguably, the best, but certainly one of the most expensive flashlights in the world. Fred Bauder (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable enough for me. Paul August ☎ 18:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the article fails to establish notability. Jimmy Wales may own a toaster, too, but it doesn't suddenly gain notability because of that ownership (even on wikipedia). Epthorn (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it has sources! Gentleness · Talk 20:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's seemingly not a "trivial household item", or at least only as much as that cars are not trivial garage items. Though I do think the reference to Jimmy is ill-judged. James F. (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep None of the sources work. The item is listed on the company article with as much detail as this page. The section labled as Controversy has no references and seems to be the only justification in having its own page. Gtstricky (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Trivial topic, and the fact that there are three sources loses a lot of weight when you realize that one of them is the company website, and the other two are both refs for the fact that Jimbo owns one. Zetawoof(ζ) 22:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If two seperate news articles discuss how a rather notable figure owns a specific flashlight, it's notable enough. We're too sensitive about things that involve Jimbo in any way. -Amarkov moo! 05:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - References assert notability. Plus, Jimmy owns one! :D Maser (Talk!) 07:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. Everyking (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's notable, it is the most powerful flashlight made by a notable company and a notable person uses it. There are also far less notable gadgets with articles in Category:Electronics stubs. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 19:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Notable. Ripberger (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - seems hardly encyclopedic. It's not exactly a groundbreaking new product or anything - Alison ❤ 01:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: how does the fact that Jimmy Wales owns a product make it notable enough for Wikipedia? Are we gonna do the same for his car, his microwave, his shirts, his shoes, the supermarket he goes to, etcetera? Yes, being the most powerful flashlight on the market might make this notable. But being used by Jimmy Wales certainly doesn't make this notable. AecisBrievenbus 01:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, of course being used by Jimbo doesn't make this notable. What does make it notable is two articles largely focused on this flashlight and his ownership of it. If his microwave gets the same level of coverage, that will be notable too. -Amarkov moo! 03:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, because one of the main criteria of WP:N is that of "significant coverage". This is the prime example of a passing mention of an unencyclopedic factoid. The fact that Jimmy Wales owns one is just as much trivia as the fact that Chuck Norris, Nelly, Tony Blair or any other notable person would own one. Notability is not inherited. AecisBrievenbus 14:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The item is notable. Keep per Amarkov and everyking. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jimbo's speech in NYT. Discombobulator (talk) 10:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sorry for the tardiness. I have been unable to vote until now because the the Epopt banned me unnecessarily. Duck of Luke (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for all of the reasons stated above. Buncombe83 (talk) 06:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to SureFire. It's not much of an article, and the coverage is not exactly analytical. Guy (Help!) 18:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Daniel Brandt at Wikipedia Review encouraged the creation of this article, if anyone is interested as to why this was created. (JzG, I'm not trolling. I have no association with the website except that I found that thread and that the article had been created and was up for AfD. It seemed potentially relevant why the article was created.) —75.60.171.158 (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to SureFire as a one-liner. With the best will in the world, take out the cruft and it's thin. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 19:01, 9 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 to delete, disagreement over whether sources in article are enough to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia 8800[edit]

Nokia 8800 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another non-notable cellular phone. Wikipedia is not a Nokia catalog. Insufficient substantial third-party sources exist to carry a viable Wikipedia article on this product. The article is just a list of features and essentially unreferenced.

{{prod}} was removed by User:For Queen and Country with the comment "Article does not read like an advertisement", so now we're at AfD. Mikeblas (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; adequate sources exist, appears notable; also, now referenced. Spacepotato (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N. Cell phones change to often. The references are mostly product review sites. Gtstricky (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; notable, several references EJF (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; valuable information, very structured K 15:12, 8 December 2007 (GMT + 1) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.219.189.41 (talk)
  • Keep; Good information, non-biased and article is of a size sufficient to the subject's notability. --For Queen and Country (talk) 02:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • User above blocked indef as troll and likely sock Secret account 07:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn phone Secret account 07:47, 12 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 as notability is not inherited. Davewild (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sharaz Hussain[edit]

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

Most of this article appears to be about Hari Singh, a clearly notable figure, but it's unclear whether the actual subject of this article satisfies Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for biographies. JavaTenor (talk) 17:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The relation to Hari Singh, whom most of the article is about, is tangential at best; it is only through the brother of the subject's grandfather. There is no context showing that the subjecte is notable beyond this. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability is not inherited. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:45, 6 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, needs improvement. 1 != 2 23:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shutterstock[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Advert Hu12 (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. The subject of the article appears to be notable, but more sources would be needed to solidify it. All of the text about how the company works could easily be sourced to the company's website itself; there should be no problems with this if only straight fact is sourced this way. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - notable in the photo world, it just needs more references. Just as notable as IStockPhoto. - Gtstricky (talk) 22:57, 6 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 until multiple reliable sources can demonstrate notability. 1 != 2 23:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto De Luna[edit]

Roberto De Luna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Suggest Delete, although I don't really have a dog in this hunt. Notability debated on talk page. All sources seem to be notices of showings/directory type listings. Only mention in a notable source is from the New Yorker, but from the "What's going on around town" section - essentially a directory listing. Does not appear to meet the standards of WP:BIO. Pastordavid (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Article fails WP:N. Merely citing sources that he is an artist does not establish notability; some sort of nontrivial coverage is needed. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. The talk-page section here, since deleted by the article's author, seems to indicate some exaggeration in claims to notability. --CliffC (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sufficient coverage in verifiable sources to validate the article. I'm a bit surprised it went to AfD so quickly. Please consider posting on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts for extra eyes in the future, and remember WP:BITE. The editor is making a strong effort to properly craft the article. Tyrenius (talk) 04:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but his repeated removal of comments by others from the talk page does not help his case. Johnbod (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey John, I haven't deleted any comments. If I have it was an accident. Stop being such a douche. 19:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobyspinks (talk • contribs)
You deleted DeLuna talk page comments here, here, and here, as well as blanking your own talk page at least twice. This does not put you in a good light. --CliffC (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CliffC those comments were deleted because 1) the issue was resolved with the gay artist category 2) the talk about Peter Hay Halpert was read by me and understood (no action was necessary) and 3) I fixed the references to work with the content in the article. I wasn't aware that talk comments were not to be deleted until I heard it here. I figured it was more of an email type situation. A way to speak with the author of the article. Frankly the talk pages come up on Google searches and can be very annoying when people are looking for specific things and find talk pages with people complaining about each other. Tobyspinks (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Notability not achieved yet. Johnbod (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notability has been verified. "The New York Blade saw this as one of 'three quality solo exhibits by queer artists' which were part of a trend for photography to challenge painting as the preferred medium for gay male artists." De Luna's work was seen as a challenge to the preferred medium for gay male artists. De Luna uses old cameras it's a specific style. He's been written about in magazines (had pieces in very specific high end photo periodicals like Eyemazing) and had numerous shows at galleries and museums. Tobyspinks (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
— Tobyspinks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Tyrenius (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia:Single purpose account states: "There is, of course, nothing inherently wrong with single-purpose accounts." And this account is not a sock puppet account. I created an article based on something I know about in order to share with it the community and add it to the public consciousness. I have no desire to edit other articles on wiki. There are far enough cooks in the kitchen already. Tobyspinks (talk) 18:18, 14 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 — Caknuck (talk) 07:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Memphis Mojo[edit]

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

notability 16:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC) - This article is about a planned minor league soccer team that was to have played in the Memphis metro area. The team folded prior to ever playing a game or fielding a team. Frog47 (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the article: "As of January 2007 the Memphis Mojo only played one exhibition game." Kind of says it all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the article itself says "not notable" as clear as could be. JohnCD (talk) 21:58, 6 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 as not meeting the relevant guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Watson (football player)[edit]

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

Non-notable football player - never played in a fully professional league. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It's interesting to note that the WikiProject was never notified about the AfD when the article was first nominated. – PeeJay 21:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would his playing for England in futsal be an implication of notability? Mattythewhite (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Highly irrelevant and off-topic rant Dammit, I wish editors would stop using "Nationwide Conference" to refer to the league below League Two. Firstly, it's a sponsored league name, and we don't use those on WP, secondly that isn't even its sponsored name any more!! ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What happened to the new criteria for players? If we adopted it as I remember it, he qualifies as playing for a fully professional team in a national league. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - er, "the Club announced its intention to go full-time"? That's not a source which confirms that they did go full-time. Also, the new guidelines (proposals in actual fact) certainly have not been adopted to my knowledge - I will continue to follow the established acceptable parameters when making my decisions. Ref (chew)(do) 01:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Does he not qualify as notable for having played in the national futsal team? - MTC (talk) 11:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - no, only full international "football (soccer)" teams count - his article says that he has played for "England C" - that is discounted as regards notability because the team is reserved for players with semi-professional clubs outside the Football League. Futsal is, in my opinion, a fairly non-notable offshoot of 'proper' football. Ref (chew)(do) 01:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He seems to have sufficient claims of notability, and there are no other real problems with the article. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reserved opinion until issues above are resolved. Ref (chew)(do) 01:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - changed Nationwide Conference to Football Conference per ChrisTheDude, and removed unobjective fancruft about his perceived abilities. Ref (chew)(do) 01:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More comment - having belatedly read the initial archived nomination for deletion, I have to say that it appears that the article was Speedy kept due to notability by association (a no-no here) with a non-league article. The matter of his professionalism was not resolved (more issues to tie up then). Ref (chew)(do) 11:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete never played professional football. Jonesy702 (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no professional appearances, and appearing in the English national futsal team is not a sufficient claim of notability (futsal internationals easily fail WP:N due to their lack of popularity). --Angelo (talk) 14:36, 12 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, seeing as how it's now sourced. Wizardman 16:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Escape the room[edit]

Escape the room (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

1: not notable, 2: original research, 3: overcategorization Randomran 18:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article has no reliable sources to base it upon. It has not demonstrated that it is notable. The article cites no resources. This is also overcategorization, since this type of gameplay would fit neatly into the "adventure game" genre. It's not much different from some parts of Space Quest 4. When this article is deleted, I might suggest a redirect from this page, and a short section on flash games in the adventure game category. Randomran 18:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep although sourcing could be a problem. These generally have much more in common with puzzle games like Myst and the unfortunately deleted Hapland than "adventure" games. They weren't common or popular until 2004 or so, though. --Dhartung | Talk 21:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I used this page just the other day when a colleague was telling me how good this type of game was. I had never heard of this genre before and so went to Wikipedia for enlightenment. Wikipedia is intended to be a good general reference in exactly this way. The article just needs work - see WP:NOEFFORT. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Colonel Warden Knowitall (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 01:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possible merge and redirect to Adventure game This genre needs to be the subject within reliable sources if it's to pass WP:N, I had a look the other day and came up with nothing acceptable, I was going to AFD or suggest merge of this article myself. It could well be possible to merge it into either Video puzzle game or Adventure game by cobbling something together from the handful of reliable sources about the games themselves (see MOTAS, which has a couple of example references). I'll keep looking for sources, but nothing that would suggest an entire article is needed has come up. Someone another (talk) 02:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - per Someone another. Among the 200k Google hits, there must be some reliable sources to write a good paragraph with. Not an article, though. User:Krator (t c) 19:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete / redirect - This is a young, non-notable genre that probably fits as an adventure game. It's similar to maniac mansion or day of the tentacle in that you click around to solve situational problems. Cackalackakilla (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Google searches for "'escape the room genre'" and "'escape the room game'" bring up quite a few hits. I'm not sure which browser/flash gaming sites are considered "reliable". Maybe the article can be salvaged at a future date when the genre becomes more notable. SharkD (talk) 04:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here is a mention at Joystiq, which is considered reliable according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. SharkD (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've given this another look. Still find a general failure to establish notability. That said, maybe a small writeup on flash games could be mentioned in the Adventure Game article. Lots of games involve clicking around, picking up items, and so on. I imagine it's easy to do a point-and-click adventure game in shockwave. Randomran (talk) 21:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is a much needed subject on Wikipedia, and if we have an article for almost every game type, why shouldn't we have this? --<font=Courier New> ~ Ryan57 ~ || Contribs 07:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because it isn't the subject of multiple reliable sources which is needed to needed to pass notability and to provide details for someone to actually write an article and there's an ideal merge candidate. Bear in mind we have so many genre, gameplay and other video-game related articles because they've not been filed into any kind of order. They're inconsistent, contradictory and nobody is overly thrilled about trying to hammer them into something usable. Also bear in mind that by merging we aren't losing the subject at all, it's dealt with in an appropriate amount of text in the appropriate place and should enough information become available it can easily be popped back out again. Someone another (talk) 08:19, 14 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. Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First-person adventure[edit]

First-person adventure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

1: not notable, 2: original research, 3: overcategorization Randomran (talk) 23:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article has no reliable sources to base it upon. It has not demonstrated that it is notable. The article cites no resources. This is also overcategorization, since there is no meaningful reason to start grouping adventure games by their first-person-ness. Third person shooters and first person shooters have meaningful differences in game play. The fact that an adventure is first person affects nothing but the graphics -- the game play is still exploration, investigation, narrative, and puzzle-solving. Many adventure games have a first person component, when you zoom in or look at something. The basic tools and game play never changes. Randomran 18:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There needs to be an assertion of notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I'm fairly sure the author didn't simply invent the term 'first-person adventure' out of his/her head. All the article needs is to be properly sourced and cleaned up so that it sounds less like original research (also, I'm not sure it needs the explanation of the difference between first- and third-person, but that's another cleanup thing). Needs work, not deletion. --carelesshx talk 17:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Interactive fiction as to the best of my knowledge the term is interchangeable with that one (and Myst, a game cited as an example, is considered interactive fiction). 23skidoo (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep, the notable Metroid Prime series is a great example of this genre Knowitall (talk) 11:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment that's a pretty clear first person shooter, or an action-adventure game at best. first person adventure is just excessive categorization. most adventure games aren't categorized on this basis. 130.63.102.206 (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment it's a first person adventure game. Not an FPS. Knowitall (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An unreferenced tag would probably suffice here. Rray (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Adventure game Even in its diminutive state the article's managed to get itself wrapped around its own neck and runs contrary to the way most genres are laid out on WP. A text adventure played in the first person is a text adventure played in the first person, not a first person text adventure - the narrative use of either first or second person plays second fiddle to the genre.

