Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 July 31

< July 30	August 1 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ISAUNA[edit]

This article about an Iranian-American student organization has been created several times, the last time in May. At that time, the creator contacted me and asked me how to stop it from getting speedy deleted again. I explained about notability, reliable sources and such. However, there has been no further work on the article in the two-and-a-half months since and I don't see how there could be, as I have been unable to find any reliable sources discussing the organization. I almost tagged this for speedy again, but the claims made about being on the radio show seem to put it just past WP:CSD#A7. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ORG even if it passes WP:CSD#A7. Douglasmtaylor ^T/C 00:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doesn't seem to be verifiable. --Moonriddengirl 12:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources -- Whpq 13:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - relatively few Ghits, see [1], and even those Ghits seem like just lists of links: [2] and [3], Ghits for saunas, or MySpace and YouTube pages. I could not find any independent information on this group. I suggest to the members of the group to conduct programs, get some news coverage, and then post such information on WP. Bearian 18:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 08:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phantofilm[edit]

Neologism apparently invented solely for this exhibition/film. At first I considered merging it into phantogram (which I'm currently in the process of fixing up and getting decent references for), but the only source given is primary, so there's a problem meeting WP:V here. There may also be a WP:COI issue too, as the article creator (User:Billycowie) is the same name as the creator of the named film as stated in this edit to the phantogram article. Without showing there have been other moving phantograms and that this term is used to describe them generally, I can't see how this can be a viable article. ~Matticus ^T_C 23:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Normally I would say "merge" here, but Matticus is an experienced editor, and if he says he can't find independent references to bolster the use of this term, I defer to his judgment. Shalom ^Hello 01:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At last an article on Phantofilm. In my experience at stereoscopic societies this is the generally accepted term for the moving phantogram many of which are under production. I know of several articles being written on the phantofilm for various magazines and at least one chapter in a new book on stereoscopic techniques. Watch this space! Raymiles100— Raymiles100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Could you provide more detailed information about these articles and book please? If you can add reliable sources to the article then please do so. Without them the lack of verifiability is still a problem. ~Matticus ^T_C 09:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —~Matticus ^T_C 09:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lacking Wp:v. Matticus obviously know what he is doing!— Ipcressfile (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
added some more info and references to the page - unfortunately wikipedia seems to have timed me out and then put in the edit without any warning under my ip address. THINK THIS IS A SERIOUS ISSUE WIKIPEDIA!!! that should be looked at as people can be traced with the IP numbers. RAYMILES100

On the technical issue, you should tick the box "remember me" on the login page, then your login won't time out (unless your browser cookies are cleared or get corrupted). I wouldn't panic though - there's not much information the general public can glean from an IP address alone.

On the references you have added, thanks for doing that, but I've checked them out and I don't see anything specifically about phantofilms there. Three of the references lead to pages about a 3D art project also by Cowie called "Men in the Wall"[4], but as far as I can tell it is a set of four anaglyph videos (i.e film projected onto a flat screen, viewed from the front through blue and red filter glasses), no different in principle from any other 3D anaglyph film. Likewise the Liz Aggiss "3D Queen of Brighton" - there is nothing in the text I could find to suggest it is anything other than a regular 3D film. As interesting as these art projects are, they are not moving phantograms (i.e. anamorphically distorted images intended to be viewed from a steep angle) as described in the article. Only the "In the Flesh" film/art project fits the description, and there's nothing to prove anyone other than Cowie is using the term. ~Matticus ^T_C 14:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Raymiles100 thanks for your contributions to the page, doubt if it will do any good, you cant fight city hall after all! Have copied your text and will resubmit it once the term is so ubiquitous that even the wikis will have to accept it. All the best. --Billycowie 22:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a1 empty, see WP:NEO. NawlinWiki 04:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vegansexuals[edit]

Violation of WP:NEO. This term is not in wide currency, and has only recently been coined. In fact, the article cited was written today. MagneticFlux 23:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ew. wikipediatrix 23:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - though I should point out I found another source at [5], so it may at least satisfy WP:V to some extent. However, it doesn't appear to be in wide usage, so I can't see it becoming anything more than a dictionary definition. ~Matticus ^T_C 23:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with Matticus. I did a news search: [6]. This is a very new term, coined in one place and, if anywhere, it would belong in Wiktionary. Also WP:NOT#NEWS Douglasmtaylor ^T/C 00:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Recreation of deleted material - I have just found out that the article vegansexual has already been deleted two times today. --MagneticFlux 00:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, speedy and salt. CaveatLector^Talk 00:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly violates WP:NEO--Fahrenheit451 00:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loudbaby[edit]

Little claim of notability in article. Contested prod. Fabrictramp 23:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only source not the subjects website or something created by them is not significant coverage; it doesn't discuss the company, it discusses one of the products. i ^said 00:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pharmboy 01:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advert of company with no clear claim to notability. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete closer to an A7 or G11 speedy than a valid article. Eluchil404 21:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless I can have a page for my web design LLC too. Mdlutz 16:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeaceNT 03:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Isles Hotel & Casino[edit]

Non-notable hotel. No sources for notability, just another place, one hotel of thousands in the USA. Freedomeagle 23:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, an anachronism in modern Vegas, but notable at least for being the former Debbie Reynolds Hotel Casino. TIME. --Dhartung | Talk 23:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I could find a number of reliable sources that are independent of the hotel on the search engine. They include some guidebooks that have non-trivial mention and even an article on a sports website: [7].--Kylohk 01:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to meet notability. [8] [9] Carlosguitar 01:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw this, looks like I was wrong. Sorry! Freedomeagle 21:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity High School (Washington, Pennsylvania)[edit]

No assertion of notability. Oli Filth 23:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, incorporates school building associated with former U.S. President. Per WP:OUTCOMES high schools are generally kept. --Dhartung | Talk 23:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah yes, in dealing with the recent vandalism, I didn't notice that point about the president. Oli Filth 23:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At a first glance, its unique architecture, longevity, and usage by President Grant grants it significant notability.--Kylohk 00:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep High Schools ok w/o notability, middle or elementary need more notability. Pharmboy 01:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per President Grant. The infobox makes the article look like a phone book entry, though. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 02:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —TerriersFan 04:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep History of the school's core building and its historic connections are supported with reliable and verifiable material to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability guideline. Alansohn 05:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has a notable alumnus and is sourced. T Rex | talk 05:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that Grant was a frequent visitor, not an alumnus. Alansohn 06:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable high school with historical structure. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because high schools are inherently notable as I argue here although some ~~jerk~~ closing administrator utterly attentive to the fine points of Wikipedia policy and carefully protective of administrator powers will likely ignore my comments. Noroton 12:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC) (edited with due regard for the tender sensitivities of our saintly administrators Noroton 13:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

In fact, with near unanimous keeps, it looks like consensus is for deletion, following the ~~screwed up~~ finely tuned philosophies of some closing admins. Noroton 12:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that comment really appropriate, Noroton? Leebo ^T/C 12:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More than appropriate. Verging on necessary.Noroton 12:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Combative comments are almost never appropriate, let alone necessary, in a community such as Wikipedia. It sounds like you're trying to start a conflict. Leebo ^T/C 12:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On further reflection, administrators are perfect and fully deserving of the high regard they have for themselves personally and of the protectiveness they extend to other administrators. How foolish of me. Actually, I for one welcome our new administrator overlords. Noroton 13:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this straw man requires a reply. Leebo ^T/C 13:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and was designed by the notable architectural firm of McKim, Mead, and White. (Or maybe they designed an addition -- the date of 1857 looks too early for McKim, Mead, and White's era.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' - notable school with clear historical significance. Noroton's adolescent attacks should be simply ignored. Eusebeus 20:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been vastly improved in the last day or so, with plenty of sources to establish that it's a notable school. Leebo ^T/C 20:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - important, historic school. TerriersFan 23:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per almost all of the above, that while not all high schools are per se notable, this one is a National Landmark with ties to a past US President. Don't feed the trolls trying to make a point. Bearian 19:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a source to support the National Landmark claim. DeeKenn 19:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I found it. DeeKenn 19:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Trinity's historical past is indeed notable. As noted above, it is a registered National Landmark for its Italianate architecture alone.DeeKenn 19:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - First of all the this high school is not on the National Register; Trinity Hall is, one is not equal to the other. Second, just because the high school years are the stuff of nostalgia does not mean that every high school in the US is notable. To be notable there must be something worthy or distinguished about the topic; high schools in general do not meet that critieria. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall anyone saying anything like "because high school years are the stuff of nostalgia, all high schools are notable." Can you clarify whose argument you are rebutting? Leebo ^T/C 13:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

just to clarify, schools occupying historic buildings have been considered notable on that basis many times.DGG (talk) 03:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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'll point out that notability does in fact need to be asserted. That's why we have CSD A7. Wizardman 02:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Addams Junior High School[edit]

No assertion of notability. Oli Filth 23:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:OUTCOMES middle schools must be of exceptional notability to be worht keeping. --Dhartung | Talk 23:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Only High Schools + get a pass w/o notability. Pharmboy 01:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It doesn't look like it has done anything to set itself apart from most other junior high schools. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 02:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge. Kappa 03:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. Eusebeus 04:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —TerriersFan 04:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete, merge anything of note back to school district. Chris 04:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should we Redirect to its school district Township High School District 211? T Rex | talk 05:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability is no more needed here than in articles on towns, villages or counties, where notability doesn't need to be asserted. Of course, I expect some ~~asinine~~ angelic closing admin to completely ignore my comments. Noroton 12:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC) (edited to reflect a more considered opinion of our administrator overlords. Noroton 13:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I think the goal is to hear ALL opinions, not just yours, and come to a consensus. Pharmboy 20:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~or Merge with Community Consolidated School District 54~~.Vince220 22:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment If there is to be a policy change there are two ways to do it--one is to actually propose it on a policy page and get consensus. the other is to be so convincing here that it becomes accepted de facto. Otherwise, better to concentrate on supporting the ones that do appear particularly notable and finding sources for the others so they areDGG (talk) 00:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notability is asserted, but rather poorly. It "feeds" into 2 prominent high schools in suburbs of Chicago. I am sure that better references could be found. COI alert: first cousins of mine attended this school district in Hoffman Estates, Illinois. Bearian 19:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sign of notability, and I've not known junior highs to fall under the "assumed notability" that seems to grace high schools. SamBC 03:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; As stated by many others, middle schools are not assumed notable, as high schools and colleges are. Neranei ^T/C 15:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by the nominator. Non-admin closure. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ER cast and characters[edit]

Nomination withdrawn by user who nominated. Page redirected.

Orphaned article whose content is already available in other articles. See ER (TV Series) and List of supporting characters in ER. These two articles cover all the information available in this orphaned article. Josh 22:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ER (TV Series), seems to be most logical choice. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not sure a redirect is needed since this isn't exactly a common phrase or single word, but that is a minor point and I wouldn't argue against it. Pharmboy 01:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close and Boldly Redirect. This sort of thing never needs to be dealt with at AfD. If you ever find an orphan article which is redundant with another which has fuller information, you can just redirect it there. You don't need to worry whether the redirect is really useful because redirects are cheap. That's always a better course than bringing the matter to AfD because AfD requires the time and concentration of a number of wikipedians, whereas the bold solution can be done, by any user (admin or not), in seconds. AndyJones 12:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for wasting AfD time. I've redirected and cancelled this AfD. Josh 14:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Nothing to apologise for. Keep up the good work. AndyJones 16:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Showbiz Pizza Locations[edit]

A long unformatted list of former Show Biz Pizza locations. Should be deleted per WP:NOT#DIR or maybe userfied. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 21:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created the original "Showbiz Pizza Place" page. Some other wiki users have been trying to get this list of former locations completed as well as formatted, but others are complaining that the orignal article is bogged down by it. It seems that this information belongs somewhere, and rather that simply delete what others are putting a lot of work into, I thought this page could help solve the problem. Rather than simply suggesting a deletion, do any other wiki users have some suggestions for us on how this information could be better formatted? I think with a little work, it can be a useful source of information for those interested in the subject.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Showbizpage (talk • contribs)
Perhaps if you could find reliable sources to verify these locations. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 21:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, if someone took the time to verify these entries by finding say, a local Yellow Page entry, and calling it up; is that a "reliable source" which is allowed, or "original research" which is not. Showbizpage 21:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second one. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I'm confused. Looking in an old Yellow Pages for Showbiz is clearly not original research. Or do you mean looking for a Chuck E. Cheese and actually calling the number and asking if it used to be a Showbiz? (That would be unacceptable, I'd think, but more as not a reliable source -- I think the chances that the average Cheesian is even old enough to know are pretty low.) Pinball22 15:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete I don't care if there are reliable sources or not, as it's just- say it with me- a list of locations of former pizza restaurants. I can't imagine when or how this would be considered notable. And let me note that I apologize to the above user, who has obviously put effort into the page. Sorry to say, but in no way could this article ever satisfy WP:N. -- Kicking222 22:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree with the reason provided by the nominator - this is a dirctory listing. We have the yellow pages for that (or old copies of the yellow pages in the library for that). Agent 86 22:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This user seems to have a WP:COI -- his only edits are to Chuck E Cheese related pages and he seems to own a Chuck E Cheese/Show Biz tribute website. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 23:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - God help us if someone tries to make a list of McDonalds locations. No, don't point me there if it already exists. Let me live in blissful ignorance. Douglasmtaylor ^T/C 23:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It could be worse. It could be much worse. How about Starbucks Coffee locations? The locations in downtown Seattle alone.... --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Locations are best handled by the company web page for Showbiz and/or Chuck E Cheese - we're not a directory. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and may I suggest that if the author already runs a website for the restaurant, perhaps installing a wiki would be a way to preserve this information and make it available for public improvement. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't be able to link to this information, as long as it's hosted someplace else. (A wiki, however, will not be a reliable source.) --Dhartung | Talk 23:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a conflict of interest with regards to the author. Also, Wikipedia is not a directory, so you should not just list out the branch locations without context to explain their significance.--Kylohk 00:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Showbiz Page and Showbiz Pizza looks a conflict of interest here and also Wikipedia is not a directory, this is not the place for listing the locations of particular restaurants.--JForget 02:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not encyclopedic in the main article, not by itself. This is why they have a web site.DGG (talk) 03:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good points all. But I do want to point out, there is some confusion going on here. I am not the author of this information, nor do I run any websites. I did create the "Showbiz Pizza Place" wikipedia entry. I am actually for this deletion, as I do not see the point of a list such as this on the main article, or anywhere else on Wikipedia. But tried to create a separate page, so that I wasn't just arbitrarily deleting works that others might have saw fit to use. Showbizpage 03:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you did nothing wrong to try to make a worthwhile article. DGG (talk) 23:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into Showbiz Pizza Place article. None of us can hop in a time machine to visit any of these, and none of these have historical markers in front of them. Mandsford 00:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. No assertion of notability, no references at all, and we're unlike to find any. I agree with DGG's comments in particular. Bearian 19:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by means of withdrawn nomination, author's arguments are valid. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magnum Carnage[edit]

Doesn't seem to be a notable band, sources look somewhat iffy. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 21:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- C'mon, TPH. I was going to properly add the references later. I created less than an hour ago. I think it's a notable band with decent media coverage, which has been provided in the article. Just because they're from Hawaii, doesn't mean they're not notable. Also, please forgive my English, but what does "iffy" mean? --Boricuaeddie 21:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about that -- "Iffy" means unsure, doubtful. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. I'll be double checking, just in case... --Boricuaeddie 22:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The question isn't really too much in the sources, but rather in the notability. Some claims are made, but none of them seem to satisfy WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually, it does. Criterion #1 says "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable... This includes includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and television documentaries." The article has sources. Therefore, they clearly meet WP:MUSIC. --Boricuaeddie 22:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm still kind of unsure about the reliabilty of those sources, although I have shifted to wak delete. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't understand what is your concern with them. This is a chart: reliable. This is the work of a published magazine: reliable, and helps them meet WP:MUSIC. Any more concerns? --Boricuaeddie 22:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't see how the chart for one station is notable enough. The second one is okay, though. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        If the second one is OK, then they meet WP:MUSIC. This discussion is pointless, no offense meant. --Boricuaeddie 22:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Live 182[edit]

Non notable and currently non existent website. No evidence available to confirm notability as a work in progress. Daniel J. Leivick 21:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Very clearly non-notable, no sources cited, basically an advertisement, etc. -- Kicking222 22:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ORG, WP:VERI and also WP:CRYSTAL. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - No sources, advertisment for something not even in existence. Lewispb 23:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable/hoax or WP:CRYSTAL. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Douglasmtaylor ^T/C 23:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to Hurricane Juan by me, no need to keep discussion open. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 21:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Juan... The Halifax Disaster[edit]

An article already exists on this subject at Hurricane Juan. Oli Filth 21:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PeaceNT 03:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trice Goyette Technique[edit]

No evidence that this term is in use anywhere (Google returns 0 hits). I can't access the one paper referenced, but I would imagine its author won't have named a technique after themself. Oli Filth 20:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I accessed the page, and while I can't figure out what this article has anything to do with the science article referenced, I'll say weak keep on the off chance it's just out of my realm of understanding. -WarthogDemon 20:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While I, like WD, am not an expert in this field, I spent a good deal of time looking for references either to it or to Edward Trice and I couldn't find any. If it were an archaic technique some alchemist cooked up in the middle-ages, then I might suppose that it just didn't hit the net. But given that it claims to have been invented in 1993, I'd expect there to be at least one internet article accessible on it. And the article referenced doesn't mention ~~Trice~~ or Goyette that I could see. Douglasmtaylor ^T/C 21:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Edward Trice" is apparently Ed Trice, see Talk:Ed Trice#A Few Remarks. Goyette is one of the named authors of the paper. However, I see nothing to link Trice to this article (although, to be fair, I can't access the article, so can't see the references). Google turns up nothing for Trice + Goyette, etc. Oli Filth 21:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Ah, I didn't search for Ed Trice, but Edward. Thanks for pointing me there. I also re-reviewed the article (all you can read is the abstract, not the paper itself). It makes no mention of Trice, but Randall J. Goyette (who I think may have been our initial contributor here) is listed. There is no mention of the article title and there are other authors listed. I don't claim to understand the article or even the abstract, but my basic feeling is that it's a process that Goyette had a hand in developing, but never became notable. Perhaps an expert will come along and correct us. Until then, the article doesn't assert its notability, so I'm keeping my delete. . .for now. Cheers! Douglasmtaylor ^T/C 22:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak keep - The article makes some sence (well at least part of it) and it seems logical, but I've never heard of it and I'm kind of getting the feeling it uses big words to let it slip by.--Kk r ou ni 21:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not the content I'm disupting (per se), it's the notability of the term "Trice Goyette Technique". Oli Filth 21:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The technique may be important, but judging by the search engine (using +Ed +Trice +"Cray-3" -wikipedia) no mention of the technique can be found either. There is a chance that it's some newly developed technique that is known within its own circle, and not even published by academics etc.--Kylohk 00:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete There are no relevant papers in Web of Science by any E. Trice. ; the paper listed by the associate has zero citations since 2004 (and his 3 other papers: 1, 1, and 0) Obviously not of general importance. There was an article about this second author Deodatta V. Shenai-Khatkhate, which was challenged, and then immediately removed by the ed. who inserted it--I've just deleted it as speedy A7. Enough said.DGG (talk) 03:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was able to access the source; the one source in the article doesn't mention Trice at all, nor reference any work by him. If this is called the "Trice-Goyette technique" by some insiders it is not, apparently provable in any written sources that we can see. Mango juice^talk 16:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ELIMINATORJR 15:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ludmyrna Lopez[edit]