Defining genre is far from an exact science, many terms are bandied around, spliced together etc. The emergence of one very specific genre, First person shooter, has made it even more likely that either first or third person perspective will be smashed together with a genre to make an all-new one, but this doesn't mean that it is an established genre with established norms (which is the whole point of genres in the first place). Perspective in video games is a separate subject, first and third person perspectives could be applied to most genres, we should be careful about reeling off big long lists of genres which will ultimately confuse the reader and defeat the object of the articles.

Metroid Prime certainly is called a first person adventure (not least by [25] Nintendo themselves), but that doesn't mean that FPA is an established genre which needs an article, it doesn't mean that there are many comparable games to slot alongside it. Likewise, the 100k results mean that the term is used, (doubtless the perspectives are twinned as a descriptor with all the other genres) but doesn't mean each of these combinations can be written into a meaningful article. this article leads me to believe that both perspectives can be covered in adventure games. I'll continue looking for other sources. Someone another (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep major genre, multiple appropriate sources. DGG (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Metroid is a FPS, which is an action game. Nintendo games like Zelda and Metroid and Half Life are Action-Adventure games, even if promotional reviews might say "this is a fantastic adventure". This appears to be a confused article that tries to cram a literary technique of First-person narrative into video games. At most, someone should add a "See also: first-person narrative" in the first person shooter genre. Cackalackakilla (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article could be improved if it is sourced, and this is a major genre in many games which DGG pointed out. PrestonH 03:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've done some reading, and still come to the same conclusion. Here's the problem. I looked at the Action-Adventure article, as someone suggested that I do. Here's an important quote:

With the decline of the adventure game genre, the action-adventure genre became much more prominent. As a side effect, action adventure games are sometimes simply labeled as adventure games by console gamers, usually to the protest of adventure purists.

And yet the article also tries to say that this is a really old genre, that involves no action. As if the first-personness of the game differentiates it from other adventure games. The article clearly contradicts itself. With such limited research out there to clarify this article -- none of it from notable sources -- this article should go. Randomran (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it can't be researched or improved no matter what, then redirect/merge the article if necessary. I still go for keep as Google releases verifiable sources here and there (unless shown otherwise on another comment). PrestonH 03:32, 14 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 strong consensus to delete). Elkman (Elkspeak) 13:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pavilion in the Park[edit]

Pavilion in the Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Spammy page on a mall in Arkansas. A search for reliable sources turned up none. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 14:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Pavilion in the Park is not a mall. It is a very notable upscale shopping center that is unique in our state. I haven't had the chance to research it properly and expand the article. Just because you can't Google something doesn't mean it isn't important. --The_stuart (talk) 15:42, 5 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, Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per stuart. ShivaeVolved 00:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete upscale shopping center is essentially a marketing term for a mall. Not sure if the claims of being unique are just marketing. Most descriptions seem to contradict the idea of it being either unique or upscale. --Neon white (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom and lack of adequate sourcing in the article. Cirt (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep With reliable sources provided in a article along with the notability of the article, it does have the potential to expand. Give the article some time to expand by other editors like sourcing, copyediting, etc. PrestonH 04:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One very small source that could be argued is a little trivial. --Neon white (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We should find other souces then, and if in no condition it hasn't improved in months then delete. But for right now, keep. PrestonH 05:11, 15 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. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 21:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

President of Khalistan[edit]

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

Unreferenced article on the self-styled, self-appointed head-of-state of a proposed secessionist state. The article Khalistan movement makes clear that this a movement whose time has passed, and neither Khalistan movement nor Khalistan articles even mention the "president". I quite accept that governments-in-exile may be demonstrably notable per WP:NOTE, but in this case all we have is a weak secessionist movement which has not established a credible govt-in-exile. The "President of Khalistan" may merit a brief mention in Khalistan movement or Khalistan, but not a standalone article, as demonstrated by the fact that a google search throws in only tangential mentions of the subject in news reports on individuals, such as Khalistan ideologue Jagjit Chauhan dies. (See also Category:Presidents of Khalistan and CfD December 4#Category:Presidents of Khalistan. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:50, 6 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 — Caknuck (talk) 07:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Science and Technology Access Center[edit]

Science and Technology Access Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I am nominating this article for deletion. The organisation is non-notable (only encompassed one minor city) and it was closed in 2005. Gh5046 (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - non-notable organisation that has now closed, and is still non-notable. TheIslander 18:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ORG. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:26, 6 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. Davewild (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Hunter (author)[edit]

Chris Hunter (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Was speedied as nn-bio, though notability has been asserted here by publisher. Brought here for greater concensus. Khukri 16:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I have to say, I fully expected to slap a COI reasoning on this one because of the publisher issue and "second the speedy" assertion. Granted, I most certainly agree there is a real COI issue, however, I think this article is actually about a notable person. Albeit he has only published his first book, it is published by a major publisher. (Bantam Press/Random House). He has received a medal (major awards - albeit outside the field of writing) for his work in his field (defusing bombs in Iraq). Seems to be fairly resource-able by third parties: For example, reviews of him and his book by three outside book reviewers : here, where he appeared on national radio, here, for the Times, and here, for Dailymail.co.uk in a quick 10 minute goog, I'm sure there's more. According to outcomes, Published authors are notable if they have received multiple independent reviews of (emphasis mine)or awards for their work, or if their work is likely to be very widely read. So, surprisingly at least to me, he's notable without ever writing a book (because of his award) and even more so for getting published. The COI issue becomes secondary, IMO. The article certainly needs some major copyediting and other Wiki-expertise to help the well-intentioned publisher (publicist?) An AfD is the perfect time to greatly expand what could be a really good article Cheers, Keeper | 76 21:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Winner of the Queen's Gallantry Medal and a published author with several reviews. Why on earth was this speedied? Nick mallory (talk) 23:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or a radical Rewrite. As written, it's a fluff piece relying upon his actions in the war to count as literary credibility. needs a massive overhaul to focus on the book, if that's what he's notable for. Mostly it's advert to me, and should go. ThuranX (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fluff about how he won the Queen's Gallantry Medal? Nick mallory (talk) 12:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With a Rewrite. Meets WP:N just needs to be reworked and sited. Gtstricky (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We shouldn't delete articles just because they need a rewrite. We have tags for that sort of thing, like "cleanup". Rray (talk) 23:01, 7 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. Elkman (Elkspeak) 14:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory_Allen_Page[edit]

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

Non-notable artist Missvain (talk) 16:26, 6 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. Elkman (Elkspeak) 14:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Wonder[edit]

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

Contested prod, already speedied once. Puff piece about non-notable DJ, no non-trivial independent reliable sources, fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V. One Night In Hackney303 16:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains a notable DJ, with several CREDIBLE SOURCES - Vibe Magazine, Delaware News Journal.

Wiki Music Notibility Requirements:

- Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. - Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network.

He has his own NATIONAL radio show - "The Wonder Years" Has Been In rotation on Sirius with: "Money Mayweather" - DJ Wonder "Just A Little Bit (DJ Wonder Remix)" - 50 Cent

There are no clear indicators in the text that this is written in AUTO-BIOGRAPHY form.

Please see Cipha Sounds Wiki Page for reference as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.196.192.7 (talk)

  • Comment The article is a puff-piece, and your IP is registered to the radio company he works for. There's ample clear indicators in the text it's a hagiograpghy, if not an autobiography, in particular the third and fifth paragraphs. The Vibe article is not a non-trivial source, there's very little that can be used to write an article from. One Night In Hackney303 16:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Any trace of "hagiograpghy" has been deleted from this article. There is no partial wording or tone. DJ Wonder does work at Sirius Radio. The Vibe article reflects his notability, as most Hip-Hop DJ's in Wiki have been featured on Vibe.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.196.192.7 (talk) 18:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC, which covers DJs. I admit I had a chuckle at the first sentence, in which he pointed out that he's a "fan of good music". Which is way better than the other kind. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment DJ Wonder is not covered by the previously stated Notability Requirements? The "fan of good music" line has been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.196.192.7 (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No references citing anything but promotional material. No outside reviews. Seems there is a WP:COI issue here also. Gtstricky (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Where are the "outside reviews" for DJ_Abilities, J-Rocc, DJ_D, DJ_Lord - all of which have no credible sources, yet at most have been flagged to have "no credible sources." What makes this article subject for deletion? What can be done to save this page? Where is the conflict of interest, and where is there any bias in the print? What is the definition of PROMOTIONAL MATERIAL? All references are valid and not promoting a service. AND the SIRIUS LINKS VALIDATE the WP:MUSIC question. Please provide me with any info. Thanks. Esticks (talk) 02:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
* Please read WP:AB. Comments like "attained a national following in less than a year" and "featured on" seem to be self promoting and violate WP:NPOV that is why writing an article on yourself is considered a WP:COI Gtstricky (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All questionable WP:NPOV language has been removed.
  • Comment New references regarding Notability have been added including MTV NEWS, SOHH.COM and AZZURE DENIM AD CAMPAIGN. Also a list of mixtapes have been added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esticks (talk • contribs) 04:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am the author, and I have addressed each issuse brought up in this discussion. The article meets notability requirements. Also - from Wiki's Deletion article - "The argument "non-neutral point of view" (violates WP:NPOV) is often used, but often such articles can be salvaged, so this is not a very strong reason for deletion either."Esticks (talk) 20:57, 7 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 Uncontested delete. 1 != 2 23:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hood Surgeon[edit]

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

This page should be deleted because it shows no purpose other than to take up space. It has no stated purpose and no reason why it should be kept. If the Lil Eazy E page was deleted and protected, this one should be, too. Do not get the wrong idea. I am not doing this to get that page back. I am doing it because the article has no importance. wiki_is_unique (talk) 15:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated the article because this article shows no point to it. This person is not notable and this article should be deleted and protected just like the Lil Eazy E page. wiki_is_unique (talk) 13:36, 7 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. Pastordavid (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hip travel[edit]

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

As per the earlier prod, it is WP:MADEUP. The prod was contested in an anons second edit. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:26, 6 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 — Caknuck (talk) 07:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NorthCreek Church[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be notable; no sources to prove notability Nyttend (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable, no sources to satisfy WP:V and WP:N. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; it appears creator only edited long enough to create this article and while it it extensive, it clearly does not establish notability. Also demonstrates something of a lack of experience with WP; while this is not a reason for deletion, to me it lessens the chance that the creator will see the deletion notice and improve the article to the point where it becomes notable. Epthorn (talk) 16:34, 6 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. Secret account 00:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J-Dawg and B-Rizzle[edit]

J-Dawg and B-Rizzle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete as non-notable musicians. The article itself claims that references cannot be cited to verify either the existence or notability of these individuals. I am not able to find any media coverage of either their careers or their deaths, or their contribution to a musical style. Apparently they were not very successful, and the tragic circumstances of their deaths is unfortunately not enough to maintain the article. ... discospinster talk 15:00, 6 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. Pastordavid (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friedrichsberg Television Tower[edit]

Friedrichsberg Television Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A transmitter that is not yet complete. Even when it is complete there is nothing indicating what is notable about this particular example Nuttah 20:35, 1 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, Caknuck (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:N. Twenty Years 15:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:N. If this gets to be in, I get to put the stone walkway I put in my front yard this summer. It's at least as interesting and slightly better looking. Psinu (talk) 16:13, 6 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 --JForget 01:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route C10[edit]

London Buses route C10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. This is a non notable bus route. Wikipedia is not a directory, it is not a guide and it certainly isn't a mirror for the London Transport website. London Transport is notable, but that does not mean that every product/service they offer is. I can find no coverage of this service that is not trivial and certainly none that would meet the requirements of WP:NOTE. Nuttah 20:23, 1 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, Caknuck (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:N. Twenty Years 15:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I don't usually just say something general like 'per nom' but here the nom has clearly outlined the reasons for deletion and there has been no opposing view. It was relisted, but I'm not sure what further discussion there can be. Epthorn (talk) 18:15, 6 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, fancruft. Keilana 03:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kruge[edit]

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

Unnotable character from a single movie. Fails WP:FICT and is mostly WP:PLOT with a dash of WP:TRIVIA. A much shorter character description belongs in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, following the guidelines set out in the Film MOS

I am also nominating the following related pages because he is also an unnotable character from this single movie not warranting having an individual article:

Fleet Admiral Morrow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 14:59, 6 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. Pastordavid (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Freda[edit]

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

Voice actor for a children's TV show. That's it. Fails WP:BIO. -- Brewcrewer 17:53, 1 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, Caknuck (talk) 15:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO. Twenty Years 15:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to encourage further research... maybe I'll even check it out myself. A clarification (after reviewing the Diver Dan Wikipedia page) is in order; he IS Diver Dan... it wasn't a cartoon voiceover or anything - it was a live action show. Sort of like an extremely poor man's Bob Keeshan. OK, maybe not. But perhaps there's something to the Broadway angle, as well, not sure. Certainly needs references, though. Psinu (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as there has been no movement on the page in months since creation. Keeping in the hope of further establishment is not appropriate in my opinion, and in this case it is just a stub anyway. Epthorn (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I took that as a challenge, and I found some stuff. Is it worth my while to make this more detailed? Psinu (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have additional information, add it to the article before someone close this AfD. Sitting on it serves no purpose. Deor (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
mmm...maybe it does, maybe it doesn't... sort of depends on what else you could be doing I suppose. Does this info establish some special notariety for his Broadway work? That's what I would see as notable here; being a voice actor on a children's show should be on the Diver Dan page and not an independent article. Epthorn (talk) 19:59, 6 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 to delete. Davewild (talk) 21:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yankee Quill Award[edit]

Yankee Quill Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No source, and notability is exceedingly murky based on the current text. Delete unless notability shown. --Nlu (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is a nationally renowned, highly significant award that turns up 551 google hits. It simply needs to be written more - but its a fine stub. • Freechild'sup? 19:03, 3 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, Caknuck (talk) 15:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:N. Twenty Years 15:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is properly referenced. Some of the award winners, especially Ellen Goodman, are notable individuals. I'm just wondering, since I'm a Bostonian, why they call it the Yankee Quill Award?? :) Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:38, 7 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. Xoloz (talk) 15:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bigger The God[edit]