Non-notable member of the city council of a minor American city. Corvus cornix 20:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I think she fails WP:BIO at the moment. I could not find significant news coverage, awards or honors or name something substantial that she's contributed. And it's a local office. So, per nom, delete. Douglasmtaylor ^T/C 21:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Per nom. and also we don't need an article for every gov't official there is. --Kk r ou ni 21:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, well short of WP:BIO. --23:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep She passes the google test. She is part of this template {{Richmond City Council (Richmond, California)}}, and the article is referenced. BTW, in response to the POV pushing comment about "a minor American city," Richmond is large enough to make this list Largest cities in the united states, --evrik ^(talk) 02:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Google test proves that she exists. That isn't in question. Corvus cornix 16:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Richmond, California, pop. 102,120. Barely makes it into the article, and that isn't the criterion. The absence of substantial 3rd party sources except for one local paper is decisive. DGG (talk) 03:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My feeling is that this is a person you might resonably read about repeatedly in the newspaper. Makes sense to have an encyclopedia article on that sort of topic for the reader who wants more background. ike9898 16:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as per evrik and ike9898. --XDanielx 19:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep No Google News articles, 8 Google Blogs postings. But I do agree with evrik. Eagleapex 02:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As long as we have articles on video game, card game, and tv episode characters, i support any accurate article about any actual person. alteripse 16:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Any actual person? Where's your article? Corvus cornix 16:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as well-sourced BIO, per ike9898, contra alterprise. Bearian 19:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article is clearly written, well sources, and a component of the Richmond City Council template. There isn't any reason for deletion in my opinion. Waarmstr 09:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted and salted by User:EliminatorJR, user blocked indefinitely by User:LessHeard_vanU. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 21:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie doyle[edit]

Somebody's personal essay. Corvus cornix 20:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as personal essay. Perhaps there's a speedy candidate here? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 20:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been speedied twice previously. Corvus cornix 20:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete As an non-wiki related essay in main space. --H irohisat ^Talk 20:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Three or four more times, if necessary. Douglasmtaylor ^T/C 21:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - This doesn't belong on wiki, there is nothing notable to rate it its own article.-MBK004 21:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryo Uehara[edit]

Article either does not assert notability or the person is not notable. The person has only released three porn DVDs. No mention of any awards or any notable acts. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've tried for quite a while to find something notable about her and failed. Appears to be non-notable in the field. Dekkappai 20:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep is a upcoming actress. Harlowraman 21:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True. But too new to have an article yet, I think. I plan to save the article in my userspace so that if it is deleted, it can be put back up if better sourcing and notability is established later. Dekkappai 21:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Epbr123 21:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Kk r ou ni 21:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tabercil 22:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Dekkappai 22:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Douglasmtaylor ^T/C 23:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Keb25 06:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lostprophets song list[edit]

Category exists, factually innacurate and unnecessary. U-Mos 20:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very poorly writen, lots of red links, per nom.--Kk r ou ni 21:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. The poorly written part can always be fixed. Douglasmtaylor ^T/C 23:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, inaccurate, already covered with a category. The other issues are style and don't apply. Pharmboy 01:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completly pointless and unencylopedic. Should be on some sad fanboy site.Lugnuts 15:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think this can simply be redirected to Lostprophets Discography. Discographies are encouraged, and this information is redundant (though organized differently) with the discography. --JayHenry 01:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Ari of Greece and Denmark[edit]

Probable hoax. Text modified from the Prince Philippos of Greece and Denmark article, and cites suspicious references, including an apparent hoax page designed to resemble a profile page on the official website of the Greek Royal Family.[10] No sources could be found to verify the article content, and another editor changed the article to state that the subject does not exist.[11] Dancter 20:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Complete hoax.--Sethacus 20:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. In some countries, making such false claims is probably illegal. Corvus cornix 20:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Definitely false. Very unlikely.--Kk r ou ni 21:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, pure hoax. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per all the comments already made. Douglasmtaylor ^T/C 23:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete no such person
Delete Even if Prince Ari is a real person, who cares? Can't think of anything less notable than "royalty" from a country where the monarchy was abolished long ago. Mandsford 00:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability. Marlith ^T/C 05:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am the only Prince of Greece and Denmark! How dare this cur make such absurd claims? McLarenJAB 22:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only is it a hoax, IIRC, it's a recreated hoax. [12]Edward321 17:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think that would qualify this as a speedy, and make Royal-watcher123 a likely sockpuppet of Ari89. Thanks for the heads-up. Dancter 18:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Grosrenaud[edit]

I believe this is a hoax. None of the people, and few of the companies, listed in the article have ANY google hits whatsoever. In addition, the original author, User:Pgrosrenaud, created a silly vanity article (which only admins can see, as it was speedily deleted), Paul grosrenaud. I find it extremely unlikely that everyone involved in this family is so successful, yet no one has heard of them. I left a message to this effect on the original author's talk page, with no response. barneca (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These people, or people with their name, DO exist...in Illinois. But, there's nothing to substantiate the claims made in the article.--Sethacus 20:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:HOAX. Abt Electronics is still owned & run by the Abt family.[13] --Dhartung | Talk 23:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and as nonsense. Many of the sentences lack any object. Bearian 19:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Guerrero[edit]

I find no evidence that this footballer even exists, playing for Australia, Jamaica, Samoa, or any other team. There appears to be a Diego A. Guerrero who plays for Deportivo Táchira in Venezuela, but this is not him. Delete as failing WP:V unless this can be sourced. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. J-stan ^Talk 20:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is apparently an international player but this simply cannot be verified. Certainly, he is not in the current squad. --Malcolmxl5 20:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 21:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His claim to notability is representing Samoa. Google News and Google News archives have no records for "Alejandro Guerrero" "Samoa" so the claims in the article are both unsourced and apparently unverifiable. Capitalistroadster 02:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Keb25 02:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. nothing proven. Englishrose 22:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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→Cut It Out (song). PeaceNT 03:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cut It Out (disambiguation)[edit]

Needless disambiguation page. Only notable article on the disambig page is the single by Nelly. Admc2006 20:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close and take to WP:RFD. We have separate deletion discussions for redirects. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 20:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...But this isn't a redirect. It's a dab page. The question is whether or not it's a valid disambiguation page, as it should never be a redirect. Oh, and while I'm here, delete. A non-notable album by a non-notable band. (Note that there is a notable band named "Doubting Thomas", but not the one responsible for an album called Cut It Out.) -- Kicking222 22:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G6. All this really is is a dab page for an article that does exist and an article that doesn't. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to redirect→Cut It Out (song). That's what I would have done if I'd come across it before it was inserted into the deletion process. The main reason for this outcome rather than deletion would be to preserve the history, which runs back to November 2006 and involves seven (likely) different editors. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to redirect per Ceyockey. Carlossuarez46 20:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, converted to redirect, but as a redirect, it would easily qualify for a {{db-redirtypo}}. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please look at WP:RFD#When should we delete a redirect? where it speaks to when deletion of redirects should be avoided; one case is where "They have a potentially useful page history." I think it's potentially useful even if you don't. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Interesting point - didn't check that, and just realized that there was a note in reference to Dave Coulier in there. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move Cut It Out (song) to Cut It Out Since the song is the only notable article, there is no need for the latter term to exist as a redirect to the disambig page. Admc2006 17:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for the 4th time, just as AfD was made. Non-admin closure. (By the way, could an admin salt this article? It's been nuked four times now.) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 19:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Texas tax advisors[edit]

Out of WP:NOT#DIR, this is a business advertising page. J-stan ^Talk 19:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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^♫ 16:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date of independence of European countries[edit]

Very few sources, seemingly arbitrary definition of independence, claiming continuity between modern day nations such as Ukraine, Bulgaria and Montenegro and ancient empires spread over same or similar territory that have little to do with the modern states. I cannot see how this could possibly be maintained in an NPOV and factual fashion. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 10:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Inge 12:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is what lists are for. There are a finite number of European nations, which all appear to be on this list. There is only one date of creation/independence possible for each current nation. These dates should be easily verified and referenceable (which is needed here). -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 14:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is a good article idea and clearly needs some work, however I don't believe it needs to be deleted. Just a little bit of work and sources and clarification and it should be a good article in no time. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of countries by date of statehood and allow the usual editorial process to figure out how the various related lists will be merged or otherwise handled. See a debate over a similar article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of states by date of self-determination. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into List of countries by date of statehood as per Arkyan. "Independence" is somewhat a new world or colonial world concept. Few, if any, of the countries on this list came to be sovereign through some sort of "independence" event. For many of these countries, it's not possible to say who they became independent from - there was no previous dominant power. Agent 86 22:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Flyguy649, Wikidudeman. Edward321 04:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, El_C 19:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rewrite from scratch. The dates given here are 100% arbitrary, several countries are listed multiple times at arbitrarily cherrypicked dates, and besides, what exactly is "independence"? The article has to begin by clearly stating what definition of the term it will apply, and then stick to it. Otherwise, it makes no sense whatsoever. --Targeman 20:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge per User:Arkyan. The List of countries by date of statehood covers substantially the same material, is more complete for Europe, and is not so long that it's unmanageable as a worldwide list. Argyriou (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/redirect/merge, an article needing a spot of work is not a reason for deletion. Mathmo ^Talk 00:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All the work of the world can not eliminate the problem of the article. The article tries to use the concept of nationalism on structures, which do not know this concept. Almost every entry can be disputed. --Thw1309 09:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most European countries simply didn't become "independent" on some arbitrary date. In the case they did, then there is List of countries by date of independence and List of countries by date of statehood.--Victor falk 10:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Edward321. Missing citations are not a reason for deletion unless after repeated efforts such sources cannot be found (see WP:DP) -- this is obviously not the case here, or even close. The ambiguity argument is a fair one, but "arbitrary definition of independence" is a blatant exaggeration. The ambiguity is not so extreme that it cannot be dealt with and we should give up on trying to date independence. A more appropriate solution would be to establish consistent criteria for date selection through the article's discussion page. --XDanielx 19:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can't see voting to keep. Maybe it's the title; but what the article illustrates is the changing map of Europe, not a list of when countries became "independent". Did Russia really become independent in 1991? Or Austria in 1918? As a list, it's misleading. Mandsford 00:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edward 321. 172.191.100.66 19:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very string delete per Hexagon1. Absurd misuse of some concept in much different contexts. Reminds me an attempt on WP to invent "father of the nation" for every modern country ignoring all the historical reality. Original research and of very low quality. Pavel Vozenilek 16:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Charlie Brown Christmas[edit]

Delete - prod removed with words to the effect of "one notable show spoofs another one, what's not notable?" However, neither the notability of Scrubs nor the notability of A Charlie Brown Christmas make this subject inherently notable. There need to be reliable sources attesting to the independent notability of this item specifically and there do not appear to be any. Lots of blog and YouTube entries and Wikipedia mirrors, nothing reliable. Otto4711 19:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:WEB --Darksun 20:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What's the point of creating an article about a Youtube video? Fails WP:N -Lemonflash ^talk 22:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I loved the video, but no secondary sources to establish notability. Jay32183 21:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete — TKD::Talk 19:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Berry[edit]

Not notable per WP:BIO. He does not hold an elected position that automatically confers notablility and the sources used do not establish notability through other guidelines. The Oregonian item is an editorial, the picture is only a picture, and the Yamhill County website is not independent of the subject as he works for them. Aboutmovies 19:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability inferred via weasel wording is highly dubious ("Parallels have been drawn ..."). There are so, so many DAs and every day they do something that pisses somebody off. --Dhartung | Talk 19:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the original nomination's rationale is valid, and accordingly, WP:BIO requires deletion. Digwuren 20:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Harlowraman 21:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he's gotten some press for the referenced prosecution, but nothing significant that I could find. The "parallel" to Nifong, even if it could be sourced, wouldn't establish notability. Douglasmtaylor ^T/C 23:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Several new "sources" have been added to the external links section. This article provides trivial coverage of Berry, and other than mentioning he is the DA gives no information on him. This article is six pages long, but again it is trivial coverage as the topic is the "slap butt day" incident and not Berry (we only learn that Berry is the DA, significant coverage would include extensive info about the subject). Ditto for this article. Aboutmovies 10:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a DA for a small county is not inherently notable. Bearian 19:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat^♫ 16:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CyberExtension[edit]

Protested Speedy, recreated. I've decided to go for extra opinions on this instead of Speedying a third time. I Speedied this twice as G11, advertising. But it's also got no assertion of notability, let alone any sourcing to verify any notability. TexasAndroid 19:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is similar in structure and scope to these others found on the Virtual Learning Environment Page:

WebCT and Desire2Learn are also commercial based LMS's and similar to this page on the CyberExtension. Should these other pages be removed as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varezzi (talk • contribs)

Keep, tentatively. I may reconsider if a reasonable notability criterion for VLE is presented, and this one is shown to fail that criterion. Digwuren 20:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This comment seems confusing to me. What do you mean a "notability criterion for VLE"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.63.110 (talk • contribs)

Delete -- no evidence CyberExtension meets the requirements of Wikipedia's Notability Guideline. --A. B. ^(talk) 19:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added citations on the CyberExtension page to sources that meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I would request that you review the posting again and reconsider your Delete request. Dmeglio ^(talk)

Changed to Keep -- notability now established. --A. B. ^(talk) 19:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no reason to delete. SLSB talk • contrib 14:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as a dab page. ELIMINATORJR 15:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proto-Domain[edit]

Probably non-notable terminology. Googling for "proto-domain" + organism brings up precisely two hits. Oli Filth 00:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All this does is define the term. Is there something else that would provide for more information, other than a brief blurb? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to keep in its new state as a disambig. Good show. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 01:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Looking at the references, this seems to be on the same topic as the existing article Red rain in Kerala, and the tree of life diagram is already in panspermia. Espresso Addict 01:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Person who added the term's thoughts to deletion and merger Hello, I would like to note to tiger, that once it has been decided that this term can stay, I will include the following: everything known about the organisms, including their ability to grow in organic and inorganic mediums. I will include a detailed description and picture of their life cycle. I will include, pending approval from the creator of the article, include all images of these organisms in addition to the ones already available. I will further discuss how these organisms have no evidence of dna, and point to the possibility of Protein Nucleic Acid, or PNA, as being a possible precursor informational macromolecule of DNA. AND LASTLY, as i do with all things i've put on wiki, I will source the living *%^@ out of any claim I make, and try my best to show the opposite side. With reference to the comments on merging, I do agree that this is related to Red Kerala, the only evidence of Proto-Domain organisms came from the study of this Red Rain, however, the importance of the term Proto-Domain, could far supercede the Red Rain of Kerala, and it is thus essential to keep this separate, yet related to both Panspermia, and the Red Rain of Kerala — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.12.48 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 27 July 2007
- The problem is not the discussion of the scientific issues, but the fact that there appear to be no reliable sources which assert the notability (or existence, even) of the term "Proto-domain". Oli Filth 08:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's proposed in the papers by Louis linked from the article, which I believe are prints from peer-reviewed journals. More of a problem to my mind is that the term is already used in biochemistry for primitive domains of proteins. Espresso Addict 11:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you have references, you need to add them before the AfD closes. A failure to add the information results in our inability to review it - and if we can't review it, how do you expect to change our minds? By the way, the use of expletives - bowdlerized or not - does not augment your position. In my honest opinion, it more or less detracts from your arguments, as it comes off as uncivil. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There were references supplied in an earlier version. Espresso Addict 19:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For example Here's your life cycle, if you want me to add more, get rid of this stupid deletion consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doyee5 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 27 July 2007
Comment. I'm worried about retaining the separate article as by its presence it gives credence to the existence of an organism that at the moment appears to represent at best hypothesis and at worst wild speculation. If there's clear evidence that the organism really is what Louis claims, then why aren't Science & Nature & the like fighting over publishing about it? If the article is retained then the fact that the existence of the organism does not represent mainstream thought needs to be clarified. I definitely prefer to merge with Red rain in Kerala, so that the various explanations can be weighed side by side. Espresso Addict 05:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Panspermia. This article appears to duplicate most of what the Panspermia article says, but the Panspermia article has a wider scope, and therefore puts the information in context better. —gorgan_almighty 12:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oli Filth Not enough 'reliable references.'? My count is SIX, I'd like you to look at spores, that has less references than this issue topic, the first sentence links you to my most reliable source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.185.12.48 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 27 July 2007.
- These are all links to papers by a single author, and I'm not sure they're peer-reviewed. There appears to be no use of this term for this purpose outside of these papers. Oli Filth 18:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Espresso comment. I concur that this has not been well spoken of, but if you have anymore suggestions as to how to neutralize i'd be happy to hear it. I took what u said about it at best being a hypothesis by main stream science and including that. I see a lot of comments about merging, and again the topics are related, and if it really bothers people, this whole organism decription can be added to Panspermia and Red rain in Kerala, but I do think that if Proto-Domain is unbiased, neutral, that this specific link is necessary. Check my changes and see if you still find problems Espresso and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.12.48 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 27 July 2007
- My personal view is that some further neutralisation is probably still needed, but I'd prefer to leave it until the community has come to a consensus on where to put the material. I'm a very slow editor, and I don't enjoy having to do things twice! Espresso Addict 18:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (edit conflict) there seems to be one published paper, in "Astrophysics and Space Science". a respectable journal, (though the editor of that journal is reported in New Scientist as having gone to extraordinary lengths to dissociate himself from it: it wasn't me that accepted it but the other editor, and he's died since then) and evidence for its discussion in New Scientist, so I suppose it is worth an article. But not this one, using an invented term. (I take account also of Expresso Addict's mention that the term is used otherwise in a related subject). Since there seems to be no standard terminology at this point, Red rain in Kerala will have to do, and what should be included there is an editing question only. Merge the addition few references from here into that article. WP neither certifies scientific discoveries, nor fails to certify them. It just reports what others have certified -- or failed to certify , if it turns out to be pseudo science. It's not up to us to judge, or even argue about whether its true. (There was after all one analogous case: Prions). DGG (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if you wish, it has been merged to Red Rain in Kerala Now you can feel free to give red rain trouble, i'm tired of arguing.
Comment - the article now exists as a disambig page, but I'm of the opinion that it is disambiguating things that don't need to be dabbed. My !vote stands... for now. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- One thing that might actually genuinely need disambiguating isn't currently there, viz. proto-domain. Espresso Addict 18:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done. —gorgan_almighty 10:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as disambig. The term proto-domain apparently has valid use in biochemistry, and the use in these other articles is probably notable. Haven't checked for secondary sources though. —gorgan_almighty 10:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted, with the focus placed on the entry as a disambiguation page. El_C 19:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close as irrelevant. The Disam page has two good links on it as is 1/ Domain, a category of living organisms, that has recently replaced kingdoms in some Biology texts.2/Protein domains, in biochemistry. This makes it an editing question. DGG (talk) 20:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as disambig per my comments above. —gorgan_almighty 13:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or fix (target pages) - Three out of the four articles target by the disambig do not mention the term proto-domain. Oli Filth 13:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. I still favour disambiguation though, as the articles are fixable. —gorgan_almighty 14:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I favoured merge with redirect above, and I'm happy to go with the disambiguation page. Basically proto-domain means 'prototypical domain', where 'domain' has a range of specialised meanings in zoology, biochemistry, physics, maths, computing &c&c, so a disambiguation page seems a sensible solution. Espresso Addict 14:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per DGG - you can't delete a disambiguation page because you don't like all but two or more of the entries, that's just silly. ←Ben^B4 13:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said previously, only one of the target articles mentions the term, so this disambig page currently isn't very useful; it points to pages that (to the layman reader) have nothing to do with "proto-domain". If the target articles could be amended, I'd have no problems with this. Oli Filth 13:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SNOW. Pascal.Tesson 19:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North American Man/Boy Love Association[edit]