The Bigger The God (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band that that just happened to be playing in the same town as other (notable) bands at the time. Lugnuts 17:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • They did have a video on "Top of the Pops", played live on "The Big breakfast", had extensive coverage in "Melody Maker" and other national music press. Also played live on Radio 1. Shoebill2 17:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to withdraw the nom if you can find any reliable sources for that. Lugnuts 09:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the band so I know these things are true. However, I am unable to prove any of it - Top of the Pops database is not on-line anymore, Melody Maker archives are not on-line. In order to prove it I'd have to scan all the press cuttings and send the videos of TOTP and Big Breakfast etc - it's not really practical! All I can suggest is that you have Google with the name and you'll find many references - I don't know if they would be considered reliable sources for Wikipedia though. Shoebill2 12:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the band, Ah right - you best read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest then. Lugnuts 12:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a conflict of interest - if you look at the history you will see that I neither created the article nor contributed to it. I don't know who any of the contributors are either. I only contributed to this page to give you a little more info before you delete it (as invited by the deletion notice) although I hope you can see from my tone that I am not trying to stop you deleting it if you think it appropriate to do so. Shoebill2 14:27, 2 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, Caknuck (talk) 15:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Twenty Years 15:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Their website has evidence that they did receive a sufficient degree of coverage by the music press: Melody Maker, NME, Record Collector.[28] Clearly but unfortunately, online archives for those publications that far back don't exist. Bondegezou (talk) 15:04, 7 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, could probably have been speedy deleted. Davewild (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big Dipper (band)[edit]

Big Dipper (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Band that fails to establish it's notability Lugnuts 16:58, 1 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, Caknuck (talk) 15:01, 6 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. Pastordavid (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wolves and Humans Foundation[edit]

The Wolves and Humans Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No substantial independent sources are known for this organization; it seems to fail WP:ORG. PROD was contested in February by the article creator. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 16:17, 1 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, Caknuck (talk) 15:01, 6 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. Xoloz (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Bayan[edit]

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

This article is moved from CSD to AFD. I think there is some assertion of notability although the validity of that claim remains to be seen. I think the community is best positioned to make that decision. JodyB talk 14:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Bayan is not more notable than any other internet blogger with a forum, the sources provided are all personal or blog sites besides the Psychology Today article. Is this the sort of irrelevant personas we want included in an encyclopedia, because if it is, I should have an article about myself. I have been mentioned on a few websites, have my own website, and a blog. I also have been published in a few small publications for projects I have worked on and also self-published some pen and paper games. Rick Bayan simply does not meet the criteria for notability, the article itself is an exercise in vanity or at least vicarious living (if written by one of his admirers from his forum), is simply a regurgitation of text from the site and is not in anyway necessary or enriching to this encyclopedia. Baalhammon 15:13, 1 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, Caknuck (talk) 15:01, 6 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. Sean William @ 18:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dare Devil (Gossip Girl)[edit]

Dare Devil (Gossip Girl) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

TV episode with no claim to notability given. Does not deserve qualify for its own article per WP:EPISODE. Nehwyn 07:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


No. Inclusion is not a reason for notability, and this is an individual deletion; each article must be assessed on its own merits. --Nehwyn (talk) 08:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the compromise solution of merge and redirect is certainly the same for all of them, so I don't know why that can't be discussed for all of them at once. -- phoebe/(talk) 08:09, 7 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, Caknuck (talk) 15:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again: each article on its own merits. If a given episode does have something that stands out from the rest, it's welcome to have it's own article. It just doesn't seem to be the case here. --Nehwyn (talk) 08:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Merge. To List of Star Trek characters: A-F CitiCat ♫ 03:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jal Culluh[edit]

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

This minor fictional topic has no real world notability asserted Ejfetters 06:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The character is a villain from Star Trek, one of the big two preeminent science fiction franchises, appeared in five different episodes, including a season cliffhanger and premiere, and was the main recurring villain for two seasons on the flagship show of a TV network. It qualifies. Nightscream 07:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, the article has no real-world information, and contains only in-universe information. It needs to have real world notability to stand on its own, which it does not. It is doubted that enough real-world information can be found to let the article stand alone. Better merged into an article such as List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine characters Ejfetters 07:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What would be an example of "real-world" information? Nightscream (talk) 01:14, 6 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, Caknuck (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone can provide real-world information- in other words, some sign of notability outside the Star Trek universe (for example, the character of Darth Vader has been the subject of many analysis works, etc... Epthorn (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to List of Star Trek characters: A-F. I don't understand why the nominator has not withdrawn this and changed to proposing merge and redirect, as he did for similar AFDs. A list provides context, and as for notability it is sufficient that the concept (e.g. characters or minor characters) is notable. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:35, 8 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 stub for Dean Taylor (musician) already contains a senstence about this, I'm not really sure what other content would be worth merging, especially with the lack of sources. Mr.Z-man 06:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Mandarins (band)[edit]

The Mandarins (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced unnotable band (ghits seem to refer to another band) that fails WP:MUSIC. -- Brewcrewer 03:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per the nom, and MUSIC guidelines. - Rjd0060 04:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't this already addressed? It was already found that this article refers to a band containing a notable musician. This article is about Dean Taylor's current project. How is that unnotable? This article refers to the american band and the american band is listed on the same page.]) -- User:Dilbert2002 03:33, 3 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, Caknuck (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Twenty Years 15:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not familiar enough with music articles to put a delete or not here, but I would simply note that the above concern seems invalid to me; if the band contains a notable musician the band article should be on merged and redirected to that artist's article, not inherit notability of its own. Epthorn (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, this addresses the question /comment by Dilbert2002- I did not want to put it up there as there has been a division based on the listing. Epthorn (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or merge. Given Dean Taylor's involvement, the article qualifies under WP:MUSIC criterion #6. However, with little of substance in the article, it would seem better to import it into Taylor's article. Bondegezou (talk) 15:15, 7 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 --JForget 01:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stewie's Sexy Party[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Stewie's Sexy Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Colton's blog says nothing about the existence of this episode, and the odds of it airing this season even if it existed are slim due to the WGA strike. Will (talk) 20:45, 1 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, Caknuck (talk) 15:03, 6 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. Will suggest merging. CitiCat ♫ 02:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given Up[edit]

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

The song barely charted through radio play and was not released as a single. Articles seems mostly trivial and unsourced, any useful info could be easily merged into Minutes to Midnight (album) if necessary. Delete Rehevkor 22:19, 1 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, Caknuck (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It doesn't fail WP:Notability (music). It has charted (as it states on the article) on the US Billboard charts. At the moment, as Rehevkor said, it has barely charted through radio play, but it still has, thereby fulfilling a WP:MUSIC's condition; now, "trivial and unsourced" is something that cannot be denied at the moment. I think it may be better if "Given Up" is kept and redone (rewritten, expanded, etc.). Qwerty (talk) 08:57, 8 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 — Caknuck (talk) 07:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cottesloe band night[edit]

Cottesloe band night (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Outside of local interest, this does not seem to satify WP:Notability. No third party references/citations. Seems to be written almost as an advertisement/press-release CultureDrone (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not even worth merging to the school where it happens. So non-notable that it's clearly not going to survive AfD, but technically no speedy criterion applies. So here we are. *sigh*. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article creator (and sole other editor) notified. Algebraist 17:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not sufficiently notable, content is not verifiable. --Snigbrook (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Nom Gtstricky (talk) 19:24, 6 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.. CitiCat ♫ 02:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Union of UEA Students[edit]

Union of UEA Students (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable students' union, which asserts no notability through means of external links to reliable, independant sources. In my opinion, the article fails WP:N. TheIslander 14:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:N. Twenty Years 15:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N, WP:ORG. It's possible some student unions are notable, but so far the articles I've seen on them have been just as pitiful as this one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First, there is the issue of verifiability. Second, there is a lot of...excess baggage in this article. The details of the executive structure can be better handled by the Union's website. The list of artists who played at the union has undue weight in the article. Finally, there's nothing left here that goes beyond what's already covered at University of East Anglia, so I don't see a need to salvage text or merge it back into the parent article. —C.Fred (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep As with the other student unions discussed, they are an appropriate way of grouping the mini-articles of student organisations at the universities. Notable as first-division parts of a major university. DGG (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As above. I can't see the benefit of deleting articles about Student Unions. It is impossible to create a catch all article as each student union is run in a different way and have different policies. This discussion would be far better served by having it on all student unions and not individual discussion. There has already been a AfD discussion for SOAS Students' Union that reached no consensus, and I feel that the current AfDs will reach the same conclusion. Andy Hartley (talk) 22:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I did consider creating one AfD for the lot, but wasn't sure, and as per the guidelines for creating AfD's "...if you are unsure of whether to bundle an article or not, do not". You state "...each student union is run in a different way and have different policies". Well, not really. Granted there are slight variations here and there, and there are one or two unions that are just run in a completely different mannor that probably are notable enough for their own article, but on the whole all SUs are pretty much the same. There's pretty much nothing that differentiates one SU from the next, and I've made very sure that I've only nominated those that don't appear to have anything particularly notable about them. There are others that I may nominate, depending on the outcome of these few, but equally there are others that I won't nominate, 'cause I feel that they are notable enough to satisfy WP:N. TheIslander 22:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Exactly. The nomination is not for all student union articles. It's for the article on UEA's union. That's the issue of this AfD, not any other articles on Wikipedia. Since this union's article is unsourced and does not present a clear claim for notability, that's why I recommend deleting. —C.Fred (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now As this AFD and others touch of exactly the same issues, see my lengthy comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southampton University Students' Union about a better way forward of encouraging people to get decent sourcing whilst at the same time getting an actual policy about inherent notability in place, rather than the current mess of individual AFDs on the same basic issue having different outcomes. Timrollpickering (talk) 03:00, 12 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 Nothing seems to link there, so a redirect seems unnecessary. — Caknuck (talk) 07:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of New Jersey hardcore bands[edit]

List of New Jersey hardcore bands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A long list of non-notable red links. Article is just listcruft and any notable content can be covered by a category. Fair Deal (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Why the focus on the state of New Jersey? I'm going to take a guess that most of the bands on here aren't that notable and don't meet WP:MUSIC. Also we already have this category. I think that covers it pretty well. --Cyrus Andiron 14:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above. Twenty Years 15:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect notable (or at least non red links) to Music of New Jersey. Alansohn (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an invitation for non-notable articles and a highly subjective list as it stands (as well as reasons above). Epthorn (talk) 18:23, 6 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 — Caknuck (talk) 07:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos machzne[edit]

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

Band seems to be of questionable notability and blp concerns, maybe a hoax? VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 13:56, 6 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. There is a clear consensus built that, while the article needs citations, the catchphrase is notable enough to have its own article. Maser (Talk!) 07:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping up with the Joneses[edit]

Keeping up with the Joneses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Basically, this is a dicdef that has been expanded on with no sources. Wiktionary already has it. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep While citations are needed to correct the article, it is not a neologism considering how old it is. It is an integral part of the consumerist society, and is perfectly valid. Zidel333 (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a well recognised sociological phenomena. Even BusinessWeek wants to know if it is killing us [29]. Keep, expand and add sources. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, strongly. Do not know if sources have been added since the nomination, but it certainly is reliably sourced in the incarnation I read. This English idiom has been around for a good long time, and explaining its origin goes well beyond a dictionary definition. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, there are no citations. For this article to be valid, it would have to adhere to WP:NOT#DICT and WP:NOR which it looks like it is struggling to do at the moment.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per all above. Twenty Years 15:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but this article is backwards. It shouldn't be about the catchphrase, it should be about the original comic strip, with additiional information about the catchphrase (although not as an "in popular culture" trivia section). The original work is notable through its survival in the catchphrase. --Dhartung | Talk 17:15, 6 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 close. The nominator apparently doesn't want the article deleted. No-one else does, either. AFD is not Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Only nominate articles for deletion where you actually want an administrator to hit a delete button. Uncle G (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warcraft universe[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. There have been a lot of related deletions lately, where many advocated deletion, and where the result often was a merge, in the end into this article. Those deletions happened and closed between the last nomination of this article and now. In order to properly gauge the community consensus on these articles, this article has to be nominated for deletion again. User:Krator (t c) 13:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think that WP:Fict is satisified with the current article, as long as it is bolstered with more citations. Warcraft is one of the most important video game franchises, its WP:Notability well established with its best selling awards, a film in the works, and cultural influence. Unless the nom feels that the information is duplicated elsewhere, (if so please cite) the article should stay. Zidel333 (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't understand why this article needs to be re-nominated. What is its supposed problem? The Warcraft universe is clearly notable, and because there are many notable works set in it, it is a good place to organize their notable common aspects. The previous AFD, which was less than a month ago, closed with 14 keep and 3 delete. — brighterorange (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request for Comment, user:Krator, why exactly is this up for deletion so soon after its previous one? What specifically do you think is not appropriate in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zidel333 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just about one of the most notable computer game franchises going. Seems a perfectly valid page to me. Alberon (talk) 14:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can't see how added material to an article that had already survived a recent AfD would make it more likely to be deleted. -- GJD (Talk to me|Damage I've done) 14:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The article does not have to be nominated again and no policy saying this has been cited. What the actual policy says is that such rapid, repeat nominations are disruptive. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:05, 6 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. Pastordavid (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Debt-based monetary system[edit]

Debt-based monetary system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article constitutes opinion / original research, and does not qualify as a consensus article on debt-based monetary systems. The article is fundamentally unsound and needs total deletion. Gantlord (talk) 11:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep on the condition that references are added. Auroranorth (!) 13:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've reviewed this article's talk page, and page history to get some sense of the drastic changes that have occured over the past several days. It seems that the The Heymann Standard is at work. Before the massive editing, it was pretty propagandistic, with severe issues with WP:POV, and WP:OR. Currently this article clocks in at a whopping two sentences, and needs a great deal of work, with collegiate level of references, but concerns over its fundamental soundess are no longer critical to its AfD.
  • Keep This is not Original research. Fundamentally unsound? clearly an important article in terms of the monetary policy of governments. Twenty Years 15:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. this is clearly an important concept, and worth noting. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Gut and Stub. It should be pruned back to the original two sentences, and built up from there if possible. Virtually of the rest of it is propaganda, and the patient would not survive the radical surgery necessary to make the rest of it salvageable.--Gregalton (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The article just needs work it should not be deleted Alexfusco5 01:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is known concept. However, further sources could/should be added.Osli73 (talk) 09:49, 12 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 — Caknuck (talk) 07:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Studio Album[edit]