Non-notable pedophilia promotion page. We dont do that, any useful info (ie the fact of the organisation's existence) is already covered at Pro-pedophile activism, SqueakBox 19:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scorch with primordial fire, per nominator. El_C 19:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I appreciate SqueakBox's efforts in clearing up material promoting a fringe element, NAMBLA is very notable, and has been the subject of numerous articles and criminal investigations. The article is fully sourced and rather long, so it would not be a good target for merging. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as a highly notable and controversial organization. What is the policy that this supposedly violates? — brighterorange (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment as stated, notability, SqueakBox 19:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You must be joking, in other words, incredibly obvious keep - while I am at work and will not search for NAMBLA references here, the organization clearly meets any possible standard of inclusion. If you believe that the content is inappropriately POV then feel free to thrash it out on the talk page. Otto4711 19:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment some people obviously disagree with you, SqueakBox 19:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy and Strong Keep as abhorrent as this topic is to me, it's a notable historical organization and we should document it. If we have articles on Hitler, Jack the Ripper, Jeffrey Dahmer. We can cover a peophile organization encyclopedically, and as much as it pains me to say it, we should. They exist - we should document that. Claims that this organization are not notable cannot possibly be good-faith - NAMBLA is imfamous. Georgewilliamherbert 19:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The organization itself is the subject of coverage by numerous third-party sources [14] therefore it meets WP:ORG. Any of the other concerns amount to censorship. It is of zero concern to Wikipedia itself what this organization exists to do. If you are concerned about the content of the page, the solution is on the talk page, not AFD. FrozenPurpleCube 19:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - this is ridiculous. Just because you don't like an organization doesn't mean you try to get it deleted. This is poor judgment on your part, User:SqueakBox. --David Shankbone 19:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Clearly notable by the definition at WP:N due to the volume of links to coverage about the organisation. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a grounds for deletion. JulesH 19:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Just becuase you dislike the orginization doesn't mean it's not notable. It is clearly notable. i ^{(said) (did)} 19:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, obvious keep One look at the references at the end of the article is enough to establish WP:Notability, before we even start to talk about the 1300 Google News hits. The article does need monitoring for POV of course, but the same is true of any article on a controversial subject - it's not a reason for deletion. If you dislike the subject matter, remember Wikipedia is not censored. Is it WP:SNOWing yet? Iain99 19:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 19:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vegetarian Hall of Fame[edit]

Award without assertion of notabilty. Group granting award does not appear to be notable enough for its own page, so is unclear how their award would be notable. Improbcat 19:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Improbcat 19:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. †Ðanieltiger45† ^{Talk to me} 19:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Virtual machine#Machine aggregation. MastCell ^Talk 22:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overlay computer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Overlay computer

Not clear what this concept is other than another name for virtualization. No established reason this term is used vs. the industry standard term Cander0000 04:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD was malformed; I've repaired it but will abstain --Haemo 04:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep A google search shows up quite a number of hits for this term. I feel that it would be better to re-write this article as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 04:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, El_C 18:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Virtual machine#Machine aggregation, which is an existing article section about the same concept. Overlay computer seems to be a new term, but the few papers I've looked at on the subject don't seem to be talking about anything substantially different from this existing term. JulesH 19:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per JulesH. To the extent that there is any substantial difference, we would need a better-written and better-referenced article to have it be worthwhile. --Dhartung | Talk 20:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Mathmo ^Talk 00:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 19:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neal_Solomon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Neal Solomon

This is a vanity page that appears to have been composed by the subject or an agent of his Thirteenity 18:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete author of several self-published books, and a management consultant. Nothing special here. JulesH 19:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. i ^said 00:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat^♫ 16:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sandman: Brief Lives[edit]

Delete - prod removed with a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS rationale. The article fails WP:PLOT, being little more than a plot summary of the book with no reliable sources indocating any real-world notability for the storyline. The fact that other articles exist for other Sandman stories is not relevant to this AFD. Otto4711 18:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article is a broken-out plot summary per WP:SUMMARY of a section that would be too large to fit in the main article, The Sandman (Vertigo). Real-world notability of the series is more than established in the main article. JulesH 19:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of the overall series does not mean that every individual story arc is inherently notable. There must be sources establishing the real-world notability of this particular arc. See for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Lantern: Power of Ion. Green Lantern is unquestionably notable but the particular story arc was not and so was deleted. Otto4711 19:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read The Sandman, but as I understand it, it has a single unified plot arc, whereas Green Lantern is a long-running comic with several completely independent story arcs. This makes the situation somewhat different to the one in that AFD. JulesH 12:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, summary. Mathmo ^Talk 00:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, summary seems analogous to a TV episode article, only a little bit better because it actually includes several issues. Cool Hand Luke 08:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add more real-world context (which I know exists; The Sandman Companion, already listed in the article's References section, is one possible resource, as are the interviews in Hanging Out with the Dream King. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, though more references in the article would certainly help. — TKD::Talk 19:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CHUM Chart[edit]

Individual charts for one particular radio stations? Let alone individual articles about all of the songs at number one for every year of the station's existence? This is not encyclopedic, it's just radiocruft. Corvus cornix 18:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Include the following:

CHUM number-one hits of 1986 Corvus cornix 18:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~. Keep The CHUM chart is well known, OTOH the article is full of original research. GreenJoe 23:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC) I agree with Canuckle. Keep it without the original research. GreenJoe 00:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per "and was the longest-running Top 40 chart in the world". Resolute 23:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep w/o OR as per GreenJoe and Resolute. They even had 2 books about it [15], one of which had a bit of history to it apparently. Canuckle 00:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And according to The Star, [16] "Back then a hit was a hit, and the CHUM Chart was untouchable" + "There were scandals and bent noses ... but for more than 20 years, the CHUM Chart ruled" + "CHUM was indisputably the engine that powered the Canadian music machine in its heyday...And the famous CHUM Chart, entrée to which guaranteed huge sales dividends, was compiled from information no more reliable than a handful of Toronto record store sales estimates" Canuckle 00:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And a ref from the Canadian Encyclopedia [17] Canuckle 00:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep via Resolute's comment and one of the most known in Canada.JForget 02:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs lots of work, but the chart was groundbreaking and notable. Skeezix1000 15:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Individual radio station charts can be notable — not only was CHUM the single most influential Top 40 radio station in Canada for many years, and reportedly one of the five most influential Top 40 stations in all of North America, but the CHUM Chart database is the only searchable archive of Top 40 hits in Canada prior to 1964. (And even after 1964, it's still much easier to use than the royal pain in the keester that passes for the RPM database, but I digress.) I've removed the unencyclopedic OR speculation about charting patterns, although this could very well be expanded with some real history (hosts? Canuckle's Torstar refs?) So I guess I'm on the keep side. Bearcat 18:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Resolute and Bearcat --Paul Erik 05:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. ELIMINATORJR 15:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kitsune in popular culture[edit]

Just a collection of loosely associated topics, fails WP:NOT#DIR Jay32183 18:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As much as I find mythological animals fascinating, this is still a directory of loosely associated topics (WP:NOT#DIR) and completely unsourced (WP:RS, WP:V), with a dash of WP:OR thrown in. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately unsourced, and as above, fails WP:NOT#DIR. If there wasn't so much info, I'd suggest a merge back to the main article. Delete - but we really do need to figure out how to handle "popular culture" references within articles. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and Categorize before 'deleting'. I can see a category 'Japanese folkore (or mythology as it were) in popular culture' and/or 'Kitsune in popular culture' being very useful for navigation. Note to closing mod: If this page is deleted, please userfy it into my user space. CaveatLector^Talk 21:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just a trivia collection. --Eyrian 00:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:TRIVIA and WP:V.--JForget 02:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Keb25 06:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Kitsune Mandsford 00:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete categories as proposed by CaveatLector would add significant category clutter with no enhancement of the encyclopedia's usability: what qualifies for inclusion in such categories, even if they were useful, would be pure POV and OR, as are the contents of nearly all of these popular culture articles. Carlossuarez46 20:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Kitsune 172.191.100.66 19:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced original synthesis. Cool Hand Luke 08:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandahl 19:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bottom Line Show[edit]

Nonnotable podcast, begun in spring 2007. Article is based entirely on primary sources; and the author (who contested a PROD) appears to have a conflict of interest, not having made any edits outside this article. Shalom ^Hello 18:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. Douglasmtaylor ^T/C 00:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability, google search yeilds nothing that asserts notability. i ^said 00:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a description of the show, no assertion of notability. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tele-Mart Home Shopping[edit]

This was an unremarkable local TV show. There are no references, and it's not notable enough to make it practical to find references. Shalom ^Hello 18:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 1 non-wiki ghit, which only mentions the show in passing.--Fabrictramp 20:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete this is only a local show in a small borough.--JForget 02:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utterly non-notable. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN tv show, and not very well written to boot. Verkhovensky 22:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Point of article seems to be to highlight the crime mentioned in the last sentence. --Alvestrand 13:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; WP:RFD is the second door on the left. —Angr 19:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pill[edit]

AfDs for this article:

As per talk page, The pill could refer to any pill, not just one. AC Best Autograph Book 17:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Shouldn't this be listed at WP:RFD instead? Or maybe made into a disambig? (I know Loretta Lynn had a song called "The Pill".) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close this is indeed a redirect, not an article. Questions of what to do with redirects are handled elsewhere. FrozenPurpleCube 18:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it could, in principle, refer to any pill; in practice the phrase almost always refers to the contraceptive pill, and anyone entering "The pill" (as opposed to just "pill") into the search box will almost certainly be looking for that, so the redirect is warranted. But yes, this should really be elsewhere. Iain99 18:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pill can refer to any pill Harlowraman 18:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The only other thing referred to as the pill, is the little blue pill, which is viagra, and used to be a mercury tablet. "The pill" has always meant oral contraceptives. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 07:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second Jeffree Star EP[edit]

WP:MUSIC; this album doesn't even have a name or a release date yet, so this should be deleted until it is named or released.--milk the cows (Talk) 17:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tend to agree but confess I'm not as familiar with future music project conventions. Seems like there are only a few bits of information that could easily be summed in a sentence on the subjects main article. Benjiboi 17:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the album actually had a name and a release date, then I would be fine with keeping it.--milk the cows (Talk) 17:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an EP. Delete - may be notable at some point, but right now it's kind of WP:CRYSTALly. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely delete, only sources were MySpace bulletins, I removed those links as they only work for the user who received them (and only for a short time). CoJaBo 07:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, though a few more sources wouldn't hurt. ELIMINATORJR 15:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Munson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Chuck isn't notable. Running a fringe view website and being interviewed once by a major news source isn't evidence of being a notable bit of history--anyone can get interviewed by major press, that act isn't notable. Maybe a website article can exist, but the leader/webmaster of some website or blog isn't notable, especially in this case. Recommend delete as a vanity article, and also note it looks like the subject worked on it too and possibly created the article as User:Chuck0? That's COI issues as well. Delete. Freedomeagle 17:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's a little disingenuous of you to portray this as a vanity article, as a conflict of interest and suggest Munson as the creator when you yourself notified the creator of the article of this Afd. This nomination does not appear to be in good faith. Skomorokh ^incite 18:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator is not being disingenuous, but courteous. When you nominate an article for deletion, you notify the creator. Easy peasy. 199.33.32.254 18:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Exactly - he notified the creator, User:Tothebarricades.tk while appearing to insinuate that the creator was in fact the subject of the article, that it was a vanity page and a conflict of interest. My point was that the nominator knew very well that User:Chuck0 did not create the article, and by making suggestions to the contrary was being disingenuous. Skomorokh ^incite 18:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It certainly appears that this nominator did not bother to read the last AfD, which discussed the authorship of the article and the notability of the subject. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That afd is very old. He doesnt meet source needs. Freedomeagle 20:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He's been interviewed by the NY Times, but I'm not seeing much else that can possibly establish notability on this one. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Excuse my ignorance, but does WP:BIO not state that multiple sources are only required when the coverage is insubstantial? You could hardly describe the NYT piece as only referring to Munson in a trivial manner. Skomorokh ^incite 20:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I did create the article so my comments here might be a bit redundant, but Chuck is a well-known figure in the American anarchist movement. Infoshop is only a "fringe" site depending on your point of view; in fact it's one of, if not the, most visited anarchist website. And he's been interviewed by other papers looking for an anarchist viewpoint, although the NYT was certainly the biggest. Whether you think the anarchist movement is unimportant is irrelevant; he gets nearly 50,000 google hits, which is more than you can say about the majority of bios on wikipedia. --Tothebarricades 04:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Any other articles you can come up with and stick them in? If you can do that, I for one will change my mind. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What? --Tothebarricades 06:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Articles. You know, reliable sources that can verifiably show that he's notable? Usually those come in the form of a newspaper article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The editorships are notable. DGG (talk) 00:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep he makes the cut with biography research guide and, quite frankly, assertions of non-notability don't take into account the relatively small size of the international anarchist scene. i don't think anyone here could name a "famous lacrosse player", but that doesn't mean that no lacrosse player is notable. --frymaster 19:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 a non-notable fictional character. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg the Taxi Man[edit]

Fictional character introduced in Fox promos earlier this year. Official site gone, no references from after April. Fails notability requirements. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 17:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; not notable. Shalom ^Hello 17:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep advertising character for a big-4 TV network. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - also per nom. The "official page" doesn't exist and whether he was briefly used as a Fox promotion or not, I don't see how it's notable. Douglasmtaylor ^T/C 00:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis character was featured in the New York Times on May the 14th. It aired on Fox TV for two weeks in April during prime time. The idea was to introduce brief programs into the commercial breaks to try to lure people into watching the commercials. This approach was very innovative so much so that other TV networks have followed this idea and now we can see brief scenes of movies that have not been released in the commercial breaks or commercials that have to do with movies like the Simpsons. I do not see why it should be erased. It was a brief TV show (only 60 8 second episodes were aired)but it was a TV show nonetheless. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.178.109.72 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The character was also featured in the Wall Street Journal on April. I believe this article should not be deleted but should be updated. the NY times link is

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/14/business/media/14adcol.html?ex=1186286400&en=e1ce8c13af54cd7a&ei=5070 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.21.38.153 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Moreschi ^Talk 16:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Playing for others[edit]

Teen theatre-based charity in North Carolina. Unreferenced,lack of third party coverage (other than one local news story) fails WP:N. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 17:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; fails notability for WP:LOCAL groups. The only external links are to the group's website and myspace page. Shalom ^Hello 17:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while I am sure it is a worthy cause, it fails to show how it is notable enough locally, much less for the entire English-speaking world. If Wikipedia is not designed to list every charity. It also fails my minimal test: would a college student ever want to cite this group? Bearian 19:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP This is a fairly new group so naturally the page is not going to be loaded with every bit of desired information. A poor amount of links is no reason to delete the entire article. The group is plenty notable but once again is a new group, so you can't expect for every ordinary Joe you ask to know what it is. This is a yearly project, so the notability of the group is of course going to increase. Morticon 04:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Morticon, may I suggest taking a look at the links Bearian has provided in his comments? They provide a good description about the basis for deleting articles here. External links are most certainly needed to establish notability. As this very worthwhile charity grows and expands its influence, it very well may warrant an article on here in the future. All the best, Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 11:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eliz81, I have looked over the links provided. There are many news features I have seen for this group, but they are not archived or have been deleted so we cannot provide links to display here. The group is returning this year and we do plan to update this page with more links and information, and host any future features on our own server so to keep the information stored and not deleted. Some of the features are located on the Playing For Others website, but the links to the actual articles are now broken due to deletion of the archived story. We hope, should Wikipedia let us keep the article, that we can provide links to this article on postcards for future advertising and various other promotional material. We plan to hold our first meeting of the year in the near future, where we can discuss plans to direct possible sponsors for our cause to this article to learn about our previous year and our goals.