New Studio Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Creator declined prod for crystalline album. No title, no tracks, no sources. tomasz. 10:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Because when a prod is removed, it is classed as being contested and should not be replaced. tomasz. 10:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment...again: Sorry, I was under the impression that if a prod is removed by the creator of the article the removal is invalid and therefore the prod should be replaced without an AFD unless someone else de-prods it. I could be wrong, though, and am too tired to look it up tonight...Epthorn (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is nothing here that can't better be addressed in the Great Big Sea article. I think that there are times when unreleased albums merit an article, but usually because there are a number of sources available in respect of the album and a lot more information is known. The fact that this band plans on heading back into the studio does not an article make. Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per Epthorn. GJ (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if this were at the stage where it merited a separate article, the current title wouldn't be appropriate as it could mean the next album of absolutely any active recording artist on the planet. Delete for now, recreate once a title and release date can be confirmed by reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As Skeezix1000 noted, everything of merit here is already covered in the Great Big Sea article. This article is complete "crystal ball" speculation at this point; since it cites no reliable sources. (Finally, I agree with Bearcat: if the album were independently notable right now, a better title would be Great Big Sea's seventh studio album, which would parallel what happened in the early history of Alanis Morissette's seventh studio album.) —C.Fred (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing here, not even the name of the album.--Joebengo (talk) 03:03, 11 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 — Caknuck (talk) 07:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buza[edit]

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

Non-notable, one primarily source according to talk:Buza Russian WP dose not have any better info. Nate1481( t/c) 09:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used babelfish to look at the site. [30] is a portrait of their founder. jmcw (talk) 12:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy delete as G11 and G12. --Oxymoron83 09:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia N97[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Nokia N97 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is speedyable, but the author keeps removing the tag. Just bringing it here so an admin will see it. Copyvio of both [31] and [32]. Also pretty much spam. And now the last section is original research ARendedWinter 08:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for serious copyvio problems. --DAJF (talk) 09:26, 6 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 and move to Marxism in India. Pastordavid (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Marxism[edit]

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

Article contains no actual info, just a few lines copied from the CPI(M) article. Superfluos to the category:Communist parties in India. Soman (talk) 08:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no sources. Primarily a list, anyway. Auroranorth (!) 13:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:N. Twenty Years 15:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, since India is a country with a population of 1 billion and marxism is a pretty popular ideology, I'd guess the Indian marxism movement is quite significant. The article isn't that good but that's no reason to delete it. 96T (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a stub of a notable topic. This article needs to be greatly built upon. Also, an article is never superfluous to a category; they serve completely different functions. --Lquilter (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There absolutely should be an article on this topic, and if there isn't another one already then it should be this one (it probably needs a rename, though). Everyking (talk) 04:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a well known issue. There should be no problem with expanding the article.Osli73 (talk) 09:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I doubt that there could be a meaningful expansion. There is certainly a lot of history of the Marxist movement in India, but the question is whether a specifically 'Indian Marxism' exists. There are of course a wide range of Marxist writers from India, but any discussion into trying to portrayed them as a bloc would be grossly OR. --Soman (talk) 10:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, considering that the present article contains 0 info for such an article (its just a cut-n-paste job from CPI(M) article), there is little real difference between moving this one and rewriting it completly or just starting a completly fresh article. If noone wants to do the rewrite in the coming days, I suggest let the afd go through, and create article(s) like Communism in India, Marxism in India, Socialism in India, etc. at a later stage. --Soman (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a notable topic.The stub can be developed in the future. --Shyamsunder 06:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the article is kept, any reason not to move it to Marxism in India? 96T (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be the better title & the current content seems like a reasonable stub for an article with that title. --Lquilter (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete and redirect. Pastordavid (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2004 Australian Greens candidates[edit]

2004 Australian Greens candidates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

All of this information is already provided at Candidates of the Australian federal election, 2004, with the exception of the totals polled, which can be seen on the pages of the electorates. There is little practical value to any of the rest of the article. Frickeg (talk) 08:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Timeshift (talk) 08:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/redirect. Article was superseded with the creation of the broader candidates article; should be redirected. Rebecca (talk) 09:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article provides useful grouping of candidates by party aggregated with results (including top 25 seats) that is not available in Candidates of the Australian federal election, 2004 or elsewhere in this format Peter Campbell 10:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ditto Peter Campbell's argument, but perhaps some compression could occur. Chrismaltby (talk) 12:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Euryalus (talk) 09:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as everything's on the rest of Wikipedia. Auroranorth (!) 13:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect Information is contained in the candidates article. Merge any relevant information there. Twenty Years 15:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Grouping of information in this manner is useful --Kieran Bennett (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/redirect per nom, Rebecca and TY. Orderinchaos 23:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirect to Candidates of the Australian federal election, 2004 - for reasons of notability and specifically WP:NOT#STATS. The notable material from this article can be found at the more comprehensive "All 2004 Candidates" piece. The remainder is a list of statistics with too little context to explain why they are worth recording. A Greens vote percentage is noteworthy if it a) is large (eg Sydney or Grayndler) or b) could potentially affect the outcome (eg Richmond or Wentworth). Outside of these, an article that indicates that candidate A got 4.76% of the vote and candidate B got 4.47% and neither affected the outcome in their seat is fairly indiscriminate. Euryalus (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, duplication of stuff elsewhere. —Moondyne 01:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Candidates of the Australian federal election, 2004 where people can see who the candidates were for the Greens and the other parties. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either redirect as per Euryalus, or rename article to something like "List of Greens candidates at the 2004 Australian Federal Election". Lankiveil (talk) 09:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Redirect as per suggestion of Euryalus Xdenizen (talk) 04:50, 8 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 renamed to Norfolk County Public Library. Elkman (Elkspeak) 14:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simcoe Public Library[edit]

Simcoe Public Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:N, very few sources available for any information on this article except the one I found with the building history. One of the five branches of the Norfolk County Public Library [33] (possibly the main branch). Would suggest a merge, but the library system itself has no article. Collectonian (talk) 07:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for lack of better alternative. The library building at 46 Colborne St is a registered historic property according to Ontario records as the former Norfolk County Jail.[34] The Simcoe Public Library holds the place name. • Gene93k (talk) 08:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your Google-fu is stronger than mine tonight ;) I was looking to see if it had historical significance because of its age, but hadn't found that. I was thinking of suggesting renaming to Norfolk County Public Library and adding in the other branch info, but since it is a registered historical place, I believe that makes it an automatic keep and keep separate? Collectonian (talk) 08:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change of vote: no objection to a move/repurpose per Bearcat. • Gene93k (talk) 05:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 10:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... unless I see notability. The information above is interesting but does not seem to actually establish notability for the library as it stands today. Nor is there even an attempt in the article itself to do so. Epthorn (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article, as written, is basically a five-line stub. Move to an article about the library system as a whole, adding information on the other branches. There's no reason why that article can't note and discuss the Simcoe branch's historic status. We don't even have separate articles on individual branches of the Toronto Public Library, which is a much larger system that also has several historic branches. Bearcat (talk) 22:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Norfolk County Public Library, per Bearcat, and re-purpose the article to the library system instead of this particular branch. Mindmatrix 01:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move/Rename - seems like the best way to allow future growth of this article. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 07:35, 13 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 Self-evident redirect and merge-as-you-like to Westroads Mall shooting, per WP:BLP1E. Guy (Help!) 13:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert A. Hawkins[edit]

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

He's an otherwise non-notable person who's sole notability is summed up in the article for the shooting spree. Dismas|(talk) 06:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- Not a noble way to achieve fame, certainly. But the rationale is twofold: first, he is widely reported by secondary sources. Second, I believe he has the requisite amount of historical importance, and his bio (even if short) is encyclopedic: eg, this appears to be a continuing narrative of modern America, these random massacres of the public by troubled young people. I have to say, however, I'm not too happy about Wikipedia's ongoing recentism, but..... you have to follow the policy.Brokethebank (talk) 07:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Individual is only notable in the context of the event, for which an article already exists. Previous consensus for Amanda Knox's involvement in the Murder of Meredith Kercher merged the articles in a similar fashion under the same protocol. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to the shooting. WP:BLP1E and all that. Daniel 07:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above (but technically, just redirect)... he's only notable in the context of the shooting, which already has an article. --Czj (talk) 07:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Don't grant this lowlife the notability he could never achieve until he ended his pathetic life. WWGB (talk) 07:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please, there's really no need for that. Regardless of your opinion of the subject, there's no need to go and make such statements, especially given how recent the event was and the fact that people who knew him would probably take offence to such. Wikipedia is a notable website and such comments do us no good in instances like this. Daniel 07:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "people who knew him would probably take offence to such" Are you serious? Nick mallory (talk) 09:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, yeah: "lowlife", "pathetic life". It's unnecessary, really. Daniel 10:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Westroads Mall shooting. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the shooting article he is a non notable person. Any useful info can just move to the article about the event. Chris! ct 07:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on the fact that other pages on infamous mass murders exist -- for example Dylan_Klebold. Sounds like a discussion on a general WP policy for these, regrettably too frequent, events is needed. Professor water (talk) 07:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Daniel. Mr.Z-man 07:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Westroads Mall shooting. Cite Cumulus Clouds's point on Murder of Meredith Kercher, but merging is the best possible outcome for keeping information on the event. MattieTK 07:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Daniel and others - No notability outside the single incident, reliable sources will dry up shortly. Klebold/Harris were an isolated exception which do justify articles. Also concerns re recentism. Orderinchaos 07:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect to Westroads Mall shooting. It should be noted, that Administrator John Reaves created the redirect which was then removed, and as mentioned, this person was not notable aside from this unfortunate event. Precedence shows that in the case of otherwise non-notable persons, the individual articles are usually redirected to the main article about the event, and do not warrant an article of their own. Ariel♥Gold 07:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the outcome of this debate is anything other than keep or no consensus, I strongly suggest the resulting redirect (and redirects for variants on this name) be fully-protected. Daniel 07:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Professor water's comments above. Kip Kinkel, Andrew Golden, Mitchell Johnson, Ronald DeFeo and other spree killers have their own pages; none has done anything noteworthy other than committing multiple homicides. Raider Duck (talk) 07:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge ... for now This is still a developing story. For now, I would argue that there is not enough information to sustain a single article, but that could change, and may even change before this debate is closed. On the other hand, there may never be enough significant information to develop an article. Professor water mentions Dylan and Klebold as having their own articles, though I wonder if the information for such an article existed within the first 48 hours after their notoriety was established. This will need to be monitored. LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, redundant. Tuxide (talk) 08:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. In his own words, "Now I'm famous." And so he is, as a top national news story. If anything, merge the "massacre" story into his bio. Mass killers are almost notorious by definition. NTK (talk) 08:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Westroads Mall shooting, per above. This article is an almost verbatim copy of the Perpetrator section of the shooting article. It gives no additional information about the person at hand, whose only notable action was the aforementioned attack. As both articles are quite short, I say merge unless someone can actually come up with content that would not be appropriate in the shooting article. ♠ SG →Talk 08:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This incident was called breaking news in the UK last night, surely that makes the event and its perpetrator notable, for now, I am sitting on the fence. Hencetalk (talk) 08:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per ArielGold. Merge as needed. Save for 2 sentences, this article is redundant with the shooting article. • Gene93k (talk) 08:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All relevant information is contained within the source article, rendering a separate bio entry unnecessary, and given the circumstances, a little gratuitous. I am of the opinion that it is the event that is noteworthy, not the perpetrator. All personal information should be included under a sub-heading in the main article, and searches for his name redirected to that article. - Nick, 20:04 5 Dec 2007 (I'm in Australia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.102.221 (talk) 09:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold made Doom Maps that were played by a good amount of people, and they planned out the massacre before and to the minute detail (making bombs, acquiring arms, etc). Whereas this dude just killed people, there are nothing currently notable about him, and with the feeding frenzy dying down, there probably won't be any new evidence unearthed for a while (suicide note claimed he just wanted some "lulz". Clearly no serious planning was involved.). Per above, it's essentially copied from the section of the article for the event. Per WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL, the article should be deleted until further evidence shows up to differentiate his article from the one documenting th shooting.
  • Keep Seung-Hui Cho is only notable for being the perpetrator of the Virginia Tech massacre, and his "sole notability is summed up in the article for" that incident. Yet we have an article about him, don't we? -- BlastOButter42 See Hear Speak 09:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:BLP1E. Thanks. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 11:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back into the main article per WP:BIO1E. As he is being discussed purely in relation to Westroads Mall shooting that's where details about him should be placed until such time as either the information about him grows too large for the main article and needs to be split out, or until sources write directly about him rather than about him in relation to this event. As it currently stands the Robert A. Hawkins article contains the same amount of material as the Westroads Mall shooting article so there is no need for a split. Added to which, having a split at this early stage creates a content fork with the inherent problems of simultaneous maintenance of two articles. Keep the content in one place, split it out when it grows, with an adequate summary left in the main article - all future development then takes place on the standalone article with only the occasional need to update the summary. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 09:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to main article. No notability outside the shooting. --GSchjetne (talk) 10:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per people here.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into shooting article for now. While the event itself is of historical significance, it isn't known at this time whether the shooter will become a notable figure as the Virginia Tech and Columbine shooters. Their lives have been examined in depth and their names have become historically notable. For now, this falls under the WP:N#TEMP criteria, until and unless there is further examination of his whole life background.--Mike Straw (talk) 10:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - historically significant person, "perpetrator" accompanied by "event" articles are common at Wikipedia, for example: Kimveer Gill and Dawson College shooting amongst many others. Chessy999 (talk) 10:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no distributive property of notability. Unless there's some claim to notability otherwise, a single incident doesn't generally confer notability on the person involved in it. If we find out more later, then the content can be forked from the main article. --Ssbohio (talk) 12:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per reasons above Q T C 11:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the shooting article per the reasons above. Brad (talk) 11:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for the reasons stated by 122.105.102.221. Hfodf (talk) 11:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect for all the good reasons above. Deleting the article won't do much: new editors are bound to recreate it once they see it doesn't exist. I also suggest temporarily protecting it, per Daniel above. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 11:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect for all the good reasons above MrMarmite (talk) 11:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No reason to delete --Apyule (talk) 11:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, by the same logic, a good reason to delete would be that there is no reason to keep? --Ssbohio (talk) 12:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect Non-notable individual involved in a notable incident. --Ssbohio (talk) 12:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect I can appreciate people's feelings that an individual article about the shooter would be an outrage, which is fair enough. Redirect is the obvious choice, and an inevitable one, and I'm not exaggerating about the inevitability. You can prevent an article that would memorialize this killer, but you can't prevent his name from coming up in other articles in the future. When his name comes up again, a red link turned blue will have to lead to something else besides a Manitoba legislator or a character on Jerico (see Robert Hawkins (disambiguation). Separate article doesn't have to exist, but reference will. Mandsford (talk) 12:24, 6 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, please add any sources mentioned in this discussion to the article if not already there, renaming is an editorial decision. Davewild (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-omics[edit]

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

This feels like an artificial/original research distinction, not a concrete, verifiable, notable topic. Superm401 - Talk 06:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I am doing this right, my vote is do not delete. Or has it even come to that yet? Please do not simply trust your feelings, various '-omics' are very common these days - just ask a biologist. Please try Googling genomics, proteomics, metabolomics, interactomics, functomics, textomics, glyconomics, and their corresponding '-omes', genome, proteome, metabolome, interactome, functome, textome, glycosome.

FWIW, here are some sources (sorry I have not had a chance to fix the -omics page with these);

--Dan|(talk) 11:01, 6 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. Just because it is illegal doesn't mean we don't need an article on it. As long as sources can be found for illegal practices, they are encyclopedic. The Placebo Effect (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wii modchips[edit]

  • Reason: Illigal, immoral, little to no sources on subarticles, hard to understand.
Delete: As nominator. Ellomate (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. It can be cleaned up into a verifiable article. Wikipedia is allowed to describe illegal activities (assuming this is), and obviously morality is a matter of opinion. Superm401 - Talk 06:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep but re-write. I can't imagine there would be too many of these being created, so I can't see the list getting out of hand (I know that wasn't a concern, just wanted to mention it). But the way it's written, it seems a little bit like advertising (mainly the availablity notes). If each could be sourced better, at the moment it's mostly forums, I can't see a reason it couldn't be kept. ARendedWinter 08:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if only because the nominator's reasons are invalid with the exception of a lack of sources. I believe there is notability of this topic although the article does not yet reflect this (Wired would probably be a good source to start). Epthorn (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Modchips are discussed in gaming and general press every now and then, at least enough to fill WP:V. Also, just because something's illegal, doesn't mean we can't have an article on it. What would an encyclopedia be without articles on cannabis, prostitution, murder, jaywalking (lol), etc? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 23:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The above arguments are actually in favour of keeping modchip. This list violates WP:NOT#DIR and should be deleted as a product catalogue. User:Krator (t c) 11:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails in notablity and seems like an ad as well Blood dripping on the ground 23:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This list of mod chips reads like (a list) an advertisement, has no evidence of notability, nor any reliable, non-primary sources.

    Further, I recommend the extension of discussion as I've only just now added the AfD notice to the page. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 22:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This article is especially valid because some people believe that creating backups of copy protected games is illegal and immoral. Consumers need unbiased articles to make informed decisions, especially when the topic is likely to besmirch the reputation of typical reliable sources such as gaming magazines. With regards to the comment on WP:NOT#DIR, this page is no less important than the List of antivirus software. I, however, agree that the article needs cleaning so it's more of a description of the various features and which modchips have which features. --NerdMachine (talk) 15:35, 12 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, I am not convinced by the keep voters that this article is notable. Sean William @ 18:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Browne at Midnight[edit]

Browne at Midnight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Web sitcom of dubious notability. The article at least asserts some, with a famous executive producer, and it provides links to two outside sources. However, one of the sources is a single-paragraph blurb about the show, and the other is at a service for journalism students online. I don't think this meets the WP:WEB criteria of "multiple non-trivial published works." However, it's borderline enough that I'd rather delete it via AfD than speedy delete it. —C.Fred (talk) 05:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey, I added some more links... Is that what you're looking for? I am trying to make this credible, besides I don't really have an agenda in posting this stuff. It's more for fans of Kevin Bright's work to see what he's been up to since Friends and Joey. There was actually mention of "Browne at Midnight" on Kevin's Wikipedia entry, and as a sort-of "insider," I figured I'd post information about the show. I feel like the content is pretty neutral. If there is anything wrong with this specifically, please let me know. When it all comes down to it, Wikipedia is as much of a forum for sharing information as it is an encyclopedia. As far as I'm concerned, this is information that people would want to look for. For anyone reading this, thank you for your time. (Browneatmidnight (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • C.Fred, I recognize that you're just trying to do your job, however I really don't see what the big deal is. While it is all possible that I have conflict of interest, I feel like the content of this entry is pretty much neutral. Maybe you can help me to understand. Thank you for all of your helpa and constructive critique and I will continue to work hard on this site. Is there any reason you do not like me personally? I hope i have not offended you in any way. If so, all apologies... thanks for helping me make this work :) ciao (76.19.21.94 (talk) 03:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • I don't have issues with the neutrality of the article. I have issues with it not being sufficiently notable to warrant an entry. Since it is web content—an online sitcom—it would further need to meet the guidelines for web-based content. One of those is coverage in "multiple non-trivial published works": i.e., the show needs to have gotten substantial coverage in several newspapers, magazines, etc. —C.Fred (talk) 03:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet the guidelines for web-based content. Simple as that. There are some links from the article... one to something from the college the show is from, one containing a trivial mention, and some more that do nothing to confer notability. -- Swerdnaneb 20:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A sitcom produced by a well known director, regardless of the fact it was made by college students. Perhaps its notability is questionable as of now, but further documentation would cover most of these issues. TheDrinkNinja (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As a new Wikipedia entry, this article is of course going to appear less "noteworthy" than a seasoned article aided by multiple users' input. Over time, I am sure that this, just like any other article, will grow and flourish as knowledgeable users add their two cents. It is more important to make sure that the upcoming additions are neither false nor slanderous than to question the article's current notability. Instead of nipping it at the bud, the article should be monitored to make sure that any future additions are truthful and non-biased. DanRo8388 (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)— DanRo8388 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Comment Okay. Let me make sure I have this right... You want to keep the article because it's new? -- Swerdnaneb 00:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The article being "new" really isn't a reason to keep it - you're right in that respect. However, it seems clear that while some fail to see the notability of this article, some disagree and others may simply see potential for notability in the future. Sure, you could delete this article and free up the infinitely small amount of space it takes up on a server's hard drive, arguing that it is just clutter among many more interesting articles. However, someone clearly has taken the time and effort to compose the article in a non-offensive and easy to read way. What is Wikipedia if not a hub of knowledge for the masses? The fact remains that the majority of the "legitimate" articles gracing this site will only be read a handful of times, and a Browne at Midnight article may be no different. Still, to take it upon yourself to deem someone else's work as "unworthy" of Wikipedia... well that just seems to go against everything Wikipedia was built upon. This is information being shared among the common people, and if there are people who might find the article useful or intriguing, it should not be deleted. DanRo8388 (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. Deb (talk) 16:11, 15 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 — Caknuck (talk) 07:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quadra pop[edit]

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

Was prodded by me, but contested by the original author. So bringing it here instead. Seems to be an unremarkable mobile phone application. Google searches show not much more than people asking where they can obtain a free version. Maybe speedyable, but didn't know what category. ARendedWinter 05:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; no independent sources per WP:CORP, and no showing of particular notability in the article text. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom and Smerdis of Tlön --Dawn bard (talk) 15:29, 7 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 Rigadoun (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dadheech brahmins[edit]

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

Only linked to by one article (Dadhich Brahmin), notability not asserted, insufficient context for typical readers, and various other style issues. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Context now provided and wikified to some extent. A notable group of Brahmins—Shyamsunder 15:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment merging those two articles has increased the number of incoming links to three. No longer orphaned and duplicated. Shyamsunder also added an external link and a book reference. I'm not entirely sold on notability, but we now have at least one ref to go on. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:21, 8 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 — Caknuck (talk) 07:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ABAC Lakeside[edit]

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

Delete nn college dorm, fails WP:N Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. College dorms are not inherently notable; this article does not demonstrate a reason for it to be. Tijuana Brass (talk) 04:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to the school's main article. Don't merge, there's nothing here really. When an article about a building has to point out that it includes smoke detectors, you can tell it's desperate to pad itself out with anything at all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete /redirect - nothing to merge. SkierRMH (talk) 05:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Andrew Lenahan. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:04, 6 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 — Caknuck (talk) 07:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Scharf[edit]

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

Delete poet seemingly only published by his own micro-press. fails WP:BIO Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:26, 6 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 WP:SNOW. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 06:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salty Walrus[edit]

Salty Walrus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Delete unsourced sexual slang term that doesn't seem to be improve-able having been given 2 months' warning and still no sources - if we find reliable sources that's fine, but haven't yet and prospects seem bleak. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eww. Delete per WP:NEO, unsourced and unverifiable neologism. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • edit conflicted Delete Even though I declined the speedy too, I also could find no sources. Dlohcierekim 04:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article ruined walruses for me. And on another note, it's a non-notable neologism. J-ſtanTalkContribs 04:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no refs, not encyclopedic, nn.--MONGO (talk) 04:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --rogerd (talk) 05:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super salty delete - per Ten Pound Hammer. Seriously, salt it to avoid certain recreation. You know it's going to come back and squirt us in the eye. - Crockspot (talk) 05:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:NEO. Ew, put it under the bed sheets! Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 05:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and... ew. Okay that's not a good rationale... but no WP:RS, possibly WP:OR, WP:NOT, WP:NEO, etc. Ariel♥Gold 05:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear delete - no refs, no sources, and appears to be something made up in school one day. - Philippe | Talk 05:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable (will he go for the horrible pun?) neolojism! (yes, yes he will. should this vote be 'snowballed' too? ) ThuranX (talk) 05:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dumb. JuJube (talk) 06:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ridiculously non-notable. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 06:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - also, lol, snowballed. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 06:07, 6 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 --JForget 01:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of public houses in Bracknell[edit]

List of public houses in Bracknell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete, WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, was tagged speedy but has sufficient context to avoid speedy Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not even sure what this article is talking about. J-ſtanTalkContribs 04:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY as above by Carlossuarez46. — Yavoh 05:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DIRECTORY as above. SkierRMH (talk) 05:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - wikipedia is not a directory, and this is a non-notable list. If even a few of these pubs had their own articles with valid claims to notability, a list linking them together might be of value to a reader researching the history or culture of Bracknell bars. In the absence of this, the information here could just as easily be obtained from a phone book. Euryalus (talk) 06:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per Euryalus LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 08:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Into Bracknell. A separate list is unnecessary. If merged, it should take care to verify the entries with appropriate citations. If merge is not possible, then simply delete.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to Delete after reading later additions.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N#DIRECTORY Doc Strange (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, please do not merge. Lists of pubs, bars, and other local businesses do not belong in city articles, they belong in the phone book or travel guides. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:57, 6 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 — Caknuck (talk) 07:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Dawes[edit]

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

Delete memorial article for a firefighter killed in the line of duty; noble, yes; notable, no. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and with regret LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete- Will you also delete the pages for the firefighters that died on 9/11? Or because he was a Chilean firefighter is less important?

  • Delete without any slur upon the subject of the article. Death in the line of duty doesn't amount to notability Mayalld (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep per Snow/Speedy Keep - Non-Admin Closure . Fosnez (talk) 12:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disaster!: A Major Motion Picture Ride...Starring You![edit]

Disaster!: A Major Motion Picture Ride...Starring You! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete I feel this article should be deleted because there is very little info on it, And even worse, We're now in the opening month of the ride! Now that's just depressing--5VH9 (talk) 03:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep.:Per WP:NOTCLEANUP. Deletion is not a way to improve an article. Improving it is.-Carados (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AFD is for deletion, not for improve and cleanup. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, invalid rationale given. Article needs cleaning up, not deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep does have a minor crystal-ball issue as it hasn't technically opened yet, but at this point the chance that it *won't* open is so infinitesimally small that it isnt really worth discussing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. If you carry a notebook with you on this ride, you just might be a Wikipedian. Mandsford (talk) 12:47, 6 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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to viruses[edit]

Introduction to viruses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The purpose of this article is to create an introductory fork of virus. While I appreciate the author's intention of making the subject more accessible, it's not Wikipedia practice to fork off articles in this manner. However, I wanted to start an AfD on the article rather than re-deleting it in order to invite community input and suggestions on how this material can be integrated elsewhere -- like I said, I appreciate the desire to make articles more readable. Tijuana Brass (talk) 03:47, 6 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. Notability is not inherited, and she is not independently notable.. Keilana 04:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Alicia Porter King[edit]

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

Delete Not independently notable per WP:BIO. First deletion was closed prematurely, but I didn't see to reopen it because it was a month old. The first closer was not an admin and closed it several days early. He was shortly blocked thereafter. Strothra (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, notability is not inherited. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Aside from a post-closure edit, there is nothing obviously irregular with the previous AfD. The debate was closed after 5½ days by a now-retired admin and the logs show no block. • Gene93k (talk) 05:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes! Thanks for pointing that out! I had glanced at the comment made by Maplewooddrive and thought that was the closure. That's what I get for skimming. --Strothra (talk) 06:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per User:TenPoundHammer LonelyBeacon (talk) 08:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A President of the United States was born in her house which is now a historic site. Americasroof (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being the grandparent of a president is not in itself notable. The information here could be put on the Gerald_R._Ford_Birthsite_and_Gardens page. Alberon (talk) 14:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per notability not being inherited. Precedent has long established that simply being a family member of a notable person is not notability in itself. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well apparently its a judgement call, and my judgement is that the grandparent of a US president is notable. The question depends of first the relationship, and second the importance of the primary figure. Grandparent counts to me as a very close relative, and the second factor is unquestionable. I wouldnt accept 2nd cousin of a president, or grandparent of a Senator. ,DGG (talk) 09:05, 9 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, non-admin closure - Peripitus (Talk) 10:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Lynch King, Sr.[edit]