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as a copyrights violation. El_C 19:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thalattosuchian[edit]

Text written in the page is a copy of a FOX news article that contains numerous errors. In addition, the page on a single specimen of an unnamed and undescribed species, of which there is also currently no specimen number assigned to this specimen (not in a museum collection). The information currently in the article can easily be added to the Thalattosuchia page, and once the species is described and published a new page can be made for it. Having separate pages for Thalattosuchia and Thalattosuchian is confusing, especially as the thalattosuchian page is about a single specimen. Mark t young 17:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete seeing as it's copyvio from the Fox News article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 17:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - copyvio, does seem a little adverticious in the opening paragraph Onnaghar(_T/^C) 18:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ELIMINATORJR 15:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shahbal[edit]

Recreated expired prod. Non-notable university project. Stephen^1-800-STEVE 03:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of "significant coverage from independent sources" Corpx 06:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, WP:AIR team discovered this article today and we'll working on improving it. Piotr Mikołajski 20:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per Piotr Mikołajski. MilborneOne 21:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Piotr Mikołajski. The article needs reliable sources, though. --Aarktica 23:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relister's comment: The article still lacks any reliable sources, and no notability is evident, either. The subsequent discussion should address these issues. Sandstein 17:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Shahbal was awarded the Best Design Prize during the first National UAV Design Competition (NUDC-2006) is adequately sourced by the site for the competition. It's independent of the subject & I think reliable for the purpose. More would of course be better. Notability is not as a university project. Notability is as an experimental airplane. DGG (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It defintely needs some reliable sources to verify its factuality, but it does appears quite notable. Find sources and then I believe it falls under the laws of inclusion. Not that they are really laws, but just policy. Ahhh, you get my point. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeaceNT 03:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymizer (company)[edit]

Originally speedied as spam, one of the corp folks exercising COI has protested, so to be fair, I've restored it and am sending it to AfD for wider input. Personally, I don't see notability being demonstrated per our guidelines, and the thing reads like a corporate brochure AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Concerns about how it read are clean-up reasons, but let's see: [18],[19],[20],[21],[22]. So I see plenty of indications that this company meets the standards of WP:ORG by having multiple third-party coverage. You can see a lot more with a google news search. FrozenPurpleCube 17:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Harlowraman 18:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - again, promotional. Onnaghar(_T/^C) 18:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you could identify the parts of the article that you consider to be promotional, perhaps they might rewritten in a more balanced fashion? The site does meet the standards of WP:WEB and WP:ORG by having multiple reviews of it and its products in third-party media. FrozenPurpleCube 19:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as per Mister Manticore. It does read somewhat vague and slightly promotional ("enterprise class competitive intelligence tools", etc.), but that is a reason to improve the article, not delete it, as per WP:DP. The links MM listed clearly establish sufficient notability. --XDanielx 22:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:CORP and WP:WEB, but needs more than primary sources. As Alexa shows [23] the service has declined precipitously in popularity, probably because it serves a niche and not a broad need and this reflects increasing acceptance of privacy policies and so forth. But it did receive plenty of coverage when it was popular. --Dhartung | Talk 23:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Alexa results are dubious enough on their own, but I think a decline might be explainable by noting that they discontinued their free web services. FrozenPurpleCube 01:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this article should be a redirect to Proxy server and a new article made for the company. Mathmo ^Talk 00:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Mildy notable, per sites listed by Manticore. i ^said 00:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, one of the first proxy server companies. Wl219 08:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There ought to be an article about Anonymizer. The article itself needs work, but the subject is important enough. Squidfryerchef 04:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I renamed this to Anonymizer (company), split the articles per Squidfryerchef, and added this source to both, which should address the concern of Dhartung, and this source which shows involvement with a notable topic. Dhaluza 09:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — was neutral before the rename. Erik Warmelink 21:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Moreschi ^Talk 16:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pac-Man in popular culture[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Laundry-list of trivial references. Unacceptable per WP:FIVE. Eyrian 17:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep~~and speedy close~~. WP:FIVE is not policy, please cite a policy-based reason for deletion. Last AFD closed ~~only a week ago~~ as keep. Nothing has changed since then. JulesH 18:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The five pillars are the core philosophies of Wikipedia. It forms the basis of all the policies. It will suffice. Also, the last AfD closed two months ago, and the only change since then has been the addition of even more trivia. --Eyrian 18:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm having a bad day. Ignore me. Still, WP:FIVE is *not* policy, and does not form the basis of policies either (you may be thinking of m:Foundation issues, which does form the basis of policies). It is a summary of policy, which is (I think) in this case misleading about what the actual policy is. Trivia is not outlawed from inclusion in Wikipedia. Please read WP:NOT, the policy which comes closest to doing so. JulesH 19:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - note that speedy close is not a valid option. This is a collection of loosely associated items seeking to capture every reference to or appearance of Pac-Man, or a sound from Pac-Man, or something that in some way in the opinion of an editor resembles Pac-Man. The things on this list have no commonality beyond a reference of greater or lesser triviality to the video game. The list does not add to our knowledge or understanding of Pac-Man, the fiction from which the trivial references are drawn, their relation to each other or the real world. The only thing of any real significance here is the TV show, which already has its own article. Otto4711 18:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close is always a valid option if consensus for it exists. See WP:SNOW. JulesH 19:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not that I disagree with citing it in deletions, but you cannot dismiss WP:FIVE on the grounds that it is not policy and then point to WP:SNOW as a speedy close rationale... CaveatLector^Talk 21:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lists and trivia. Although I do appreciate what JulesH says. Onnaghar(_T/^C) 18:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Waka-waka-waka....delete as a indiscriminate list of non-notable references. Unless someone can prove with a well sourced, non-listy article that Pac-Man has played a large role in influencing (and not just being referred to) in the cultural canon. CaveatLector^Talk 21:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CaveatLector said it better than I could have. -- Kicking222 22:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep as per WP:SENSE. It could use an introductory lead, but the subject is highly notable. The fact that Wikipedia isn't a pop culture magazine doesn't mean that we should ignore salient cultural influences entirely. --XDanielx 22:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the person said above, use common sense! The subject is highly notable. As WP:SUMMARY says, extra stuff should be split of when making the original article too long. Putting in the oodles of cultural references into the pacman article would make it far too long. Mathmo ^Talk 00:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How is this subject notable? CaveatLector^Talk 00:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pac-Man is indeed notable. That does not mean that a list of every time Pac-Man is referred to in any other medium is also notable. Otto4711 01:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. The argument for the notability of the article in question does not depend on each listed item being notable. It instead depends on the subject of Pacman's cultural influence being notable. Just look at the biographies of famous individuals for well-established precedents - Bush's article notes that the young Bush once was a cheerleader, and Bertrand Russell's article describes how Russell was often lonely as a child. Obviously we would not give such facts their own articles, but it is entirely acceptable to note such facts within an article. Notability guidelines apply to the subject of an article, not the contents of the article; the latter has its own separate and considerably looser set of guidelines. To anyone well acquainted with video game history, the cultural influence of Pac-Man is highly notable. --XDanielx 06:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Everybody knows it's notable' is not a valid establisher of notability. If there are reliable secondary sources that discuss the topic "Pac-Man in popular culture" then bring them on and let's get a decent article. I don't believe there are such sources. Certainly none are presented in the list. What is presented is a list of every mention of the words "Pac-Man" in any medium ever. Certainly as part of a biography of GWB mentioning his cheerleading is reasonable. But an article that sought to collect every time the words "George W. Bush" were mentioned in a TV show or movie, or every time a soundbite from GWB was used in a show or a song, would not stand. Indeed, a list article of songs that mention GWB was deleted. And really, is there honestly a solid basis of comparison between actual human beings and a fictional video game character? Otto4711 12:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want sources, try this or this - just a few first-page references from a 10-second Google search. Regardless, I think it's reasonable to say that Pac-man's cultural influence is notable as per WP:SENSE. The Pac-Man in popular culture isn't meant to detail every instance of "Pac-Man" being spoken or written. Very loosely related list items can be removed (the list is fairly long as is, and it wouldn't hurt to condense it); deleting the article is not the solution. --XDanielx 19:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both of your sources are the same editorial. And that editorial hardly serves to justify this article. Otto4711 03:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not count links; let's instead use common sense. It's only to be expected that "X has had a substantial cultural impact" articles are hard to find. Try doing a similar search for Chuck Norris for example - the results are very similar. Obviously Chuck's cultural impact is enormous, but you're not going to find hundreds of scholarly articles on JSTOR exclusively affirming that. It's difficult to find many such sources because cultural references from credible sources tend to be blips, and it's difficult to filter through those articles. Unless the vast majority of the contents of the page in question are entirely untruthful (an extremely dubious scenario), the article itself speaks for the cultural impact of Pac-Man. The cultural significance of Pac-Man is so huge that companies have risked lawsuits (e.g., this) and accepted undesirable licenses (source) from the copyright holders just to be able to use the character in more modern video games. The evidence is everywhere; I don't think we need an explicit statement from the Harvard Law Review to back up the enormity of Pac-Man's cultural bearing. --xDanielx^Talk 06:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I assume people saying this is notable mean Pac-Man is notable, that doesn't mean these examples are notable. If there are any notable ones they should be mentioned in the main article. Crazysuit 00:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect and Trim I could see some elements could be notable if they are sourced. Lack of sources is a another for not keeping it.--JForget 02:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 17:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As JulesH said, WP:5P is not a policy, and there is no policy prohibiting trivia. --XDanielx 17:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The five pillars are more important than that. They are the principles of Wikipedia. If something is getting in the way of following those principles, it should be ignored/removed. --Eyrian 17:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
While I definitely would support one, we don't need a policy prohibiting trivia, WP:FIVE supersedes that. Burntsauce 19:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivia doesn't merit its own article; used wisely, it can add insights to an existing article. Trivia, like salt, can be used moderately to add flavor to an article; if you have long lists of trivia, you have something so salty that the original article is unrecognizable. Yes, Pac-Man is notable, but like Crazysuit said, these mentions are not. This is what gives IPC articles a bad name, a list of every reference someone has spotted of something that would be remembered without all these forgettable references. Mandsford 00:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then the conclusion would be , Keep, and edit. and individual items would be discussed on the article talk page.DGG (talk) 00:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT. Unencyclopedic trivia. Eusebeus 11:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a violation of WP:NOT#INFO. These pop culture references have nothing in common other than the fact that they happen to include Pac-Man. Unsourced listcruft that is thereby unnotable and trivia to boot. María (críticame) 13:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft and possibly violating copyright of this site: [24]. The subject is not inherently as mess, and I urge that it not to be salted. 19:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, articles are generally only salted if they're repeatedly recreated (meaning essentially the same material). --Eyrian 19:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete there is no sourcing for the notion that Pac-Man's place in popular culture is notable. Carlossuarez46 20:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources for notability of the subject Games might be gory but they make us smarter By Dan Sabbagh, NYTimes December 9, 2005, Everything Bad is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture is Actually Making Us Smarter by Steven Johnson Penguin, 2006, ISBN 9781594481949. Just a start, of course. Carlossuarez46, I assume you will now change your !vote to a keep. DGG (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The linked article you claim supports the notability of "Pac-Man in popular culture" includes nothing beyond the line "Twenty-five years ago the best games on offer were as basic as Pacman." The idea that this serves as a source that "Pac-Man in popular culture" is a notable topic is ludicrous. I haven't read the book. Have you? Is Pac-Man even mentioned in it? Otto4711 03:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (without prejudice to later renomination) per the comments of User:Melsaran and myself at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eyrian. The nominator is, broadly speaking, right that wikipedia should be purged of inappropriate trivia: however he and the other delete voters in this and a string of related AfDs are immediatists. The right approach is to give the matter considered thought, to review these types of articles with TLC and to extract from them the items that do have merit, and with what's left to consider whether a transwiki is a better option than outright deletion from the world wide web. The greatest weakness of wikipedia is the lack of respect that some members of the community have for the hard work of others, and an inability to see - or even to seek - the diamonds in the rough. AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request to closing admin if this closes as a delete would you, instead, move it (protected if you feel it necessary) to a sub-page of User:AndyJones? AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plato's Republic in popular culture[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Plato's Republic in popular culture

~~Pure original research, making uncited claims of similarities to other works. Eyrian 17:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)~~ Article has been sourced and moved. Change to keep. --Eyrian 15:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Given the motivation of this deletion spree, I'd prefer 'speedy keep', but I'm going to be satisfied if this gets merged into The Republic (Plato), probably as a new subsection. In either case, keep. Digwuren 17:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a list of trivia, and the similarities commented upon are easy to cite if you wish (I'll start by doing the first one for you... the rest shouldn't be tricky, either). JulesH 18:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I didn't actually say anything about trivia. You must be thinking of something else.
That said, that section really should be moved. Aristophanes is not popular culture. --Eyrian 18:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete - solid mass of original research. Article asserts that various works were "most likely" related in some way to The Republic (unsourced) or that particular works include elements that are also present in The Republic (no source that either The Republic or the noted work actually include that element or that the later work was in any way inspired by or adapted from or in any way connected with The Republic). Tear it down. Otto4711 19:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom and Otto4711. Plato is turning in his grave. This article (BTW pure WP:OR) describes Plato's influence on Aristophanes and More ("popular culture" indeed) and on Huxley, Orwell, the Wachowski Bros and others (here's the big, steaming pile of OR). "Plato's Republic has has been influential in literature and art" (duh) but calling it an influence on popular culture is absolute nonsense. --Targeman 20:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

go and read the article. Some of the refs are available full text. DGG (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but re-title. There will be abundant documentation for the influence on Aristophanes, More, Huxley , and Orwell--the association will not have escaped the critics in the one to twenty-five centuries since the works were written. There's probably enough for Heinlein too. 20:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Documentation has just been inserted for almost all of these, and then some, including a book on the philosophical implications of The Matrix. Suggest those commenting above revisit the article. It's harder to source than to destroy, but more rewarding. I can source one article a day, but it is possible to nominate twenty. If it is really desired to improve WP, and if the people disliking these articles are not prepared to go to the work of checking themselves for obvious references, they should at least nominate them slowly so other can. DGG (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination is fundamentally different from the others, as the article was. Note the different terminology in the nomination, it's a dead giveaway. --Eyrian 21:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd ask those who are voting delete if they would consider a renaming of the article to Influence of Plato's Republic in literature, purging the OR and replacing it with a well sourced article (that is not a list of trivia or of Republic allusions). That is an article that can certainly be written. Please do comment on this suggestion. CaveatLector^Talk 21:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. --Targeman 21:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A lot of blue links here, a lot of references, and overall it's a sensible article. For me this takes away the stigma added by 'in popular culture' in the title. The connections asserted here must already have occurred to millions of people, so it's hard to consider it WP:OR, or synthesis. EdJohnston 22:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per the person said above. The subject is notable. As WP:SUMMARY says, extra stuff should be split of when making the original article too long. Mathmo ^Talk 00:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)][reply]
Keep This is what a pop culture article should be. Plato has an influence 23 centuries later, with people debating, reinterpreting, and criticizing what he wrote. Did Plato envision that the Republic would influence thinkers well into the future? Perhaps. It's just as difficult for us to imagine what might be remembered in A.D. 4307. Mandsford 00:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I see a huge difference between "influence on thinkers" and "influence on hoi polloi", or popular culture. The day I see Joe Sixpack, or even a mainstream newspaper, discussing Plato's Republic, I'll be willing to change my vote. The authors of "Matrix" may have read the Republic, but how many viewers understood that? How many have even heard of the book? --Targeman 00:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But who's to say that Joe Sixpack won't read the Republic later in life? Just as a lot of people end up going "back to school", people who resisted classics during their teenage years often come back to them. My favorite pop culture reference was when Marilyn Quayle was quoted as saying, "Every year, Dan tries to read Plato's Republic." She meant to make him sound intelligent, and people inferred just the opposite. Mandsford 14:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, don't merge or rename. References have been added to the article, so the OR complaints no longer stand. "...in popular culture", while imperfect, is the standard name for these kinds of articles. Punctured Bicycle 07:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as recreated as a redirect to Cultural influence of Plato's Republic, which shows how various notable movements stemmed from this, now if could find WP:RSes that Pac-Man had led to Aristophenes and Heinlein, then that may have been a keeper too. I think that most editors can see for themselves the signifcant difference between these articles. Carlossuarez46 20:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom's changed mind, consensus above, and WP:HEY. Bearian 20:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Per nominator's withdrawl. I have tagged the redirected article with various wikiprojects to draw more attention to it. Hopefully, this will soon look like articles of this type SHOULD look. CaveatLector^Talk 17:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seppuku in popular culture[edit]

Trivia collection , consisting only of bare-mention references and leading original research. Contains none of the sourced analysis of clearly confused western notions about an eastern practice that such an article needs. Eyrian 17:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete as per nom Harlowraman 18:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yet another in the seemingly unending cavalcade of worthless lists masquerading as articles. Wikipedia articles are not for listing every single time ever you see something. Otto4711 18:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. Onnaghar(_T/^C) 18:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tried to save the thing by giving it its own article, so avoiding the pollution to the main Seppuku page. Now, since I've not found an angle to make it into a proper encyclopedic article, and nobody else has, I guess it is time to let it die gracefully. I still believe the material ought to be available somewhere, but standards are standards, and it indeed does not satisfy them.--Svartalf 21:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm trying to see how this is notable. CaveatLector^Talk 21:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article needs structure to it. Introduction, sections, tidy-up, etc... but none of that is a reason for deletion however. Mathmo ^Talk 00:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the standard laundry list of loosely related trivia we're used to seeing in these types of article. Crazysuit 00:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per another trivia-filled content.--JForget 02:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Keb25 06:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 17:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the last time I asked you just which one, and what the specific language was that covered this, you replied only that it was anyway deletable by IAR. I suspect you mean V, but V as a pillar does not specify what counts as V, or says that articles where some content isnt V should be deleted rather than fixed.