Leslie Lynch King, Sr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete not independently notable per WP:BIO Strothra (talk) 03:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Man was biological father of a U.S. President and the U.S. President was first named for him and his uncaring encounter with Ford spurred Ford to legally change his name to his stepfather. There are 36 articles on Wikipedia about the parents of Presidents (and a category). He is part of a collection of notable people. Americasroof (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for keeping an article. --Strothra (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Otherstuffexists is not a policy. It is an essay. Americasroof (talk) 04:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it, as other essays and guidelines, are based in and derived from policy. As an essay in Wiki namespace it reflects a community understanding of the processes that underlie Wiki. Further, this particular essays points out the logical fallacy of making such an argument. --Strothra (talk) 04:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, notability is not inherited. The man's only claim to fame was being a president's biological father. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's an entire book about the fathers of American presidents. He's got a profile in there. That's good enough for me. Is Wikipedia really better without this information? Zagalejo^^^ 04:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep of course. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 07:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Gerald Ford. All that needs to be known about him is already in that article. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This information is important enough to keep, but I think it can be reasonably pared down and merged into the article on President Ford. LonelyBeacon (talk) 08:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why pare down? We have the space to include more details than a paper encyclopedia. This isn't about a video game character; it's about the immediate relative of a world leader. It's very plausible that people could find this information useful. Zagalejo^^^ 08:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure that all of the intimate details of this man's life is worthy of an encyclopedia article, therefore I would say pare it down, and include it in the Gerald Ford article, because the Gerald Ford article details the life of Gerald Ford, not Leslie King,Sr. True, while not limited by paper, that is does not mean that the floodgates are open to a biography for anyone who has had an influence on anyone of note. I don't support deletion, because there is something meaningful here ... I'm just not of the opinion that there is notability to establish an entire article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 09:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think enough information exists out there that we could build this into a decent article. For example, that one book at Google Books would be great, if I could get a hold of it. I understand your slippery slope concerns, but I don't think it's such a stretch that someone might want additional info on a president's father. Every junior high history paper on Ford is bound to begin with some info on his parents. Zagalejo^^^ 22:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep father of a president You've Got Mail! (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whatever one may think about grandfather, father of a President is certainly notable. DGG (talk) 09:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. It is incorrect to think that notability cannot derive from association with another person, or that it cannot come posthumously. Everyking (talk) 04:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Zagalejo's note about the person having an independent entry in a history book is convincing enough. Such coverage is sufficient grounds for passing WP:N and WP:BIO guidelines. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:31, 14 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 --JForget 01:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honda ecu codes[edit]

Honda ecu codes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. This kind of information belongs in a lot of places, but Wikipedia is just not one of them. Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 03:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not encyclopedic despite being WP:USEFUL. JJL (talk) 03:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wow, nom makes a pretty airtight argument if you ask me. -Verdatum (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Car manuals might be useful, but not here. SkierRMH (talk) 05:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Verdatum. LonelyBeacon (talk) 08:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 08:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#HOWTO. Also, this may be a copyright violation; some manufacturers use copyright to "protect" their diagnostic codes. Even if the intent is to illegally force all service work to franchised dealers, we shouldn't publish copyvio. Comment: "Delete per Verdatum" is a pretty awful line of reasoning in this case, compared to the guidelines suggested for AfD comments. Barno (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm adding this note linking to the discussion on my talk page so LonelyBeacon and anyone reviewing his/her contribution sees that LB dealt with a criticism by asking a question and explaining the AfD edit that caused the issue. LB checked a policy-related guideline that I pointed out, and listened to my explanation. I mentioned what WP:AADD says about sounding like a group of sockpuppets/meatpuppets with "per nom" (and "me too" was also implied by LB's AfD edit) without saying what reason the specific case fails our policies or why the specific case is so exceptional that consensus should support overriding a general guideline, and we've resolved the matter to everyone's satisfaction. Absolutely no gripe now with LonelyBeacon's effort to learn the ways of editing and participating in Wikipedia. Barno (talk) 07:14, 8 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 — Caknuck (talk) 07:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adele Augusta Ayer Gardner[edit]

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

Keep - A U.S. President was raised born in her home. She is the reason Ford wound up in Michigan. Americasroof (talk) 04:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator is attempting to delete all articles on Ford's parental history so I made a mistake as I am responding to each of his deletions. Americasroof (talk) 04:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was right the first time on Ford being raised in her home (nominator is also deleting the grandmotther in Omaha). Americasroof (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. So what? Notability isn't inherited. So she was the mom of a then-future president, that's not enough to make her notable. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Adele was the grandmother of a President, not the mother, and this article has no information about her but genealogical information (birth/marriage/children/death). The article does not establish her as notable per WP:BIO. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. If she is not already mentioned in the article on President Ford, some selective information may be useful there. This person is not notable enough for an independent article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being the grandmother of a country's leader is not in itself notable. Alberon (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree - notability is not in the genes. Nurture not nature Victuallers (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC) If the article described and cited her role in his nurture then that might work ... but it doesn't. Victuallers (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there's nothing that suggests notability, if we accept this bio. we would have to accept also great or great-great-grandfathers of notable people.--Aldux (talk) 20:38, 10 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. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Johnn[edit]

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

Non-notable reality show contestant. Hasn't done anything of note since the show. Completely unreferenced, so it's a WP:BLP problem, too. Mikeblas (talk) 03:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete would change this given WP:RS for the claims of WP:N and a less hagiographic tone to the article. JJL (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since the show, he's presented a line at NY Fashion Week, and a quick Google News archive search shows he was at least fairly notable before the show as well, with this, for example, a Chicago Sun-Times article from 1988. So he's hardly a "Look ma, I got on TV!" case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I cannot access that article above, so I can't really speak to it. I will say that this WP article is terrible. That is not in and of itself a reason for deletion, but in its current form it fails to establish notability. Hopefully someone else who has access to that news article can determine how useful it is and, if it is worth it, work on making this entry less of a clear WP:ADVERT, which is all it currently is. Epthorn (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Johnn is somewhat of a cult legend in the NYC fashion scene. This absolutely is an article that needs to be researched and expanded, not deleted. Tokyojoe2002 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:20, 11 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. They are not quite notable under WP:MUSIC yet, however, when they become more notable, the article should be recreated. The one thing I see is that according to the article, they've only released one EP and one LP, neither of which has charted or been covered in major press. Keilana 04:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Farewell (band)[edit]

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

Contested prod, so here we are. Simply releasing one single album does not meet WP:MUSIC, without charts, awards, etc. to indicate notability. Ravenna1961 (talk) 02:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.   jj137 ♠ Talk 03:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. J-ſtanTalkContribs 04:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Actually, passes WP:MUSIC by (a) having released more than one record (two EPS, one album); (b) having the aforementioned album released by Epitaph Records, the largest true independent in the world, which they joined at the personal request of the founder; and (c) having completed multiple national tours, one of which they are on as we speak. More research, please, people. tomasz. 11:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Just below the edge of WP:MUSIC. Fails criterion 5. Only one work out on a large independent lable. Fails criterion 4. An eastcoast tour is not a national tour. The fact that Brett Gurewitz scouted them does not make them notable. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no, an east coast tour is not a national tour, but their other national tours were indeed national tours. "being scouted by B.G." is admittedly not a WP:MUSIC criterion but i rather think it is notable. tomasz. 16:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you link the source for the national tour for those as source impaired as me? That would be a vote swayer for me. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable enough for an article under WP:Music yet. May become so at a future date. At present there are insufficient non-trivial secondary sources and the music output is not sufficient. Brett Gurewitz scouting them is irrelevent because notablity is not transferable. A1octopus (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Peter Fleet (talk) 09:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cited sources are not Rolling Stone or The New York Times, but there are at least two independent articles, from Alternative Press (which I have now added) and from Teen. The release on Epitaph and their tour, neither on its own would pass WP:MUSIC—but taken as a whole, I think there is enough here for a keep.--Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 06:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Paul Erik above—arf! 04:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- I think this is a well-done, informative article completely within the standards of Wikipedia.--JP (talk) 22:38, 15 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 album has not charted or been mentioned in non-trivial press. If the band becomes more notable in the future, then this album will be more notable. Keilana 04:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't This Supposed to Be Fun!?[edit]

Isn't This Supposed to Be Fun!? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod, so here we are. Simply releasing one single album does not meet WP:MUSIC, without charts, awards, etc. to indicate notability. Ravenna1961 (talk) 02:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't think their tour qualifies as a national tour. They're going to nine cities (6 states) in nine days on the eastern seaboard, never extending any farther west than Georgia. --Cyrus Andiron 16:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. WP:MUSIC requires two albums on a "more important" indie label. They've only got one. Bondegezou (talk) 14:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless some refs can be found to establish notability- charts, etc per nom.Epthorn (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now added cites for two articles about the band and the album, from Alternative Press and from Teen. Keep. --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 06:46, 8 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 — Caknuck (talk) 07:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Millsite canyon trail[edit]

Millsite canyon trail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

not notable, author ignored advert tag Adimovk5 (talk) 02:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

recommend Millsite canyon trail for deletion

  • This article reads like an advertisement and was previously marked {{advert}}
 23:22, 28 October 2007 User:VivioFateFan (→Ad style article)
  • The author removed an {{advert}} tag without attempting a fix and without explanation
 00:05, 29 October 2007 User:Ikanode (1,641 bytes)
  • No article links to this article
  • This article links to no other article
  • Two of the three external links provided require are for the same members only, registratiion required website
  • The one functioning external link contains only photos
  • This article does not give sources for anything in the article body
  • Nothing is notable about the article's 12.7 miles of trail in a 900 mile trail system in Tonto National Forest which does not mention this trail
Tonto National Forest has an article which does not mention this trail
  • Google links for "Millsite Canyon Trail" point either to this article or to the previously mentioned members only website-----Adimovk5 (talk) 02:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, especially the bit about the source with just pics. Ryan4314 (talk) 03:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to insufficient notability: no independent reliable sources found. I haven't reviewed the Tonto National Forest article to determine whether any of this should be merged to there, but certainly "They could have filmed Lord of the Rings here" doesn't qualify, nor the "It is not known whether..." stuff. I'm a trail lover, but if the natural bridge and "wall" are noted in reliable sources, they should be mentioned in the parent article, and the trail should be mentioned only as a part of the trail system and as the access to these features. Barno (talk) 19:32, 6 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 — Caknuck (talk) 07:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! (novel)[edit]

Hey! (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A self-published book with little to indicate that it is in any way notable. The sole third-party source is a linked article to The Swindon Advertiser, presented as a press report on controversy created by the novel. In fact, the story reports that the author expects controversy. I can find no evidence that the prediction came true, nor can I find any other coverage of the book. Fails WP:BK Victoriagirl (talk) 02:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The article does fail WP:BK easily, and it does not appear that more sources will surface soon. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The predicted controversy does not seem to have materialized. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete self-published books are pretty much non-notable by definition. Seems like the author was fishing for controversy but nobody actually cared enough to be outraged by it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BK and lack of substantial third-party sources. Barno (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very little in the way of sourcing to indicate that this is a notable book. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:51, 6 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.--Kubigula (talk) 04:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Stop Sign[edit]

The Stop Sign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Information is already in 2007 American League Championship Series - also mentioned in Sports-related curses#Cleveland Sports Curse - maybe redirect to one or the other --Snigbrook (talk) 02:23, 6 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. Mr.Z-man 04:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kamau Kambon[edit]

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

Non notable ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:PROF. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, This guy's a university lecturer who wants to exterminate all white people and the footage of him saying that is on Youtube. How is he not notable? Ryan4314 (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. If every fool on youtube gets his own article we might as well close up shop. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This man is not a fool, he's a teacher, has degrees and has appeared on TV as well. Did u read the article?. Ryan4314 (talk) 02:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who suggests for the extermination of white people isn't a fool? Yeah, I guess you're right, he's just a nut. Another good reason to have a WP article about him.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this sarcasm? I'm being serious I can't tell. Ryan4314 (talk) 09:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are hundreds of thousands of professors and lecturers in the US. This guy doesn't need Wikipedia's help to commit career suicide. AnteaterZot (talk) 03:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Fred Phelps gets a whole 3 pages for picketing funerals, this guy wants to exterminate an entire race and said so on a government channel. Thats pretty notableRastov (talk) 03:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per AnteaterZot and Brewcrewer. Being a racist is not an inherent claim to notability, and appearing in a video on YouTube is definitely not a claim to notability. (By the way, C-SPAN is not a government channel per se; it broadcasts government proceedings, but is privately controlled as a nonprofit corporation, and the event at which Kambon appeared was not a government-sponsored event.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an insane asylum. Nick mallory (talk) 09:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article is referenced to multiple reliable sources and is therefore notable, also regarding Brewcrewer's comment above - "we might as well close up shop" - please see WP:NOTPAPER - Fosnez (talk) 12:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per notability. --Tom (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability not established. Average prof at best. The one claim to notability (the genocide thing) does not appear to have generated much attention either. --Crusio (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; the "reliable sources" that Fosnez relies on to prove notability are mostly proof that he exists and taught some classes. There's a page showing that he sued a former employer; the case isn't really notable, and the page isn't about him, it's about legal precedents that may affect the University of North Carolina. (For example, Texas v. Johnson is notable, but Gregory Lee Johnson isn't.) There's one transcript from the Fox News show "Hannity & Colmes" where some people briefly brought up what he said is not a source for a biography. This article doesn't mention birth place, birth date, spouses, or children; that's a big warning sign that you're creating an article about an incident, as much as a person.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is established through multiple reliable secondary sources, as I have now provided on the article (and here for convience: [35][http://worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46992][36]). There are also heaps of other results returned on google. Fosnez (talk) 13:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article violates policy on biography of living people notable only for one event, and I'm especially concerned that that is a negative event.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Being a notable racist with multipleenational coverage for something which not unreasonably attracted national attention is notable. DGG (talk) 09:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- The thing is that they write all over about "black genocide", "white racism" why we can't write about black racism ?! The guy said that "all blacks have to kill all white people" - That is the reason why we should keep this article on and nothing is bad in this, wanna be NPOV ? Be NPOV at all. "Justice for All"...

--Greetings [[User:Krzyzowiec|Krzyzowiec]] (talk) 21:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment: this article isn't about black racism, it's about a black racist. Should every racist have an article just by speaking up?--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Google the guy. Michelle Malkin and David Horowitz bitch about him. This means he is notable. The Townhall.com crowd don't acknowledge/parasitize their enemies until they reach a certain notability. People say "Kill de White People" all the time. The fact that many people heard this guy say it means he is notable. contextflexed (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 --JForget 01:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of free Go programs[edit]

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

This is a list of external links which violates "Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic." in WP:EL Anshuk (talk) 02:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Snigbrook (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. It probably could have made WP:CSD#A3. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:SPAM. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as spam. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 08:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Lifebaka. It's a list, and offers little (if anything) else. At a stretch, it could indeed have made WP:CSD#A3. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any notable examples with the main article on the game -- as providing readers with some resources for playing the game is useful and violates no rule -- and delete the rest and any that are considered commercial ventures (some of these are open source so aren't revenue-generators). 23skidoo (talk) 03:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It is obvious some of you don't know what spam is. Spam is advertisement posing as legit external links, or is the bulk pasting of links to more places than is appropriate. While i'm not arguing for this article's keep - this list is not spam in any shape or form - it is simply a list of closely related links. Don't label it as something its not - I find doing so quite dishonorable. Fresheneesz (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Rray (talk) 23:06, 7 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 Rigadoun (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vicky-Lee McIntyre[edit]

Vicky-Lee McIntyre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article lacks Attribution to Verify WP:BIO or WP:BLP notability criteria … the claim that the subject "has also modeled for Playboy" (not the same as having been a centerfold, nor nearly as notable) is unsubstantiated by any WP:RS citations, although said claim was used as justification for declining a speedy deletion (WP:CSD#A7). Happy Editing! —The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 02:18, 6 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. Pigman☿ 03:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Go software[edit]

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

This is a list of external links which violates "Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic." in WP:EL Anshuk (talk) 02:20, 6 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.

Hometown Hero (NCIS)[edit]

The result was Delete TeaDrinker (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hometown Hero (NCIS) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I tried a speedy tag for this short listing of a non-notable TV episode, was turned down. Unsourced. AnteaterZot (talk) 01:51, 6 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. For an event that has only occurred within the last day, it is generally unwise to debate on such a scale whether the shooting will be regarded as notable in the future. The article is decent in quality and (this is my personal opinion creeping in here) I believe the evolution of an article, at least in the initial stages, is easier and faster if there is significant interest in the subject matter. For now, it would be better to keep the article, let it evolve over time and judge later on whether it is notable.Harryboyles 03:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Westroads Mall shooting[edit]

Westroads Mall shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is no evidence of the larger significance of this shooting yet - it's a top news story today, but there isn't sufficient evidence that this is an event worth covering. Furthermore, without the possibility of critical perspective it is impossible for this article not to violate BLP, as it is necessarily about the (often negative and tragic) details of living and recently deceased people without any consideration for broader significance. Simply put, it is irresponsible for us to claim that what we are hosting here is an encyclopedia article. Leave this sort of thing to WikiNews. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Brown's Chicken massacre. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.' This event is newsworthy AND worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. Its another case of an American mass shooting event that killed several people. The fact that it is news should not preclude it from being on Wikipedia. We have many other articles about similar events: the Amish school shootings, the Columbine massacre, etc. ThreeOneFive (talk) 00:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Premature nomination. Its been literally hours, and these articles always seem to get nominated, and are always keept it seems like. Even if the press coverage dies down 10 days from now, it will still pass the threshold for notability. If no one cares in a few months, nominate it then. Otherwise, it just wastes cycles going through this each time such a story breaks. Lawrence Cohen 00:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Surely more time is wasted writing crappy articles like this than deleting them. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Surely that's a pretty arrogant view to hold of our peers. The article is fine, and there is no reason it won't be better yet in the next 5 days or 5 years. Lawrence Cohen 00:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Premature, and obviously notable. bibliomaniac15 00:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • On what possible grounds can its notability be obvious? There isn't any existent critical perspective or impact from this, and it does not tie in as a major development in any existing notable topic. I will grant that this could turn out to be notable, but I see no evidence whatsoever that it is notable as of this timestamp, little yet that it is "obviously" so. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep. WP:NOT#NEWS. We have Wikinews for that.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 00:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that these articles always seem to be kept, maybe we should AfD the section that is WP:NOT#NEWS as irrelevant for a deletion reason. Lawrence Cohen 00:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Man bites dog is news. Man kills bunch of people and himself in the mall is notable. Bearian (talk) 00:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please, enlighten me - what is its larger significance? Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not every article has to be about a unique, trend-setting or incident of major significance. What was the significance of every small battle in World War I, or World War II that we have articles on? Or of every other article on a notable crime? Sometimes an event is just an event, and people's interest in the subject merits it's notability. The end. Lawrence Cohen 00:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Those subjects are significant because they directly contribute to a larger significant topic - World War I and World War II. Where is the larger significant topic here? And what can be said of people's interest in any sort of long-term view? This is an hours old event. There is no basis for any claims of its larger popularity. Not everything that springs up on news sites is immediately worth preserving in an encyclopedia. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • And not everything is worth killing on sight as an article. Perhaps you should relax and let the community decide without challenging every single person that says "Keep," which is a bit much. Lawrence Cohen 00:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm sorry, I missed where challenging points of view and arguments was an unproductive way of contributing to a discussion. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Challenge them, if you're so inclined, but if you have to repeatedly challenge each and every Keep it may illustrate the weakness of your delete position, if you have to immediately and hyper-aggressively challenge all keeps. It has the appearance of trying to enforce your own view over consensus, which won't fly. Lawrence Cohen 01:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously notable, how many other shootings have less than 9 people killed and have an article?--Joebengo (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, other crap exists. Please, though - explain what is notable about this particular shooting. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your point of view seems to be the minority. ThreeOneFive (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I fail to see how that is equivalent to it being wrong or dismissible. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • We're voting. The minority loses. See Democracy. ThreeOneFive (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • WP:NOT democracy. And this is not a vote. We're discussing the merits of the argument, and "nobody agrees with you" is not a meaningful contribution to the discussion. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • We're trying to get a consensus. When the overwhelming majority wants to keep the article, why should we delete it? Perhaps you have better things to do than insult the authors. ThreeOneFive (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Overwhelming majorities can be wrong. In fact, I find that when they rely on citing their numerical strength instead of the strength of their arguments, they often are wrong. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Isn't that the problem with democracy and consensus-building? Perhaps you would be more comfortable with fascism or anarchy. I find that "right" and "wrong" are not as obvious as you seem to think.
                    • Ad hominem isn't much more persuasive than arguing by majority. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Trying to WP:OWN the page by pestering isn't either. Lawrence Cohen 00:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • It is not an ad hominem argument; you say that the majority is often wrong and I say sure, but what's your suggestion? Doing what you think is right or wrong?
        • 9 people are dead in a one time shooting. Not to mention this happened only hours ago, your AFD is waaay to soon, at best.--Joebengo (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, article is way too soon at best. We do not keep articles around in the hopes that some day their subjects will matter. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Then why dont you propose to delete every article in this section because more than half of them have less that 9 people dead.--Joebengo (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • For the most part, I don't consider "number of people dead" to be the deciding factor in a massacre's notability. Many of those have other claims to notability - significance in a gang war, political targeting, etc. I note, though, that many of the ones most similar to this - the Carl Brown massacre or the Neptune Massacre, for instance - do not have articles. I would be happy to change my vote to a merge vote to the list of massacres, though. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”'Delete”' per nom and User:HisSpaceResearch--Docg 00:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Surely America isn't that far gone that we're dismissing this as "just another mass murder"? FiggyBee (talk) 00:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not at all. But I'm not sure that a mass murder is inherently notable. If it is, we need to bolster our coverage of the Khmer Rouge rapidly. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”'Delete”' per Doc et al. mdf (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the Virginia Tech massacre is considered notable to keep, then the should be kept as well. I live in Omaha, and this has crippled the city for the entire day. This has even been compared to Columbine. Shawn W (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fine - and when it is compared to Columbine in the sober aftermath instead of the immediate heat of the moment, we'll have something. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this kind of article is exactly what WikiNews is for. Mr.Z-man 00:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep (and snowball) AFD is for articles that have existed for multiple days. Made it on to CNN's front page. Tuxide (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And it will be removed from CNN's front page if George Bush chokes on his spoon this evening. The media has an attention span measured in hours or days -- Wikipedia needs a far longer view. Let the media clusterfuck pass, and then gather what knowledge is available. What is the rush? mdf (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • CNN's front page, in particular, has been bad lately - the endless stories about the poor Iraqi boy who got set on fire, Paris Hilton, and the deadly amoeba have not given me a strong sense that CNN is interested in news as such these days. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Irrelevant to Wikipedia or this discussion. Lawrence Cohen 01:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Untrue - evaluation of the merits of a source is very important to discussions that hinge on the significance of that source. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Your funny view that CNN isn't a reliable source is noted. Lawrence Cohen 01:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • What about the BBC, NY Times, LA Times, Yahoo! News? This story made all their front pages. Is it only CNN that you have a problem with? Perhaps we can remove the CNN cites to your liking.
      • Why the rush to delete? Having the article hurts nothing, neither does keeping it. Why not err on the side of caution? If you don't like the article, even though its notable, don't edit it. Lawrence Cohen 00:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because it reports negative details about recently deceased people that have not been useful context or given larger significance yet. And when the inevitable "list of victims" gets added it will get worse. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • My apologies for the future edits that you will find objectionable. ThreeOneFive (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • What negative details violate BLP? Manner of death is negative now? And agree with ThreeOneFive. Watchlist the article if you're worried about the future. Lawrence Cohen 01:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • BLP is meant to prevent unverifiable, defamatory claims from appearing on Wikipedia. Clearly, what he did today is verifiable. Tuxide (talk) 01:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The only sources to this article are mainstream media outlets, and online ones at that. Call me a prude, but I am less than impressed with them. Especially when it comes to "breaking" stories. That is to say, in addition to all previous arguments, I say "no reliable sources at this time". Wait a month and add the article back. mdf (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Our notability standards that are community-accepted conflict with your view, unfortunately. Lawrence Cohen 01:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Or wait a month and bring it up on AfD. I would have responded differently if this wasn't brought up on AfD the day it was created. Tuxide (talk) 01:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • If there are no reliable sources, there should be no article. mdf (talk) 01:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't understand. The BBC, NY Times, LA Times, Yahoo! News and MSNBC are not reliable sources? I don't see how the information is not credible. ThreeOneFive (talk) 01:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Any source can be unreliable, and just to trust them implicitly because they are CNN or the New York Times is a recipe for disaster. Consider this, where a "reliable" BBC source changes, invalidating article claim. (This is just one of several examples of this I've personally witnessed.) Right now you are watching CNN, and they are just streaming pictures of grieving people, overlaid with whatever nonsense is coming out of some cop, pundit, or politician's ass. Audience! Ratings! In a few days facts will materialize from the "fog of war", sources will become reliable, the current clusterfuck will dissipate, and life will return to normal. Advice: insert article at that time. Honestly, does Wikipedia have to follow each and every mis-step of the mainstream media sources it cites? Or can it keep a cool head, and rise above them? mdf (talk) 01:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong merge into Westroads Mall to keep most people happy, with any luck. Daniel 01:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you kidding with this nomination? Do you think we will not have an encyclopedia article on this event? Keep, of course. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are no indications that this nomination wasn't made in good faith, so I'd suggest that no, this isn't a joke. Daniel 01:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, possibly snowball. Article is practically brand new. While I assume it was nominated in good faith, I don't think it's usually a good idea to bring a fresh article to AfD. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable event, mass coverage, and this is premature. Hello32020 (talk) 01:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This is absurd. This is a highly notable news event that likely ranks as one of the deadliest mall shootings in the U.S. and probably one of the deadliest shootings in the state of Nebraska. There are also several articles on massacres of smaller scopes and smaller death totals. Abog (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, do you really feel someone doing research on shopping mall shootings will not find this article useful? That's the question you all should be asking yourselves. Abog (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. This is premature, and should be relisted in few days if debate continues. All of the nominators arguements rely on the fact that there has not yet been time for evidence to build up. I say give it time. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:CRYSTAL? This is strange. If there is no evidence, or at least reliable evidence, then why entertain an article at this time? I can understand the urge to cut-n-paste from CNN to Wikipedia - it's exciting, your are part of the action, etc - but that's just not a productive use of resources (yours, mine, or Wikipedia's). We are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Long view better. mdf (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep & speedy close as a joke nomination. --Czj (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please assume good faith. This is not a "joke nomination". Daniel 01:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge with the article about the massacre The massacre itself is notable, but I'm sick and tired about articles or excessive coverage about the gunmen in these situations. C'mon people, murderers shouldn't have to make history like this! Let's keep articles about people who have notable things (or are talked about on a large scale), not people who've killed just to have they're name in the papers. Cyrenaic (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edit: I'm sorry, I this was the article for the gunman. I say Keep the article about the shootings then. Cyrenaic (talk) 01:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This event matters. If in three months we were wrong, we can have this discussion again. What's the rush? --CastAStone|(talk) 01:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are abundant reliable sources describing the event, and it is sufficiently notable to cover. I see no reason to delete. Superm401 - Talk 01:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agree with CastAStone, what is the rush. There is an abundance of reliable sources that cover this incident completely. It seems to be notable for the time being at the very least. Woody (talk) 01:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a notable event, even more so for those of us living in Nebraska. I'm sure this article is not meant to focus solely on the murderer, just the event in general. On another note: Is there a system in place that flags users who hastily nominate articles for deletion? Good faith or not, to see an article such as this one to be so quickly nominated for deletion seems like abuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MandarinRake (talk • contribs) 01:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do know there's a system for dealing with users who make their first and so-far only edit to an AFD nomination. Superm401 - Talk 01:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Really? I'm sorry about that, but you have to start somewhere, right? Apologies for not signing my comment earlier, I am just now figuring this out. MandarinRake (talk) 02:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You do have to start somewhere, but new users almost never start with policy matters. More often, new accounts that first edit policy pages are sockpuppets. Superm401 - Talk 02:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't bite the newbs, please. Namecalling isn't necessary, and I've no reason to assume bad faith in this person. Tuxide (talk) 02:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. I couldn't find the article, somebody must have replaced it with breaking WikiNews before I got here. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 01:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable in one way or another. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give up, come back and figure it out in a couple months. The article is premature. The AFD is premature. Ideally neither one would have been created. If people aren't still paying attention to this in time, it should be easy to merge and redirect to the article on the mall. Friday (talk) 02:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It probably makes more sense to redirect the mall article to the shooting, which is the notable one of the two. Superm401 - Talk 02:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable Francium12 (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Rampant deletionism has already made Wikipedia in 2007 far less valuable and comprehensive than it was a year ago. This is not a print encyclopedia. If you don't like this article, feel free to not read it; don't deny it to others who are interested. — Lawrence King (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep -- Not only do I agree with Lawrence King's comment above, but we have a whole damn category for such events. This is absolutely notable, and therefore this nomination is not only premature, but totally unnecessary. --Eastlaw (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Superm401. By the logic of this nomination, no current event is notable since it is not steeped in historical legend. Which is clearly not an acceptable conclusion. Jdcooper (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all the brilliant reasons thus far. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 02:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can this be closed as soon as possible, considering this is a snowball keep? This AfD nom is currently preventing this article from being a candidate for T:ITN. Tuxide (talk) 02:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep -- It's hard to see a dispute over the notability of this subject. As more is known, the article will improve, as is the wiki way, but the story itself is notable and well-sourced. It's hard to see the basis for the nom, aside from dislike. --Ssbohio (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP is not Wikinews, nor a memorial.- Gilliam (talk) 03:13, 6 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.--Kubigula (talk) 04:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Jennings[edit]