Keep delete is for articles that cannot be fixed. Deleting articles that could be improved is really IAR-- All rules, even that of building an encyclopedia. 23:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete I think if you saved this to your userspace and tried fixing it, you would find that it's difficult to see what's worth keeping. When one tries try to include everything, it links Madame Butterfly with an episode of South Park, and it's a mess. Seppuku-- honorable? Hilarious? Part of the sterotype of a samurai? I remember Buck Henry talking John Belushi out of this. Mandsford 00:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources that Seppuku is a notable phenomenon in popular culture. Carlossuarez46 20:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom et al. I know Listcruft when I see it. No reliable sources. Bearian 20:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses in popular culture[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jehovah's Witnesses in popular culture

Trivia collection, sometimes merely listing that Jehovah's Witnesses are mentioned in a particular work. Unacceptable per WP:FIVE Eyrian 17:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed". This is just a bullet list of every time a Jehovah's Witness has been seen. Punkmorten 18:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIR. This doesn't even pretend to be about actual appearances of JWs. Simply using the words "Jehovah's Witness" is sufficient to make the list. Hey, in high school I wrote a poem in the style of Ogden Nash about the JWs, maybe I can add that to the list! Otto4711 18:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, bad use of WP:NOT. Otherwise you could carry on to able it to everything under the sun. Mathmo ^Talk 00:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And what, exactly, is your argument for keeping this then? Not that I actually care, I just wanted to point out you'd failed to make one since you're telling everyone else about there own. Crazysuit 00:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, So bad, this is almost a joke. I can understand some people wanting to keep other IPC lists, but this one is so vague and worthless in any sense that I am going to doubt the judgment of anyone saying "keep" here. Crazysuit 00:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Short meaningless trivia.--JForget 02:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 17:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Remember the Land Shark skit on Saturday Night Live? And someone knocked on the door and said he was a Jehovah's Witness distributing the Watchtower? And Jane Curtin banged him on the head, and it was Garrett Morris, and he dropped all the pamphlets? Man, that was funny. Delete. Mandsford 01:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sourcing that Jehovah's Witnesses in popular culture is a notable phenomenon. Carlossuarez46 20:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Accusations of failing WP:NOT have not been addressed. Andy, if you wish to have a copy of the article, please let me know via my talk page. Neil ╦ 12:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Air Force One in popular culture[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Unacceptable (albeit short) trivia collection. Best summarized as "The president is associated with air force one, and is often portrayed as flying in it" Eyrian 17:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep - I could understand deleting an article about pop culture for an aircraft of lesser significance but Air Force One is not just any other aircraft. There are movies made about it and plenty of other mentions that makes a page on its popular culture references valuable and important. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Problems with the quality of content can be fixed. Dont have it deleted because it needs to be expanded and cleaned up. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would this finished article look like? Is there any imaginable significance beyond the fact that the aircraft is associated with the presidency? Perhaps a brief remark mentioning speculated capabilities, but this comes far short of needing a separate article. --Eyrian 17:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC))

~~Speedy~~ ~~Keep~~ - I created this article because two Air Force One pages (Boeing VC-25 and Boeing VC-25) existed, and it was confusing as duplicate items were being added to both pages. Since then, two more AF1 pages have been added: VC-137C SAM 26000, and VC-137C SAM 27000. This page passed a previous AFD (2 weeks after creation), and I find it appalling that in both nominations, I was not contacted beforehand to see if there was a workable solution. Improvements were made to the article after the first nomination, namely the addition of more references. If the bullet points are objected too, the nominator could have simply been bold and done it himself, or at lest asked me to do it. I have watchlisted the article, and remove non-notable cruft in line with WP:AIR/PC's page content guidelines when they are added. I ask that this AFD be speedied on the basis that it passed the previous nomination, wtih any concerns therein being addressed, and because the article has maintained only notable entries since then. - BillCJ 17:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While merging into Air Force One#Popular culture might be considered, the comparative sizing of the pages leads me to suspect that unmerging would soon again be in order. Digwuren 17:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Last AFD was less than two months ago. Too soon to reexamine this article. JulesH 18:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last AFD closed on March 25, 2007, which, if my shoddy Math skills serve me right, was more than four months ago. Also, deletion policy states that "users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again." Even if it had closed two months ago, that would have been completely reasonable. María (críticame) 18:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. I misread it as May, and then made a slight arithmetic error. Objection withdrawn -- there's no problem in reexamining after 4 months, IMO. JulesH 19:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - note that speedy keep is not a valid option. This article is a collection of loosely associated items, collecting appearances of AF1 and of things that are called AF1 but are not AF1 and of things that in some way resemble AF1 but are again not AF1. This collection tells us nothing about AF1, nothing about the fiction which contains appearances of AF1, nothing about the real-world context of AF1. There is no encyclopedic value in a list of "in such-and-such TV show AF1 appeared." The only noteworthy appearance of AF1 in popular culture is the film of that name and it already has an article. And I'm sorry, but "keep because otherwise people will put garbage in other articles" is not a valid argument for keeping. It is never acceptable to create a garbage dump article for the purpose of keeping garbage out of another article. Otto4711 18:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be nice if people would actually READ my comments. I said I created the article because duplicate items were being placed in the article, notable ones. Also, it would be nice to see you write an original objection, one that isn't a copy of the one you use for every pop-culture page AFD. "I don't like it" is not a valid reason for deleting pages, and you need to come up with something better. Not ALL pop-culture mentions are garbage - some are notable, and those are the ones I've tried to keep in this article. ANd unless my opinions have violated POLICY, don't bother with your usual alphabet soup of reasons why you're allowed to use your arguments, but I'm not allowed to use mine. Btw, I still haven't seen you removing "garbage" from any of the 1700 regular atricles I watchlist, something I spend a good portion of my Wiki-day doing. Is it the garbage OK as long as it's on a regular page? If cruft is as bad as you make it out to be, I give you a long list of articles where we need good editors to hlp fight cruft. But that's not your real issue, is it? (I would delete it is all, but it's been commented on. Might be borderlline violation of NPA, which is policy. Anyway, it is frustrating to seen the same editrs vote delete for the smae exact reasons on articles which vary widely in there notability content.) - BillCJ 19:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I purge articles whenever I stumble upon them. Feel free to leave a list on my talk page, and I'll take care of it. --Eyrian 18:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    - Try watching V-22 Osprey for starters. The Simpsons' movie is added about twice a day! I'll add more as they occur. THanks for volunteering. - BillCJ 19:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did read your comments. I read them the last time you made them in the last AFD. I'm sorry you're having such a severe over-reaction to my comments, but the sort of venom you're spraying around here seems more than a little unwarranted. Nor am I going to get into a "My watchlist is bigger than your watchlist" pissing contest because it is in no way relevant to this discussion. What is relevant is whether or not this article violates Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I would appreciate it in future if you would confine your remarks to that topic and refrain from going off on personal tangents. Otto4711 19:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not "venom", but frustration. But I do have one questions for you: Is there such a thing as nontable pop-culture? Because we certianly have a disagreement about what is notable. THis is not the Helicopters is popular culture page, which was FULL of cruft, yet I can't see how your comments would differ (I don't remeber if you participated in that one, and don't have the time to look.) And I'm not comparing watchlists, only stating my workload here whatching articles for cruft. Finally, I have worked very hard to make sure this article does follow notability guidelines, and I do get tired of your treating me like I don't at every AFD. WP:AGF would be nice every once in a while. And that is policy. - BillCJ 19:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'mm not going to comment on this any further here. I don't want this to become any sort of issue in the AFD because it's not relevant. Otto4711 19:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Speedy keep is always an option, per WP:SNOW, when consensus for it exists. Clearly it doesn't here, but it was a reasonable suggestion at the time the editor made it. JulesH 19:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You think WP:SNOW was justified after two comments? --Eyrian 19:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  - I agree; it's quite common for people to !vote "speedy keep", and it sometimes even happens. To say that it is "not valid" is certainly contrary to practice and even maybe contrary to policy. — brighterorange (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was basing it on the previous AFD's passing, with a bit of wishfull thinking thrown in. Still, it would be nice to have an editor discuss his concerns before nominating - if the goal is to get rid of the article, a merge could have been completed long before the AFD will finish. As the primary editor of the page (because mostly crufters have added material since creation), we wouldn't need any other concensus. However, the main problem is which articles to place what items, because some deal with the title AF1, and some the aircraft (with 3 aircraft articles now). That's why I went with a seprate page in the first place. However, even if the AFD passes, I will probably merge the info somewhere, as it's obvious it's just going to keep being nominated every few months. It might be diffetrent if the page was now full of a bunch of non-notable or game appearances, but it's not. It has improved some since the last nomination, but it's not changed enough to really justify a second AFD. If you don't like pop-culture articles in general, get them banned! But this AFD-war is not the way to go. Serious editors need to be able tp create sub-pages of articles when they get unwieldy, and we do that all the time in WP:AIR, not just with trivia, but for variants, history, operators, etc. I'd like to see all pop-culture banned altogether, especially since the only place it is apparently allowed now is in the main articles. But that seems to be OK with many editor who just don't want sub-pages for trivia/pop-culture, but could care less about it elsewhere, since it's not a problem they deal with. - BillCJ 19:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Notability is established by references in secondary, independent sources. Until the concept of "Air Force One in popular culture" is discussed in such a source, it is not notable. This is because, without such a source, it isn't verifiable. --Eyrian 19:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete Just a collection of loosely associated topics, fails WP:NOT#DIR. Jay32183 18:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see what makes something "loose" and another topic "tight". Is there a better definition? Is planes in PC loose, and Air Force one tight? It seems there is just a wave of deletions of PC articles using this phrase, but there is no clear definition. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there were a clear definition, there would be no reason to debate. --Eyrian 18:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

This distinction is being used as a reason to delete, so it is perfectly reasonable to ask those using them to explain what they mean by them. I can explain what I mean by tight -- in this context, it means having a common principal or important theme. Do you agree with that? DGG (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no possible definition that's going to apply in all cases, obviously. In this instance, it's reasonable IMHO to look at the items on the list and ask how a person would rank it as a factor of the source material. Would someone thinking about The West Wing, for instance, think about the appearance of AF1 in several episodes as a characteristic of the series? Would someone consider the show NCIS in terms of the appearance of AF1 in a single episode? Accepting for the sake of argument DGG's "common principal or important theme," is AF1 a theme of any importance in TWW or NCIS or 24? A theme of such importance that listing them together makes thematic sense? Otto4711 21:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." I actually disagree with your definition. I would propose something that quantizes how easily things can be understood in relation to each other. Carding is a subprocess of Spinning, thus making them tightly intertwined, and the latter cannot be fully understood without the latter; they have a navbox linking them. Maximilian armour and White armour are two ways of doing the same thing, they provide informative contrast to each other; they are linked by a category. The entries in this article are linked only by minor thematic elements, and should be linked only by the "What links here" function of "Air Force One". --Eyrian 21:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Those are good arguments, but they aren't in Wikipedia policy or guidelines. The standard here, as in the WP:AIR and MILHIST guidleines on pop-culture, is the notability of the individiual items. WIth the exception of the NCIS appearence (which I've removed severeal times, but had no backing on), these appearences in which AF1 plays a crucial role in the plot, or in culture. You are adding some other standard of notablility to the article as a whole which is not required anywhere on Wikipedia. If it were, then such articles would be banned, but they aren't. This is tacit, if not explicit, permission to have such articles. Get the banned, and I'll gladly AFD every pop-culture article I see or know of. Until then, why not try to work with us to make the articles better? AF1 is a common subject, and I imagine there are articles or books on it's effects in culture that could be referenced. To be honest, I hadn't thought of improving it in that direction. It too bad no one else thought of it either, and brought it up on the article's talk page. - BillCJ 22:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see your WP:NOT#DIR, Jay32183, and raise you WP:NOT#INFO. María (críticame) 18:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I call both WP:NOT#DIR & WP:NOT#INFO. Eusebeus 18:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - even though it is a rather small article. Onnaghar(_T/^C) 18:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This material is not part of popular culture? or is it that WP does not over popular culture? There's no basis for objecting, since collections of related information is exactly what encyclopedias are for. DGG (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Please do not throw out strawmen, especially two in the same comment. Nobody is saying that this material is not popular culture and nobody said that WP does not cover pop culture. However, this material is not notable popular culture. Air Force One is the president's personal airplane. Of course it's going to be featured in almost every element of popular culture that features the president. How is that notable? CaveatLector^Talk 22:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that's not what strawman arguments mean. they mean taking an item that is clearly unsuportable, and saying -- this is the sort of thing that's in there. It wont stand, and neither will the whole. (or, for that matter taking the one item that is clearly supportable, and saying -- this one is good, lets keep them all). You accept that WP covers popular culture. does it cover the themes that popular cultural artifacts talk about?? If so, do they get to be discussed in articles about individual artifacts, or also in articles about the themes?DGG (talk) 01:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, a Straw man argument is forcing upon your 'opponent' in a debate or discussion an easily refutable position that they do not have. Which is what you did. WP covers pop culture and it can discuss the impact that a theme that has impacted pop culture, but it is not meant to list every single instance of this theme. CaveatLector^Talk 21:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there have been entire movies made about this plane. Clearly it holds a very a notable place in popular culture, the other alternative is to put all this into the main article. Which would significantly increase the length, much better how it is done now. Mathmo ^Talk 00:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw an entire movie about a toaster once. Maybe you should go and start Toasters in popular culture based on your reasoning. Crazysuit 01:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the only notable references are the two films mentioned, the rest of the appearances are trivia. WP:NOT#DIR loosely associated trivial appearances/mentions of an airlplane. Crazysuit 01:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since the article was split off from the main AF1 article, there has been a constant see-saw of appearances of AF1 in popular culture being added, and those items being deleted. If there are only a handful of noteable appearances, there's no reason it shouldn't be folded back into the main article. Either the article should be a lot larger and include things that have been deleted as "gamecruft" (are video games not popular culture?) or "non-notable" (including TV shows in which the aircraft plays a major plot role), or it should be part of the article it was split off from.CruiserBob 02:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge notable items, delete the rest and the page - It's obvious that this is an issue that will never go away, especially if there is no clear concensus - someone else will nominate it again in forur months, and again, and again . . . In light of that fact, I propoes to merge the especially-notable items to the Air Force One page, with redirects in the aircraft articles. The remaining items should be deleted, ans should this page. I know ther is a rule about leaving a redirect for merged items, but since they were originally on the AF1 page, should that rule apply in this case? What's wrong with making the crufters works a little harder to find where to put their cruft? I'd rather delelte all of it, as I don't like ANY pop-culture references in non-related articles. However, I will be proposing a ban on all pop-culture, either at the project or Wiki-wide level, very soon. - BillCJ 02:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge etc., as per BillCJ. Couldn't have put it any better myself. - fchd 05:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 17:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- By that standard, ALL pop-culture appearances should be deleted. I do wish you were right, because I would be able to take the pop-culture sections out of several hundred aircraft articles. Unfourtunately, it is not so. Pop-culture appearances are allowed if the they are notable appearances, per WP:ATRIV, and WP:AIR/PC and MILHIST page content guidelines. - BillCJ 17:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Project recommendations simply do not count. Wikipedia is not a trivia collection, and that's precisely what these references are. --Eyrian 17:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  - Removing ALL "pop-culture" ~~references~~ lists of this sort from Wikipedia would be a step in the right direction if you ask me. Burntsauce 18:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We should ask for a clarification on the policy regarding trivia and pop-culture, and the 5 Pillars, because there is definitely a difference of interpretation of the issue. Trust me, if these two projects thought Wikipedia policy forbid such items, they WOULD enforce that! - BillCJ 18:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are two views put forth for deleting these articles: one is that items should be listed only if sourced, which is reasonable--and then we should move into a discussion of how to get them sourced. the other is that the material would not be encyclopedic even if sourced. That can't be compromised, because those having the view are saying that popular culture is not important even if there are sources for the notability of it, and WP should not cover it. That would, in my eye, be radically changing the nature of the encyclopedia. Its built on popular culture. I would like to know which way different people stand on that, not to get personal, but to sort out the arguments.

Burntsauce, are you asking for the removal of all popular culture, regardless of where it appears?

Eyrian, what do you include in triva, that you want it out even if it is sourced?

DGG (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the articles like this are collections of loosely associated topics and fail WP:NOT#DIR. There is no way to remedy this. The only reason these exist in the first place is a better here than in the main article thinking. Jay32183 00:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The setting: an airplane. If a movie or TV show has an American president, and he flies in a jet plane with "The United States of America" written on it, you're seeing Air Force One. Other than the Harrison Ford movie and the NCIS pilot, this is essentially a list of films with a movie set or a miniature prop. Mandsford 01:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A collection of loosely associated topics. Saikokira 03:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - when an aircraft becomes so iconic that it impacts pop culture, that's a legitimate subject to note in an encyclopedia article. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that there's no evidence of said impact, other than movies/TV shows/books showing that the President of the United States doesn't fly Business Class on Continental when he wants to get out of Washington. --Calton | Talk 02:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete having many references does not make a notable phenomenon in popular culture; I cannot count the number of times the word "the" is used in various pop culture places but that doesn't make its use a notable pop culture phenomenon. Carlossuarez46

Keep* < I voter for keep Supra guy 01:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While it's rubbish at the minute that is no reason to delete it. We have lots of rubbish articles. There is potentially material for an article here, even if a fairly trivial one. And please note that 'WP:BHTT' is an essay, not a policy or even a guideline. The Land 20:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason for deletion is that the article is a collection of loosely associated topics, which is based on policy, WP:NOT#DIR. The mention of WP:BHTT is a counter argument refuting the keep, not a reason to delete. The problem with the article is not one that can be fixed. Even if an appropriate article could be written with this title, it would not include any of the current content. Jay32183 20:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, the topics are linked by the fact that they all refer to Air Force One. I think RMS Titanic in popular culture is definitely the right side of the line; this one is a shade the right side, and certainly not so far over it that it has to be deleted. The Land 20:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Referring to Air Force One is a loose association. All articles of this type are on the side of the line for which deletion is the only option. If you want an article about Air Force One in popular culture, then get sources for "Air Force One in popular culture" not sources for "Air Force One" and then putting a pop culture spin on it. That would be original research. Jay32183 21:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless rubbish tip of trivia. Brief mention in Air Force One, sure, but this? No. --Calton | Talk 02:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Non-rubbish and definitely noteworthy. An entire film has been made that revolves around the plane. Also had big parts in 'Independence Day', 'Escape from New York' to name some. TruthCrusader 09:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As someone else pointed out above, there has been a whole movie about a toaster. Maybe someone should start Toasters in popular culture? Spellcast 18:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Listing every single mention of this plane is clearly indiscriminate info ("oh look, I spotted the plane in some episode of 24"). There has to be multiple, reputable sources that acknowledges every mention of the plane and not just the show/song/book. For example, there's multiple, reliable sources asserting that the press dubbed the term "Blair Force One", but there can never me multiple, reputable sources that do the same thing for the other mentions (apart from the show/song/book itself). Spellcast 18:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as it stands, this article is pretty clearly original research - the sources are all primary. If an article such as this were a digest of secondary sources discussing aspects of the topic (Air Force One in popular culture), then it's valid by policy; if it's a catalogue of incidence, then it's not. I'm not saying delete because I find it hard to believe that this article couldn't be written the right way. SamBC 02:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (without prejudice to later renomination) per the comments of User:Melsaran and myself at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eyrian. The nominator is, broadly speaking, right that wikipedia should be purged of inappropriate trivia: however he and the other delete voters in this and a string of related AfDs are immediatists. The right approach is to give the matter considered thought, to review these types of articles with TLC and to extract from them the items that do have merit, and with what's left to consider whether a transwiki is a better option than outright deletion from the world wide web. The greatest weakness of wikipedia is the lack of respect that some members of the community have for the hard work of others, and an inability to see - or even to seek - the diamonds in the rough. AndyJones 07:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request to closing admin if this closes as a delete would you, instead, move it (protected if you feel it necessary) to a sub-page of User:AndyJones? AndyJones 07:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The effort people put into an article has no meaning at an AFD, WP:EFFORT. In addition, we should always try to solve problems we come across. This is the discussion on the matter. Saying "Keep because we need to have a discussion on the matter" is just plain wrong. Jay32183 18:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:EFFORT is neither a policy nor a guideline. It is a particularly shite essay that should be burned and salted. For my money that fact that a volunteer, in good faith, thought that something was sufficiently encyclopedic to be worth actually doing the work on trumps every time the opinion of some dork at AfD who may have put up to ninety seconds of thought into his delete vote. Further, suggesting that I am failing to, and I quote, "try to solve the problem" when I am the one volunteering to take these articles into my userspace and deal with them is particulary offensive, and I should be grateful if you would avoid insulting me in that way again. AndyJones 20:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Some one putting effort into something he or she should not have been doing is meaningless, and encouraging the behavior by not correcting them is wholly inappropriate. I think you should not put in in your userspace because this is a problem that cannot be fixed. When an article fails WP:NOT#DIR there really is nothing you can do. If you fell insulted then you do not understand the situation. Deletion is the only solution and any action to prevent the deletion is contrary to the principles of Wikipedia. People who want to make these kinds of articles should be doing so in a place other than Wikipedia, and we have no obligation to aide those other places. Jay32183 22:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 "vote" (which AfD is not) appears to be 9-to-5 in favor of deletion, but several opinions on both sides appear to not take this article into account at all. Several just accuse the nominator of WP:POINT violations, and one delete vote says flatly that all such articles should be deleted, without reference to policy. In favor of deletion, users cite NOT#INFO, NOR#DIR, and point out the few sources. The "keep" users state that sources must exist for this article, but it appears there are still no secondary sources on the topic at this time. Because of this, notability is not established, as María points out.

I am userfying this article to User:AndyJones/Boléro in popular culture per request. Cool Hand Luke 03:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boléro in popular culture[edit]

Trivia collection; merely lists times that a very popular piece of music has been played. Eyrian 17:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I may reconsider if a better argument appears, but not before. Digwuren 17:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a trivia collection (WP:FIVE). I think this article is a trivia collection. Therefore, this article does not belong on Wikipedia from my perspective. That's a perfectly cogent argument. You may, of course, dispute whether or not this is trivia. But I feel I'm making a reasonable argument. --Eyrian 17:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:FIVE is not policy. Please refer to a policy, rather than a possibly inaccurate summary of one, in making your argument. JulesH 18:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#INFO and WP:NOT#DIR, for starters. I would also argue that many entries fail notability standards, which I know isn't policy, but as a guideline it is widely used in AFD discussions. María (críticame) 18:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The five pillars explain what is encyclopedic, constituting an argument under reason 2 of the deletion policy. Also, how is "Wikipedia is not a trivia collection" an inaccurate summary? Arguing that the pillars are not policy is just Wikilawyering.--Eyrian 18:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete as a collection of indiscriminate information. Every minor reference to Boléro is game in this bloated, trivial list which happens to lack sources, and by "sources" I mean reliable, third party sources. Like 99% of all other ...in popular culture articles, this one is unencyclopedic. All stupendous uses of Boléro may be merged into the main article, but from a quick glance I do not see any that deserve it. María (críticame) 18:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - more like an overstated disambig page. Onnaghar(_T/^C) 18:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think anyone needs a list of every piece of media in which a certain movement is used. That's like me listing every stadium in which "We Will Rock You" has been played. -- Kicking222 22:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing the test of notability. I'll reconsider if someone can tell me how the mention of a Bolero in anything and everything is notable. CaveatLector^Talk 22:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nominator did not carefully think out reasons for deletion or present a good case for deletion. Plus it appears to be flirting with breaking WP:POINT due to the sheer nature of AFD's of this nature listed all at once. Just because an article is dealing with popular culture does not mean it has to be deleted. If anything, the opposite is more likely to be true. Due to the nature of popular culture an article to do with it would tend to have more potential references in the popular culture than others would have. Mathmo ^Talk 00:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mathmo did not carefully think out reasons for keeping or present a good case for keeping. Crazysuit 01:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated topics. Few of these examples are even notable for their connection with Bolero. Crazysuit 01:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOT#DIR as with so many of these terrible "this one time in this one TV show they played this song" lists. Otto4711 01:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOT#DIR Harlowraman 02:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 17:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An example of influencing popular culture 70 years after one's death. Bolero is one of the few compositions that meets this standard. Mandsford 01:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as cites to its cultural importance could be found with a bit of effort. I know I must assume good faith, but the nominator appears to be making a point about lists in general rather than sticking with the facts about this one. This article has two cites, and thus is not technically unreferenced. (There goes that damn lawyer again.) I agree it needs a slimfast diet. Bearian 19:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable in pop culture. Carlossuarez46 20:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (without prejudice to later renomination) per the comments of User:Melsaran and myself at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eyrian. The nominator is, broadly speaking, right that wikipedia should be purged of inappropriate trivia: however he and the other delete voters in this and a string of related AfDs are immediatists. The right approach is to give the matter considered thought, to review these types of articles with TLC and to extract from them the items that do have merit, and with what's left to consider whether a transwiki is a better option than outright deletion from the world wide web. The greatest weakness of wikipedia is the lack of respect that some members of the community have for the hard work of others, and an inability to see - or even to seek - the diamonds in the rough. AndyJones 07:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request to closing admin if this closes as a delete would you, instead, move it (protected if you feel it necessary) to a sub-page of User:AndyJones? AndyJones 07:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, with valid arguments being made on both sides of the issue as to how WP policies and guidelines apply. Please note: WP:FIVE is summary, not a guideline or policy page. If you're going to quote policy/guidelines, quote the actual page. Also keep in mind WP:TRIVIA which states "What makes a section "trivia", regardless of its name, is that it contains a disorganized and unselective list. A selectively-populated list with a narrow theme is not trivia, and can be the best way to present some information -- for example, a list of unobvious pop-culture references made by a television episode." AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capoeira in popular culture[edit]

Uncited laundry list of brief appearances. Unacceptable trivia collection per WP:FIVE. Eyrian 17:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep. This handwaving does not constitute a valid reason for deletion under Wikipedia's deletion policy. Digwuren 17:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I definitely don't approve of simply throwing around WP:FIVE, as if that actually made sense in this situation. However, this is just a loose collection of non-notable, unsourced trivia bits. It's a wholly unnecessary article. Wow, Charlize Theron studied capoeira for a film... so? Delete. -- Kicking222 22:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - directory of loosely associated topics. The things on this list have nothing in common past some reference or display of a capoeira move of greater or lesser triviality. Tells us nothing about the martial art, nothing about the items from which the references are drawn, establishes no relationship between the listed items and says nothing about the world around us. Otto4711 21:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject and content of the article is non-notable. CaveatLector^Talk 22:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nominator did not carefully think out reasons for deletion or present a good case for deletion. Plus it appears to be flirting with breaking WP:POINT due to the sheer nature of AFD's of this nature listed all at once. Just because an article is dealing with popular culture does not mean it has to be deleted. If anything, the opposite is more likely to be true. Due to the nature of popular culture an article to do with it would tend to have more potential references in the popular culture than others would have. Mathmo ^Talk 00:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand WP:POINT. I think these articles should be deleted, and I am nominating them for deletion. What point am I making? Further, while it not be immediately obvious, I'm not nominating all popular culture articles for deletion, just those that consist of long lists of barely-related trivial mentions. Articles that have merit have the extraneous parts removed. Only those that are entirely trivia get nominated. --Eyrian 00:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete, WP:NOT a directory of loosely associated stuff which says nothing about the importance of capoeria. Crazysuit 01:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 17:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all There's only one article, I think, but it's good enough that it's worth keeping several times. I can't see merging this back into Capoeira; in all honesty, I had never heard of this Brazilian martial art, but it's apparently inspired enough of a variation on kung fu, karate, ninja, etc. films to be influential. Mandsford 01:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if the signifcance of Capoeira is as described per Mandsford, it ought be included at Capoeira; there is no sources that show that Capoeira's role in popular culture is notable. So some people learned about it, ate it up, and it shows up places, yadda yadda yadda. Much the same could be said about ice cream, apples, or tacos. Carlossuarez46 20:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another random collection of factoids, with not even a breath of a hint of sources. --Calton | Talk 01:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (without prejudice to later renomination) per the comments of User:Melsaran and myself at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eyrian. The nominator is, broadly speaking, right that wikipedia should be purged of inappropriate trivia: however he and the other delete voters in this and a string of related AfDs are immediatists. The right approach is to give the matter considered thought, to review these types of articles with TLC and to extract from them the items that do have merit, and with what's left to consider whether a transwiki is a better option than outright deletion from the world wide web. The greatest weakness of wikipedia is the lack of respect that some members of the community have for the hard work of others, and an inability to see - or even to seek - the diamonds in the rough. AndyJones 07:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request to closing admin if this closes as a delete would you, instead, move it (protected if you feel it necessary) to a sub-page of User:AndyJones? AndyJones 07:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The above arguments for deletion quote general policy, but do not show much knowledge of the particular article; the above keep arguments seem based both on policy and the article. The key policy is that WP is an encyclopedia, a general encyclopedia, that includes information about popular culture. This article contains information, and just needs a little sourcing. Most of it should be sourcable, and the rest can be of course deleted. This should never have come here--it is just an editing question.DGG (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 16:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Will-o'-the-wisps in computer games[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Will-o'-the-wisps in computer games

Trivia collection, where most entries merely consist of "wisps are an enemy/ally/monster in this game" Eyrian 17:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The nominator seems to be under the impression that getting rid of the list will get rid of the listcruft. I know from personal experience that this is not the case. To date, the vast majority of recent additions to any and all will-o-the-wisp related articles have been video game mentions. What will happen if this article disappears is that the hundreds of anonymous users who added random info from their favourite computer games will simply reinstate it willy-nilly all over Wikipedia, spreading their "cruft" across dozens of articles. Cries of Wikipedia being a self-correcting mechanism ring hollow in this case. I also know from personal experience that this "cruft" remained undeleted for months until I came along and actually did something about it. I also know that removing it makes no difference, as it simply reappears (within hours) anyway. Unless you want to spend the rest of your natural life playing whack-a-mole with useless trivia, let this article live. It's the sanest solution. Serendipodous 17:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Better here than there" doesn't work as an argument. I've add the wisp article to my watchlist, and will personally take care to ensure it remains clean. Further, even if there's a so-called lint filter article, people will still add references to the main article periodically. I've seen it happen. --Eyrian 17:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You'll also have to watch the will-o-the-wisp disambig page. It seems you also want to delete the Will o the wisps in popular culture article. Since I've created those two articles, the number of random video-game-themed insertions has fallen drastically. I have no idea what will happen if they're removed. If you truly want to take on this job, you're welcome. Serendipodous 17:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've watchlisted the dab, and cleaned it up a little. --Eyrian 17:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep. This crusade is just as silly as trying to keep an encyclopedia "clean" by deleting entries on genitalia. Digwuren 17:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, actually, there's no comparison whatsoever, as one concerns censorship and the other notability. You might as well rename this article 'List of just about every RPG video game in existence', as it is an incredibly common feature. Delete this article as non-notable. If there is a sourced and well written article (not a list) on the Will-O-Whisp legend in art, literature, or entertainment, feel free to write it. CaveatLector^Talk 22:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Without having had any discussion on the notability of the said article, it would be rather silly to promptly delete it on the basis of notability. The will-o'-the-wisp is clearly notable, and computer games are a common medium in which it is frequently found. --XDanielx 23:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- True, so let's put a sentence in the will-o'-the-wisp article that says 'will-o'-wisps are commonly found in computer games' and source it. Why in the world is it necessary to list every instance of this creature in video games? CaveatLector^Talk 00:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nominator did not carefully think out reasons for deletion or present a good case for deletion. Plus it appears to be flirting with breaking WP:POINT due to the sheer nature of AFD's of this nature listed all at once. Just because an article is dealing with popular culture does not mean it has to be deleted. If anything, the opposite is more likely to be true. Due to the nature of popular culture an article to do with it would tend to have more potential references in the popular culture than others would have. Mathmo ^Talk 00:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I call foul on WP:AGF here. If this were WP:POINT the nominators would be saying that 'all pop culture articles are evil' or only nominating 'pop culture' articles. These editors are well respected, veteran members of the wiki community, and it is simply shameful to say that, just because some of the articles that they feel merit deletion are of a certain type that they somehow have an agenda against them. CaveatLector^Talk 00:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, WP:NOT#IINFO When we start having spin-off articles from IPC articles like this they have be stopped. It makes even bad IPC articles appear encyclopedic by comparison.Crazysuit 01:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I agree with Mathmo that Eyrian's "crusade" involves many dubious and little-thought-out nominations, and may possibly be connected to WP:POINT (note the qualification). Still, I think the article does seem to have next-to-nothing potential in the way of providing valuable or even amusing information to readers and hence can be deleted as per WP:SENSE. The problem Serendipodous brings up can easily be mitigated by semiprotecting the article. --XDanielx 05:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's exhausting having to deal with so many IPC nominations in one day, since each article has to be judged on its merit. I'd prefer if we limited this to five or so every day. This one seems fairly obscure-- a will o the wisp is essentially a speck of light for computer game purposes, one of the less complex graphics to design. Mandsford 01:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original synthesis of material with no secondary sources establishing either weight or notability and—oh yeah—no sources at all period. Cool Hand Luke 08:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise Lost in popular culture[edit]

Trivia collection, consisting of little more than bare-mention references, imparting no understanding about popular opinion. Unacceptable per WP:FIVE. Eyrian 17:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Digwuren 17:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD; the first item on the list is "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." María (críticame) 18:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although I agree (as I should, having read the damn poem three times in three separate classes) that PL has "had a profound impact on writers, artists and illustrators, and, in the twentieth century, filmmakers," there are no reliable, third party sources to support this claim. Many things draw inspiration from PL, but this list violates WP:NOT#INFO as a collection of indiscriminate information. Any medium or pop culture reference to a quote or theme is fair game, making the article bloated and trivial. Anything that is notable (and therefore able to be properly sourced), like inspiration used by Mary Shelley and William Blake, can be mentioned on their works' articles. María (críticame) 18:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the rationale above--in addition to mentioning it in the many separate articles in which it can be demonstrated -- and it's obvious in this case that some of the music can also be shown to be much influenced, or even specifically on the theme of the book -- this article serves to bring them together. That's what an encyclopedia ought to do. DGG (talk) 21:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless restricted to adaptations of the work and renamed to Adaptations of Paradise Lost. A listing of adaptations of the work is encyclopedic. A hodge-podge of every mention of the words "Paradise Lost" or a quote from the book or a character with the same name as someone in the book is not. Otto4711 22:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although the information here should be transferred from a list to a coherent dialogue (as is well discussed elsewhere) that does not seem to me to be a reason to remove the information. Rather than deleting it – why not expand on the opening sentence and start an introduction for each section with the intent of creating an encyclopedic entry. This sort of collection, although trivia, is neither unusable or non-notable, but is inherently compromised on Wikipedia, because if I’m reading the history correctly the article was originally started in order to remove the exact same problem of a trivia section from the original article.--Bookandcoffee 22:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I thought that an encyclopedia was meant to explain and discuss topics in a concise, well-sourced, and authoritative manner. Also, editors should remember that 'Better here than there' is not a reason to keep. As for the article, delete it, and create an article on the Miltonian tradition. That article is writable, sourcable, and sustainable. This one is none of these things. CaveatLector^Talk 22:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the rationales above--in addition to mentioning it in the many separate articles in which it can be demonstrated -- and it's obvious in this case that some of the music can also be shown to be much influenced, or even specifically on the theme of the book -- this article serves to bring them together. That's what an encyclopedia ought to do. (Miltonian tradition is an interesting suggestion--perhaps we should just rename this one now. )'DGG (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin, please note that this is the second !vote from DGG in this AFD. Otto4711 23:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nominator did not carefully think out reasons for deletion or present a good case for deletion. Plus it appears to be flirting with breaking WP:POINT due to the sheer nature of AFD's of this nature listed all at once. Just because an article is dealing with popular culture does not mean it has to be deleted. If anything, the opposite is more likely to be true. Due to the nature of popular culture an article to do with it would tend to have more potential references in the popular culture than others would have. Mathmo ^Talk 00:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I was hoping this might be a decent list because the main subject is more notable than other pointless IPC articles, such as Air Force One, but it is just another loosely associated list of any mention of the title or quote from the book. Crazysuit 01:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists. This is just a directory listing of loosely associated trivia, and a poor one at that. Burntsauce 17:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although some of the dumb should be edited out, concept is good and reasonably well executed summary of the influence of Milton's work on subsequent art Mandsford 01:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as per above list of comments. The concept is good, but there are zero cites. Bearian 20:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep remove mere references, source (which could probably be found) and rename List of adaptations of Paradise Lost because that's what are notable. Carlossuarez46 20:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this applies to many popular culture articles (though I have not been through them all). They serve a useful function of protecting serious articles from being overloaded with trivia, which some people delight in adding, thereby spoling good articles. Peterkingiron 00:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better here than there is not a reason for keeping non-encyclopedic articles. Junk information should be deleted instead of split into a separate article and made into someone else's problem. Otto4711 18:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (without prejudice to later renomination) per the comments of User:Melsaran and myself at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eyrian. The nominator is, broadly speaking, right that wikipedia should be purged of inappropriate trivia: however he and the other delete voters in this and a string of related AfDs are immediatists. The right approach is to give the matter considered thought, to review these types of articles with TLC and to extract from them the items that do have merit, and with what's left to consider whether a transwiki is a better option than outright deletion from the world wide web. The greatest weakness of wikipedia is the lack of respect that some members of the community have for the hard work of others, and an inability to see - or even to seek - the diamonds in the rough. AndyJones 07:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request to closing admin if this closes as a delete would you, instead, move it (protected if you feel it necessary) to a sub-page of User:AndyJones? AndyJones 07:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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^♫ 19:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will-o'-the-wisps in popular culture[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Will-o'-the-wisps in popular culture