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

High school basketball player, lacks notability. Kwsn (Ni!) 00:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Seems to be plenty of secondary sources available, so passes WP:N. Epbr123 (talk) 00:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable and even fits in a category with several others. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 00:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject of multiple non-trivial secondary sources, some of whom have given him praise as a player. J-ſtanTalkContribs 00:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There may be problems with the article as it stands, but it certainly passes WP:N as is. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems to have sufficient claims to notability. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's a number 1 prospect.--CastAStone|(talk) 01:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not all together sure what it says about our society that a high school player is an easy Keep, but there it is. As such a highly ranked prospect he is notable, as shown by the attention from USA Today, and there's no doubt that others may be found. Xymmax (talk) 03:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but if it weren't for the recent 'one year in college' rule, he'd be playing in the NBA next season. My point being that in the world of basketball, a senior in high school isn't really so young. Meowcicle (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Everything about this person's perceived notability is based on "What he is projected to do in the future", and not actually based on anything notable he has done (yes, leading a high school team to 100 wins may be good, but not notable here). When he is the leading NCAA scorer, or moves up to the NBA, then he is notable. LonelyBeacon (talk) 08:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My reading of Wikiipedia notability guidelines for sports players ([40]) suggests that to qualify he should have either "competed in a fully professional league" or "competed at the highest level in amateur sports". As a school player, he has done neither of these and the rest is crystal ballism. Emeraude (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BIO also states that a person may be deemed notable if they have "been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Epbr123 (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete; I went back and forth on this one. The USA Today article is important, but it is not about this player. He is merely included in it. If you look at the article it does not establish notability for him. I think that crystal ball is not overly applicable here, as there are sources predicting the future (which can establish notability) but I agree with Emeraude, above, that even a good player is not notable unless he's in a bigger pond. Epthorn (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where, then, would an NCAA player fit into Wikipedia's notability guidelines for sports players? The highest level in amateur basketball is the D-League, and if NCAA player articles are in fact allowed (which there are obviously many), what is wrong with having a player that has contractually agreed to be an NCAA player in the next several months? I also disagree with the "crystal ballism" argument. He is the #1 overall prospect according to several highly respected ranking media sources, and even if he were to back out and never play ball beyond high school, that in and of itself would still be an interesting and notable enough story to warrant his article. Meowcicle (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep Notability has been established through multiple, secondary sources not affiliated with the subject. --Hdt83 Chat 06:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sports notability guidelines trump WP:BIO. Article is no great loss either. Come back when he's achieved something worth writing about. --kingboyk (talk) 15:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm pretty sure that sports notability guidelines don't trump WP:N. Epbr123 (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable player. Basketball is not my thing, but he appears to be notable, the stub has good cites, and he's signed with a professional team. Bearian (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the guideline (not policy) WP: Notability (people) gives the following guidelines regarding the determination of notabiltiy for an athlete:
Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis, and
Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them).
It has been established that this athelte is not a professional, and is not in the D league (highest amateur level). With due respect to the supporters, I know a dozen athletes in my area that are the subject of articles on the regional or national level every year, but are certainly not worthy of notability, so I would argue that simply having the sources here is not enough to keep an article, otherwise I fail to see how anyone with a "#1 prospect label given by any large local newspaper does not become the subject of an article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO states "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability". This is the reason why people who have only had coverage in local newspapers do not have articles. Brandon Jennings, however, has had state and nationwide coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Two of the sources cited in the articles are lists from sports pages, one of which ranks him 8th, not first, but are not even articles in the sense of providing information other than a subjective ranking. Another two are not about him, but rather his high school team being ranked number one in the nation. The only full article about him is the local paper in Arizona talking about their new player. I would contend that all but one of these articles are "trivial" in nature regarding this player, and the other is a local paper covering him. Again, I 'm not trying to start a fight here. I'm just contending that one local article, and a mention here or there in a national publication does not constitute notability by Wikipedia policy. LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It depends what counts as local media coverage. Arizona has a larger population than most countries. Epbr123 (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Comment Factually incorrect. With a popn of 5,130,632 there are 112 countries with a larger population and 109 smaller (including 'self-governing dependent territories which are not really 'countries' as such. There are towns with more people than Arizona. Emeraude (talk) 11:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
(In 2006, Arizona's population was 6,166,318. Your figure was for 2000. Not that it matters :))
(That's what happens when you rely on Wikipedia!!!! Emeraude (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Agreed again. The only reference explicitly about this player is from the Arizona Daily Star in Tucson. All of the other actual articles are either about his high school team, or a listing of "top prospects", only one of which actually lists him as the "top prospect". The Tucson article appears to only have been written because of his signing a letter of intent with the college found there, making it look more like a local news item. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've persuaded me that the Arizona Daily Star is local coverage, but I think coverage such as this is still enough. Epbr123 (talk) 11:16, 9 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 Placebo Effect (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of iconic drinkers[edit]

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

List with extremely fuzzy definition and an inherent tendency towards original research. What makes someone an "iconic" drinker? The list says it's for those for whom "drinking is clearly a recognised part of their public or private image," but there remains no clear way to define this, other than editors agreeing amongst themselves (WP:OR) who is "recognized" as a drinker. Delete as unverifiable, original research, and poorly defined. Dylan (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Original research. Mr.Z-man 00:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't need these people to be lumped together. If they drank a lot, mention it in their page. The title is a bit misleading, as well. "Iconic" isn't the right word, maybe "List of people famous for drinking", but even then, it probably wouldn't be suitable. J-ſtanTalkContribs 00:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "Iconic" is subjective. Certainly poorly defined and unverifiable, but I don't know about the original research. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • *hiccup* Delete as poorly defined, unverifiable, original research, you name it. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awesome that this exists. Delete because its all wrong.--CastAStone|(talk) 01:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well-defined, easy to verify and quite notable. There's no original research in this list - most of the examples were already familiar to me. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless there's a name change. I have a problem with the "List" and "Iconic" part. Would be a pity if this was deleted though, it's such a nice article, clearly sourced and everything. Ryan4314 (talk) 02:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a WP:BLP nightmare - some of these subjects are still alive, and we're calling them drunks, and in some cases womanizers/pill poppers, and so forth. OK, if its true no harm no foul, but many of these sources are drinking enthusiast websites, not reliable sources. This is exactly the kind of article that could get WP in trouble, entertaining though it may be. Xymmax (talk) 03:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Darn it I meant to say that n all, I just forgot. Everyone listen to the guy above ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 05:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Weak Delete The clarification of "iconic" is potentially vague, but in a similar way as WP:N. It is verified via the existence of secondary sources, which the article makes a positive effort to supply. I agree, a source extolling drinking stories does not properly support that "drinking is clearly a recognised part of their public or private image", only that drinking is part of their history......You know what, it writing my explaination, I've changed my mind. I also am swayed by the arguments made by Xymmax. -Verdatum (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As Xymmax said, this is a WP:BLP nightmare. Garion96 (talk) 07:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As per User:TenPoundHammer and definitely Xymmax. LonelyBeacon (talk) 08:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 08:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll have a gin and iconic please. I encourage the author to userfy this and reconsider where it belongs. The problem with this one isn't the topics, but that the list combines, for lack of a better description, on-screen and off-screen drinking. "On-screen" would be folks like Foster Brooks or Hal Smith (Otis on Andy Griffith), character actor drunks in an era where drinking problems were considered funny. Off screen would be the many actors and actresses with well-known alcohol abuse problems. Though I can't say keep, delete isn't my choice either. Take it down and retool it. The potrayal of drinking, drug use, smoking, etc, has changed changed as attitudes have changed. Mandsford (talk) 12:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find this article leads me to interesting biographies of people I would not have heard of. If you are worried about libel, make the list only open to the deceased. If you read the Discussion page, it has a lively group of editors. -- K72ndst (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment You may want to look at WP:INTERESTING. Also if we restrict it to the deceased, should we move it to List of dead iconic dirinkers? Sounds odd. -Verdatum (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you been dirinking again? Just kidding. Mandsford (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Originally modelled after the List of iconic smokers, I find the page celebrates the curious inhibition of the grape and grain. Should all drug related practices be reduced to historical subsets of their scientific pages? The pages shows the effects of alcohol, both good and ill, and makes me smile. I'm off to one of London's nefarious Soho dens. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That article of course was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous smokers (2nd nomination). Garion96 (talk) 12:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is being targeted because it is about drinking. Each person in the article has a reference cited, so there is no original research here that is not in the other biographies. And if you go after this list, what makes it any different from others like it of less-than-noble aims? Such lists as Adultery in literature, List of Latter Day Saints, and the popular (and very interesting!) Closed London Underground stations. -- K72ndst (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator, I can assure you that I have no hangups about drinking and that the subject matter of this article is not the issue. The issue is the fact that membership in this list is not clearly defined. Who's to say what a recognised part of their public or private image is? Recognized by whom? People are listed variously for their enjoyment of alcohol, for their abuse of it, or in many of the cases, simply based on a witty quotation referencing alcohol. The reason why this needs to be deleted is because its membership is not crisply defined; lists should include a definition of exactly what criteria are used to determine the members (Wikipedia:Lists#List naming and list contents). Since this one does not, it inherently requires an act of original research by deeming that based on a quote, a behavioral pattern, or something else, each individual is "qualified" to be listed. 17:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
To clarify: yes, you may have a citation proving that Judy Garland requested a dress for the concealment of vodka, and that many of Tom Waits' lyrics revolve around drinking. The original research comes when you synthesize these disparate facts into an article claiming that such practices or tendencies make someone an "iconic" drinker. Dylan (talk) 17:21, 7 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. Very amusing, but there's no point wasting any more time on this. kingboyk (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cornesia[edit]

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

Orphaned article; may not have even existed. Registered 1150 Ghits.   jj137 ♠ Talk 03:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Was about to say unreferenced and unsourced but there is technically a reference to a book that doesn't seem to exist on any catalogue. The ghits are generally for a given name "Cornesia", and none to a civilization. I suppose there is the outside chance that a once flourishing civilization has managed to escape academic scrutiny, but it would seem more likely to be a "made up at school one day civilization", and that school would seem to be in Indiana. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 03:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Umm....WP:HOAX?? Else, it is, without exaggeration, the most confusing article I've ever read on WP. -Verdatum (talk) 04:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Followup Note Most Google hits are because Cornesia is in fact a Genus found within the family, Tortricidae. -Verdatum (talk) 04:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, mildly clever WP:HOAX, alas, we are no longer taking auditions for WP:BJAODN. --Dhartung | Talk 04:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I got 1220 ghits for "Cornesia", and all that came up were names of people (thanks a lot, mom and dad, right?), Genus Cornesia, and the like. 2 ghits for "Cornesia civilization", one for this article, and one for answers.com. J-ſtanTalkContribs 04:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as obvious hoax per all users above. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per every other user, obvious hoax from first line --carelesshx talk 04:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Typically dumb schoolkid hoax article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dumb. JuJube (talk) 06:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 08:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article seems like Patent Nonsense VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 14:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just like everyone else has said. Although it might be too soon, there's signs of a WP:SNOW thing here. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amused delete: Grounds for deletion found in the first sentence, "Cornesia is a recently discovered civilization that may or may not have existed." Still, glad this wasn't closed yet as I might not have read it otherwise. Epthorn (talk) 19:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - obviously fails notability test.Osli73 (talk) 09:43, 12 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 — Caknuck (talk) 07:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Running gags in Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel[edit]

Running gags in Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT. kingboyk (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as WP:OR (most of these aren't even running jokes, just things that were mentioned more than once, collected together). Cosmo0 (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all the same reasons that similar lists for such shows as Seinfeld and Friends were deleted. Otto4711 (talk) 01:16, 8 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_December_6&oldid=1116877619"