Trivia collection, best summarized as "wisps sometimes appear in fiction, often as glowing balls", with no trace of analysis. All references are merely links to primary source material where the mention is made. Eyrian 17:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Requesting analysis in this context would be rather problematic -- would you want a Wikipedian commence original research into the topic? Digwuren 18:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask that when people create an article, that they consult secondary sources from which to construct the text. --Eyrian 18:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete and I actually petition that this deletion be bundled with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Will-o'-the-wisps in computer games. My rationale is the same. CaveatLector^Talk 22:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nominator did not carefully think out reasons for deletion or present a good case for deletion. Plus it appears to be flirting with breaking WP:POINT due to the sheer nature of AFD's of this nature listed all at once. Just because an article is dealing with popular culture does not mean it has to be deleted. If anything, the opposite is more likely to be true. Due to the nature of popular culture an article to do with it would tend to have more potential references in the popular culture than others would have. Mathmo ^Talk 00:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The only editor violating WP:POINT is yourself, as you have pasted the same "keep" argument (or rather, lack of argument) in numerous AfDs without even referring to the actual articles. Crazysuit 02:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT#DIR of any mention of "Will-o'-the-wisps" in books, music, etc. Crazysuit 02:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. A list of mentions isn't very notable or useful here. RobJ1981 07:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 17:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete the above comment has been repeated so many times that it has inspired most of us to actually look at the article we are talking about, so I thank you. May the same negative example of bad IPC articles carry over to inspiring others to make such articles better. In this case, while I appreciate the author's obvious hard work, the lsit suffers from the problem of trying to throw in everything. Not a Wikipedia principle, but an article should be at least half as fun to read as it was to write. Mandsford 01:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a decent list, this is part of a mass nomination, and not all "in Popular Culture" articles are inherently bad. Squidfryerchef 05:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Will-o'the-wisp is a creature of popular culture; why is the part of popular culture known as "folklore" more important than modern popular culture?--Prosfilaes 13:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as sourced list. The cruft needs to be sorted from the list. This article could use the Atkins diet, but kept. Bearian 20:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Will-o'-the-wisp, naturally. As there is absolutely no scientific proof of the existence of Wills-o'-the-wisp, all mentions of the phenomenon are effectively "popular culture", if not "popular delusions". RandomCritic 03:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (without prejudice to later renomination) per the comments of User:Melsaran and myself at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eyrian. The nominator is, broadly speaking, right that wikipedia should be purged of inappropriate trivia: however he and the other delete voters in this and a string of related AfDs are immediatists. The right approach is to give the matter considered thought, to review these types of articles with TLC and to extract from them the items that do have merit, and with what's left to consider whether a transwiki is a better option than outright deletion from the world wide web. The greatest weakness of wikipedia is the lack of respect that some members of the community have for the hard work of others, and an inability to see - or even to seek - the diamonds in the rough. AndyJones 07:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request to closing admin if this closes as a delete would you, instead, move it (protected if you feel it necessary) to a sub-page of User:AndyJones? AndyJones 07:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't understand why someone would want to delete this. Trivia? The image of a will-o'-the-wisp is an important one in folklore, whether or not it's scientifically verifiable. The entry I'm concerned with, for example, is part of a piece -- it might be considered the central piece -- of a ballet by a significant musician, Manuel de Falla. Assuming that lists of appearances of images, metaphors, and phenomana are considered kosher to Wikipedia, why would lists of this image not be? If you feel individual entries in the list are trivial, then argue that. Otherwise, leave it up to the adults that use Wikipedia.-user Friarslantern

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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^♫ 02:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Space stations in popular culture[edit]

Trivia collection, consisting only of appearances with no analysis. Unacceptable per WP:FIVE Eyrian 17:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I may reconsider if a better argument appears than this nebulous handwaving, but not before. Digwuren 17:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article needs improving, not deleting. JulesH 18:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another directory of loosely associated topics. Tells us nothing about space stations, nothing about the fiction set on space stations, nothing about how any of these things relate to each other and nothing about the real world. "Look, a space station!" is not a basis for an article. Otto4711 20:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability, anyone? CaveatLector^Talk 22:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nominator did not carefully think out reasons for deletion or present a good case for deletion. Plus it appears to be flirting with breaking WP:POINT due to the sheer nature of AFD's of this nature listed all at once. Just because an article is dealing with popular culture does not mean it has to be deleted. If anything, the opposite is more likely to be true. Due to the nature of popular culture an article to do with it would tend to have more potential references in the popular culture than others would have. Mathmo ^Talk 00:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT#DIR of unrelated films that feature mostly trivial appearances of something. Crazysuit 02:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing Crazysuit's concerns specifically, if this survives AfD I am willing to put in some time tidying & expanding several of the entries, but I DN wish to waste my time at present, if the Cabal have alreayd decreed the article's deletion -- SockpuppetSamuelson 13:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 17:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Great idea for an article, bad execution. While space stations have been something that have become a reality, and visions of those stations set a target to aim for... this article is poorly written. If you replace the words "space station" with "mobile home", it illustrates how boring the article is. Bad writing can be cleaned up; I suspect someone else added in those references to the wheel and to L5; but if this isn't, I don't think it'll survive another nomination. Mandsford 01:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although the title is ambiguous, it seems to be focused on fictional rather than the real one. I will acknowledge that space stations are scenes à faire in SciFi, like horses or scruffy looking bad guys in westerns, or blood and bone-chilling screams in horror films, nearly every genre has such (that's why we have a name for it, albeit in French), does that make them notable in popular culture? Not without sourcing that it is notable, and apparently none is found for this. Carlossuarez46 20:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this article could be a keeper if it covered sourced analysis of these space stations, including their feasibility and their influence on real space station designs and ideas (or vice versa), and other notable information. As it is now, its just another useless list. EricDerKonig 206.154.229.139 11:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe this is salvageable.RandomCritic 03:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (without prejudice to later renomination) per the comments of User:Melsaran and myself at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eyrian. The nominator is, broadly speaking, right that wikipedia should be purged of inappropriate trivia: however he and the other delete voters in this and a string of related AfDs are immediatists. The right approach is to give the matter considered thought, to review these types of articles with TLC and to extract from them the items that do have merit, and with what's left to consider whether a transwiki is a better option than outright deletion from the world wide web. The greatest weakness of wikipedia is the lack of respect that some members of the community have for the hard work of others, and an inability to see - or even to seek - the diamonds in the rough. AndyJones 08:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request to closing admin if this closes as a delete would you, instead, move it (protected if you feel it necessary) to a sub-page of User:AndyJones? AndyJones 08:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom not notable Trivia Harlowraman 00:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. CitiCat^♫ 22:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural References to Friedrich Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Cultural References to Friedrich Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil

Trivia collection/list of quotes, unacceptable per WP:FIVE. Eyrian 17:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep. This handwaving does not constitute a valid reason for deletion under Wikipedia's deletion policy. Digwuren 17:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another directory of loosely associated...aw hell, do I really have to type this again? This random list of things in which a particular book can be seen tells us nothing about the book, nothing about Nietzsche, nothing about the fiction in which the book can be seen and nothing about the real world. Otto4711 20:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More notability problems with pop culture articles. CaveatLector^Talk 22:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Do the people listing these articles want them improved if possible? If so, they should not be listed in large batches, for it is not possible to improve articles as fast as they can be listed for deletion. I am beginning to think it might be an attempt to overwhelm those who do believe that articles should be improved rather than deleted. But I do AGF, and therefore hope that most of the outstanding noms will be withdrawn, and then re-submitted at the reasonable rate of perhaps one or two a day. That is what would contribute to improving the encyclopedia, rather than assuming that upgrading the articles is impossible. DGG (talk) 22:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<sniff> That was such a beautiful speech...my heart is full... <sniff> Otto4711 23:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think having the goal of improving the encyclopedia is more than rhetoric--its the reason at least some of us are here. It's the reason I take an interest in keeping these articles, which are otherwise not within my field of interest in contributing. DGG (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These articles don't form a meaningful basis for any kind of better article. Burn the trivia, and build something better if you want. --Eyrian 23:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course they are a basis--they are the materials which when sourced will make the article. DGG (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nominator did not carefully think out reasons for deletion or present a good case for deletion. Plus it appears to be flirting with breaking WP:POINT due to the sheer nature of AFD's of this nature listed all at once. Just because an article is dealing with popular culture does not mean it has to be deleted. If anything, the opposite is more likely to be true. Due to the nature of popular culture an article to do with it would tend to have more potential references in the popular culture than others would have. Mathmo ^Talk 00:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, "... seen reading this book in the 13 episode of the second season" WP:NOT#DIR of trivial appearances of a book (cover) in unrelated films, TV, etc. Crazysuit 02:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per the reasons I gave when I created the page in the first place. I wholeheartedly agree that it's a totally stupid, worthless and pointless page, and on literal application of the policy ought perhaps to be deleted. But it keeps this stupid, worthless and pointless material out of the actual article Beyond Good and Evil, and deters people from adding more - since there is a link through to this page, where they can add trivia to their hearts' content. To make an omelette you have to break some eggs: this is one I think we should prepared to break, in the name of the greater quality of the omelette. ElectricRay 08:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a garbage article to keep another article pure is not a valid excuse. All you've done is dump off your problem on someone else. Otto4711 12:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How so? I'm dumping the problem in a dump that no-one needs to worry about. Who cares what gets posted in Cultural References to Friedrich Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil? Think of it like a sandbox. Here's an idea - why not put the article out of the mainspace. I don't think anyone would even notice. It's only a problem if you make it a problem. You see a problem: I see a solution. ElectricRay 15:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a standing offer to police any articles at request. I now watch Beyond Good and Evil, and will keep it clean. --Eyrian 13:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well that's pretty admirable, but isn't it a waste of your time? wouldn't it be smarter - a better use of your time - to just let the grafiti artists have a free wall for grafiti? ElectricRay 15:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the sophisticated title, this is essentially about occasions where a particular book was used as a prop. "What'cha readin'?" "Beyond Good and Evil. See?" "What's it about?" "Dunno." Mandsford 01:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not essentially that, but exactly that. And that's the beauty of it. You can keep the pointless tittle tattle out of the mainspace article, without having to guard it like cerberos at the gates of hell, which seems to be Eyrian's idea. Life's too short, y'know? ElectricRay 15:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Even the creator of this article calls this stupid, worthless and pointless. I agree. Saikokira 02:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is not notable in popular culture and no WP:RSes have been found saying it is. Carlossuarez46 20:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, you are all being a bit formalistic here. Think about the spirit of the rules, and not their literal application. this page does no harm (other than offending thine eyes). but it saves a lot of work - if it saves any work, for people who don't like trivia in proper articles, then it's been worthwhile. Why the kne-jerk reaction? ElectricRay 15:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every article must meet Wikipedia policies and guidelines. There is not, to the best of my knowledge, an exception in those policies and guidelines for "it saves me work." WP:NOHARM is not a valid reason for keeping. Otto4711 15:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ElectricRay, although I like seeing the spirit rather than the letter of the rules, and I hate to see a salvageable article deleted, I cannot at all agree with your basic proposition... which, if I understand correctly, is that there should be a trivia dump, grafitti wall, lightning rod, vacuum cleaner bag, etc., to keep "garbage" out of a main article. It's a nice try, but you've got Otto and me in agreement... and he and I rarely agree on anything (though I've always considered him to be an excellent adversary). While I am disappointed if I'm on the losing side of a deletion debate, I think that the deletion process makes for better writing in the long run. I had an article deleted, one I thought was great stuff when I wrote it; after seeing similar crap since then, I came to realize wasn't that good. Am I a better writer now? No, but I have a better idea of what goes and what doesn't. We don't do anyone any favors by encouraging them to turn any idea into a faux encylopedia article. Sometimes, giving a student an "F" is the best lesson that they can get. Mandsford 03:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're making the assumption that there is one student who will learn a lesson from the award of an F. But there is a tendency on the part of a whole lot of people to write trivia, and no amount of handing out Fs is going to stop them (and actually, who knows, some people might find the trivia interesting or useful). Wikipedia is not paper, it's not like we need to save space (or lord knows, THIS discussion should be binned before the Trivia on Nietzsche section is), so why the hostility to a pragmatic, neat and harmless solution to an irritating problem? I really don't get it. On a positive note, I am pleased to have been the operating cause of harmony between yourself and Otto. Every cloud has a silver lining, hey? ElectricRay 22:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What can I say? You're ahead of your time. The rest of us scoff at you... Scoff! Scoff! Maybe what we need is a service called Wikitrivia, with the slogan, "the trivia book that anyone can add to" (editing might hurt someone's feelings, so you could only add, not subtract). Instead of the AfD process, we can have the AftR process... no deletions, but articles for the refrigerator, because some of these are so special that they need a refrigerator magnet and some love to go along with them. It could be supported by advertising from sugary cereals.... geez, I hope I haven't stolen your idea. Mandsford 23:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the accumulation of small contributions from multiple editors we build the encyclopedia. The history of any GA will show it. The above argument seems a little excessively worded, and that it is based on over-extended simile shows perhaps a certain frustration at the lack of good arguments. DGG (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Better here than there" is not a good argument. There are not two tiers of articles—"serious" and "in popular culture." This is an article for deletion, and therefore must be consistent with our policies for articles, including LIST, N, and OR. Since it's a hodgepodge of whatever nameless editors think might be a cultural reference to Nietsche, it fails. Without a secondary source about popular portrayals of gnosticism, there are no sources to establish N, and nothing to guide us away from OR. Cool Hand Luke 08:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There has to be multiple, reliable sources that acknowledge each of the cultural references and not the film or video game itself, otherwise it's original research. Yes, it's true that these films or video games refer to the book, but there can never be multiple, reputable sources that recognise each of these mentions. Spellcast 08:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there are reviews for most of the ones specified, and they will show it DGG (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (without prejudice to later renomination) per the comments of User:Melsaran and myself at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eyrian. The nominator is, broadly speaking, right that wikipedia should be purged of inappropriate trivia: however he and the other delete voters in this and a string of related AfDs are immediatists. The right approach is to give the matter considered thought, to review these types of articles with TLC and to extract from them the items that do have merit, and with what's left to consider whether a transwiki is a better option than outright deletion from the world wide web. The greatest weakness of wikipedia is the lack of respect that some members of the community have for the hard work of others, and an inability to see - or even to seek - the diamonds in the rough. AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request to closing admin if this closes as a delete would you, instead, move it (protected if you feel it necessary) to a sub-page of User:AndyJones? AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, referring to FIVE is unacceptable. Is like referring to everything all it once, so completely and utterly as to be useless. Mathmo ^Talk 23:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomical names in popular culture[edit]

Trivia collection, consisting of bare-mention uses of astronomical names. Unacceptable per WP:FIVE. Eyrian 17:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep. This handwaving does not constitute a valid reason for deletion under Wikipedia's deletion policy. Digwuren 17:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as per above. Onnaghar(_T/^C) 18:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List of items that share no characteristics save that their names are those (or similar to those) of stars and planets. Uninformative both about the items listed and about the astronomical objects. Unacceptable per WP:NOT#DIR. Deor 19:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yet another directory of loosely associated items. They have nothing in common past happening to use one of potentially thousands if not tens of thousands of "astronomical names." Tells us nothing about the names, tells us nothing about the real objects with the names, tells us nothing abut the fiction that uses the names or their relation to each other and nothing about the real world. Ooh, I said "real world," quick, someone add it to the article! Otto4711 20:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment on loosely associated. Glad to have a chance to start discussing it: names are important. People use names as deliberate references, to indicate a collection with the object named. When people write creative works, the names indicate the fundamental them or the orientation or the influence. they are there for a purpose, and this is a close association. It doesnt tell us about the stars and planets, it does tell us about what the subjects and purposes and intent of the work. Works of imagination exist in the real world. there have been requests for more discussion of aspects of them other than their plot. I agree with Otto though, that it might be better to have separate articles for the major astronomical objects that justify it. DGG (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will thank you not to attempt to use me to justify separate articles for each astronomical name. Such lists are no more likely to be acceptable than this one is. Subdividing a large pile of crap rarely results in anything other than smaller piles of crap. As for your claim that every one of these names indicate some fundamental theme, I want a reliable source for each and every one of them supporting the notion that the name was chosen for the express purpose of advancing some theme or another as opposed to, say, the author thought it sounded pretty. Otto4711 01:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I created this page because a surprisingly large number of people have felt the need to place the items listed on pages dealing directly with the stars and planets mentioned (it will be noticed that none of the items included refer directly to the stars or planets, but merely share their names). As clearly they did not belong on pages dealing with stars, etc., I thought they might as well have their own page. Personally I feel that most of the references are trivial; but then I don't care for video and computer games (the source of many of the references), and a great many other people do. So it wasn't my call to say they should be simply deleted against the very many people who do find this information significant. RandomCritic 23:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nominator did not carefully think out reasons for deletion or present a good case for deletion. Plus it appears to be flirting with breaking WP:POINT due to the sheer nature of AFD's of this nature listed all at once. Just because an article is dealing with popular culture does not mean it has to be deleted. If anything, the opposite is more likely to be true. Due to the nature of popular culture an article to do with it would tend to have more potential references in the popular culture than others would have. Mathmo ^Talk 00:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Now we have names in popular culture? By definition that is WP:NOT#DIR of loosely related topics and indiscriminate. Crazysuit 02:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 17:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete between "handwaving" and "delete all" there's something in between. This one is, as it says, about astronomical names in popular culture, but it's a parlor game that could go on for ever. Mercury and Saturn-- they're both lines of automobiles. Neptune and Jupiter, they're towns in New Jersey and Florida. Asteroids and Uranus, 8 year olds giggle when they hear about these. It's what an IPC shouldn't be-- everything about anything. This article has Sirius problems (Sirius can be used as a pun because it sounds like "serious"). Mandsford 02:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above especially Mandsford. Carlossuarez46 20:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a collection of loosely associated topics, fails WP:NOT#DIR. Jay32183 23:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 03:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Batmobile in popular culture[edit]

Trivia collection, containing only brief and irrelevant mentions. Unacceptable per WP:FIVE Eyrian 17:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep. This handwaving does not constitute a valid reason for deletion under Wikipedia's deletion policy. Digwuren 17:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed". This is just a list of every time a Batmobile has been seen. How about giving a valid reason why the article in question deserves to exist, Digwuren? Punkmorten 18:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Collection of loosely associated topics, fails WP:NOT#DIR. Jay32183 18:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Holy Non-notable-lists-of-loosely-associated-facts, Batman! Delete. CaveatLector^Talk 22:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nominator did not carefully think out reasons for deletion or present a good case for deletion. Plus it appears to be flirting with breaking WP:POINT due to the sheer nature of AFD's of this nature listed all at once. Just because an article is dealing with popular culture does not mean it has to be deleted. If anything, the opposite is more likely to be true. Due to the nature of popular culture an article to do with it would tend to have more potential references in the popular culture than others would have. Mathmo ^Talk 00:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it's a list of loosely associated items: WP:NOT#DIR. And because Mathmo did not carefully think out reasons for keeping or present a good case for keeping, pasting the same opinion (the last sentence of which passes my understanding) indiscriminately into multiple AfDs. Deor 01:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yet another directory of loosely associated items. The word "Batmobile" being spoken on a TV show means nothing in pop culture terms. Otto4711 01:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 17:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Look, there's the Batmobile! Great idea for an article. Mandsford 02:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, no WP:RSes that it's notable. Carlossuarez46 20:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus, defaulting to Keep per references added. ELIMINATORJR 15:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bed Head[edit]

Non-notable product brand. Speedied twice, then restored by User:Rebecca with reason "completely unjustified speedy". I fail to see how this is notable in any way, and with a short, one-sentence paragraph and a web link, this smells lik spam, which is a legit reason for speedy. However, rather than wheel war with Rebecca, I'm bringing it here AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete for now. I have heard of this product, and I've seen it at everywhere from Regis Hair Salon to Wal-Mart, so it does seem to be a fairly popular brand. Haven't found much in the way of Google hits for Tigi or "Bed head + Tigi", so... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 17:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Google does not rule all, and considering you have heard of it, and know of its wide availability, doesn't the vote "weak delete" seem a little...weird? Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 09:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If something can't be found in Google, it's almost certainly not notable. Google is pretty thorough. Jehochman ^Talk 05:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a really notable brand sold worldwide. It really needs a good expansion (as does its parent company, which I'm very surprised does not have an article), not a bogus deletion bid. It's hardly an advertisement (why would I want to advertise their product?) - it's just a lousy stub on a perfectly notable product. The answer is cleanup, not deletion. Rebecca 01:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is established by references, not by opinion or popularity. Add the references about it and it will be OK. Otherwise not. Dicklyon 20:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it isn't. Notability is determined by its ability to be referenced, not by the current state of the article. Articles on brands usually take quite a bit of work to be referenced, but it's completely unbelievable that one of the world's more notable brands of hair products wouldn't have enough sources to make for more than a good article. As I said, this needs an expand tag - not a ludicrous deletion attempt. Rebecca 04:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Um, Rebecca, yes it is. WP:N makes it clear that "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (note that "received" is in past tense, and that it doesn't say "able to receive") and in regards to the concept of notability itself, "This concept is distinct from 'fame', 'importance', or 'popularity'". Your argument that the product is distributed world-wide and is well-known does not establish notability, and is not a criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I didn't say "able to receive" - I said "received". This article is plainly notable. It is inconceivable that one of the world's most notable brands of hair products would not have more than enough reliable sources to make for a good, detailed article. It simply requires someone to be prepared to do some research and expand the thing. We do not delete articles on notable topics (especially where it is virtually certain that reliable sources exist) simply because article concerned is, at present, unreferenced. Rebecca 03:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        If a brand is notable, it should only take a minute or two to find some independent news about the brand using a Google search. Please find two or three solid references, and I will immediately change my Delete to Keep. Jehochman ^Talk 06:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Rebecca, never before in my life have I seen a more blatant example of a circular argument that wasn't constructed with the specific purpose of illustrating the fallacy. The subject is notable because sources exist to establish its notability, and we know those sources exist because the subject is notable? This article isn't particularly important, but for the sake of improving the level of discourse, I have to call you out on this. Philwelch 06:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Notability not even attempted to be established, company that makes it has no Wikipedia article, so nothing there to justify its existence. DreamGuy 19:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you read what I said? The company that makes it is very significant, and I'm very surprised that it doesn't have an article (systemic bias, anyone?). Using that as the basis for deleting this one makes no sense. Rebecca 04:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Significant" is not a criteria of notability...see the quote from WP:N that I put above. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are you being deliberately obtuse? If it's a very significant company, then it's really rather inconceivable that it wouldn't have been written about, should people bother to actually do research before trying to claim that such sources don't exist. Rebecca 03:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the proponents can't seem to be talked into adding the evidence of notability. Dicklyon 04:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should I spend two hours of my time chasing up references for this particular article simply because someone decides to be a dick about it? I've explained why this article is extremely likely to have more than enough verifiable sources, and I've got better things to do than run around at the behest of Akradecki. It is manifestly absurd to run around voting to delete unreferenced articles in the face of a perfectly rational explanation for why notability is most unlikely to be an issue. In the meantime, there's nothing inherently wrong with a short stub until someone gets around to expanding it. Rebecca 05:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Requiring evidence of notability on articles is a standard part of the wikipedia new article process. It's hard for me to see why you can't just accept that, and why you resort to incivility instead of trying to understand what's required. If you don't want to do the work right now, that's fine; do it later and write the article when you have sources. Dicklyon 06:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've given you evidence of notability, as have numerous people below. There is absolutely no doubt that this is notable per WP:N if someone bothers to actually expand the article. What I won't do is expand the article upon your whim. Rebecca 06:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - If someone presented the required "verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability" then I'm sorry I missed it. Dicklyon 06:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I suppose you win points for selective quoting of guidelines in order to be a WP:DICK. The guideline states that "a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - which, as illustrated here, it very obviously has. Moreover, it states that, before nominating something for deletion on these grounds, someone should actually search for sources themselves, something that really obviously wasn't done here. Rebecca 06:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The incivility doesn't help advance your point. But to your point, yes, "significant coverage in reliable sources" is all that we're asking for evidence of. And actually I did search for sources, and didn't find any that I thought qualified; but I didn't spend two hours at it, which may be what's required, as you estimated. Dicklyon 06:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Zscout370 found three sources on the first page of Google alone. If you did "search for sources", I think your research skills could do with a bit of work. Rebecca 06:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks, I'll work on that. But I think the google hits that Zscout found weren't quite up to what I was looking for. See our discussion below. Dicklyon 07:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        How about you do your own search, as WP:N suggests? Oh, but of course, this would take actual work on your part, and you couldn't bear to do that. Rebecca 07:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have seen the products everywhere in the United States, I have used the products myself. I am expanding the article now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sold at most, if not all, hair salons in the US, and Kelli McCarty from Passions has endorsed the product (I don't know if the interview is online, but it was in Soap Opera Digest). Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 05:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quite a renowned brand and the article seems to be on the right track. --Amalgamation 05:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because a company doesn't have a WP article doesn't make their products automatically non-notable. Q ^{T C} 06:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- These keep votes are content-free. Nobody doubts that Bed Head is a brand with products in lots of stores. How does that relate to WP:N? Dicklyon 06:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There doesn't need to be content, the article stands on it's own merit just fine. Q ^{T C} 07:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are you saying that a discussion of notability concerns does not need to be addressed in terms of wikipedia's notability criteria? Or am I missing your point? Dicklyon 07:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, I'm saying the article itself has enough proof that it passes notability that I dont need to reiterate it here. Q ^{T C} 10:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        And I'm saying that if that's so, I've missed it, and am left wondering what evidence you are referring to. Dicklyon 17:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, they are not. Mike just gave you a glowing example of a reliable source covering the product, and several other people have reaffirmed what I've said - that the notability of this product is bleedingly obvious should anyone actually bother to expand the article. There is absolutely no policy that allows unreferenced articles to be deleted simply for being unreferenced, and such proposals have been vehemently shot down in flames in the past. Rebecca 06:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If the endorsement that Mike H. mentioned has been written up by an independent author, that could be taken as support of notability. But so far he hasn't produced the evidence, so we can't verify it. Could happen... Dicklyon 06:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Aren't you taking the assumptions of bad faith a wee bit far? Rebecca 07:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm assuming good faith on Mike's part, and I hope to see the evidence if he can find it. What is it that YOU are thinking? Keep it civil, please. Dicklyon 07:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You could always do a search yourself. This, however, would require actual effort on your part, which explains why it won't happen. Rebecca 07:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Rebecca, why can't you stick to the point? Trying to make the notability issue into something about me is just a distraction. Dicklyon 22:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am adding to the article now, just look at it now (and later). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - But are any of those external links independent secondary sources about the brand? I see pages and quotes by the maker, by an advertising partner, by a seller, and by a recaller. These kinds of mentions do not advance the notability argument. Dicklyon 06:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes. You've been presented with one such source by Mike, a secondary source which points to them having obtained a major sponsorship deal by Zscout370, and some primary sources to flesh out a reasonable stub. This is even without hitting the databases, such as LexisNexis or Factiva, or even solidly searching Google. I've never known someone to fight so hard to get an article deleted in the face of both sources and good rational explanations for notability. It's bizarre, unhelpful and obnoxious. Rebecca 06:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - One of the links is provided by CNN, a copy of the interview was placed in Forbes by the Associated Press. The recall is mentioned by the CBC at [25] and the link provided in the article was from the Canadian Government. The website of the cheerleader mentioned is owned by the Dallas Cowboys themselves. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The CNN/Forbes/AP article is a press release from the maker, and merely has Bed Head mentioned in a quote "During the month of May we started shipping the exciting new Bed Head by TIGI appliance product line. During the second fiscal quarter we will begin to see the consumer sell-through of this product line as we initiate our advertising campaign for Bed Head." I can't see how that supports notability. The recall merely mentions a counterfeit product; I don't see how that supports notabitily. And the cheerleaders site press release on an advertising partnership is in no way independent, so also doesn't help. Did I miss anything? Dicklyon 07:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Product recalls are mentioned in articles, so figured since I found it, add it in. I also added a CBC link if you didn't think Health Canada was independent enough. I also added the incident in as a cause for calls to toughen up IP laws for the country. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Independence is not the problem there, but the mere mention of a product in a list or a footnote does not make it's brand notable, in my opinion. It's OK to mention it and reference it, but what's needed to save the article is evidence of notability. Dicklyon 07:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You have been presented with plenty of evidence of the subject's notability. Since you are not willing to even do the most basic Google search before coming to such a vehement conclusion about the article's notability, to be honest, I think you're just being a dick now. Rebecca 07:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        At least it is stub worthy. We have articles, on other brands, that are less than this. I gave you at least 7 citations, first explaining what the product is and who is selling it and what government agencies have dealt with the brand. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You really don't do your case any good by trying to claim that other articles are even worse. That will always be true. I'm not sure that any one of your 7 is a reliable independent source about the subject; can you point out which one is? Dicklyon 07:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, for one, Mike's article is. I'd again point out that Factiva and LexisNexis haven't been touched. I'll give you a startling thought - if you're so concerned about the notability of this article, how about you go down to the library and take a look for yourself? I guess being a jerk is more fun, though. Rebecca 07:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability established by reliable secondary sources. AfD over. Reinis^talk 08:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which ref are you referring to? Rebecca just wants to call me a jerk for asking, or wants to make it my problem. If you've found a reliable secondary source, then we're done. But please share. Dicklyon 06:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge Lack of independent information about subject from reliable sources. A few passing mentions don't provide enough substance. Looks like it will never be more than a stub. Let me know if you find some sources. "They sell a lot" or "They are big" or "They are everywhere" are not proper reasons to keep. A good solution would be to merge this. - Jehochman ^Talk 05:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or merge with the company that actually make the product: Toni and Guy have a Wikipedia article and they are the original makers of the product line. That would be a better redirect, in my opinion. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Helen of Troy Limited would make more sense, since the Bed Head brand are their products now. There's a long list of brands on their page, but Bed Head is missing. Dicklyon 06:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I take it back. That link ref about Helen of Troy appliance brand may be a red herring. I don't find anything that says who makes or sells Bed Head; seems to be TIGI Linea division of Toni & Guy. Dicklyon 06:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Helen of Troy is just selling them in the United States. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat^♫ 22:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy (Music)[edit]

Appears to meed WP:BAND but still iffy on notability here. Also note that the creator's name is the same name of some kind of music company, so a possible conflict of interest could be at work here. -WarthogDemon 17:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, apparently the claims of being used in TV soundtracks can be verified; according to this, they've been featured in four episodes of One Tree Hill, and a bio for an appearance at SXSW indicates they've also been featured on Ghost Whisperer. Though I prefer seeing some albums on notable labels, I think the TV participation pushes him over the line - barely. Weak keep. However... the article is brutal, has elements of copy-and-paste from elsewhere, and needs cleanup badly. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently working on the clean up as requested, this is my first posting so im still learning the ropes. All possible conflicts of interest have been removed from the post. However, regardless of the desire to see "notable label" this artist does meet the notable requirements stated in wikipedia guidelines. One Tree Hill episodes are 5 actually, Buddy - "More Of The Shame" - ep. #304; "Don't Go Home" - ep. #319; "Westgate" - ep. #402; "11/22" - ep. #408; "Blindsides" - ep. #415 [26]graham kurzner 1 August 2007

Keep as it can be cleaned up and cited. Bearian 13:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, doesn't assert notability. NawlinWiki 17:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John danizio[edit]

22 Google results, and I'm not really sure deputy auditors for cities are notable. Esteffect 16:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A1 (no context) or A7 (non-notable person). So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 16:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. No assertion of notability whatsoever--Sethacus 16:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AMFM[edit]

Nonnotable independent band. Only claim to notability is use of one of its songs in the independent film Life Goes On (film). NawlinWiki 16:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; not notable. The only link is to the band's myspace page. Shalom ^Hello 17:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Train theme music history[edit]

Delete - there do not appear to be WP:RS attesting to the notability of this topic as a whole. The notability of the show doe not mean that a history of the theme songs and/or openings are also notable. Otto4711 16:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trivial at best. James Luftan ^contribs 16:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is like trying to describe to a blind person the paintings hanging in a museum in Kalamazoo. Too long to merge into Soul Train, though a mention of the theme songs... a mention... would be okay. I liked TSOP. Mandsford 02:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator, and redirect to geological engineering. Argyriou (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geophysical engineering[edit]

Article is a nearly meaningless, and not terribly accurate, one-sentence stub, with no substantive edits since November 2006. This specialty is not widely recognized, and there is no parent article on Applied geophysics. Argyriou (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC) (Added later) This is a contested prod. Argyriou (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - maybe has potential to grow into something better, but as of now, it's pointless. Jauerback 16:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - possible search term, at least one graduate program does exist. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. There are currently 39 schools in the United States that offer this as a major, including Harvard, UCLA and UC Berkeley.--Sethacus 16:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to geological engineering. Usage indicates they are considered virtually identical. --Dhartung | Talk 17:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for suggesting a usable redirect. My first thought was Applied geophysics, which is also a redlink. I'll make this a redirect, and withdraw this nomination. Argyriou (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. For categorization, Category:Irish musical groups could probably be used until there are more than three groups with separate articles. — TKD::Talk 07:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of bands from Limerick[edit]

Delete. List is full of non-notable bands; only three of them actually have Wikipedia articles. Features edit summaries such as "I added my friend's band". Has not changed significantly since it was created in January, 2006. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 16:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-maintainable list, full of too many non-notable bands. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 16:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perhaps the ones that are notable can be put into a category; an article that includes mostly non-notable bands does not improve WP. -- Kicking222 22:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak categorise and delete per Kicking222. The only purpose of this list is to show that several bands are from the same geographic location, which can be handled equally well by a category or subcategory. Deletion also solves the problems of notability (as the articles in the category will pass WP:MUSIC or be deleted), verifiability (as the information on the geographic loaction of the band will be verified within the article or be deleted) and the article being or becoming a simple directory or list of external links. -- saberwyn 23:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 07:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Natural intelligence[edit]

appears to be original research intended to promote an as-yet-unpublished book, presumably by either the author of the book or his publisher, thus involving conflict of interest as well. GlassFET 15:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete promotional essay. Mukadderat 15:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The claims of original research (no references) and conflict of interest (author has only one other edit outside this article) are both correct. Shalom ^Hello 17:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. The only intelligent and natural thing to do. --Targeman 20:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the entry. I was going to add a supporting quote from Einstein in which he talks of an 'intelligence' involved in the laws of the Universe and such - but there is probably no point. Thus, if my attempt to add NI to Wikipedia breaches rules, then go ahead and erase it forthwith. I assume that if my film and book are successful, then maybe NI will eventualy find its way on to Wikipedia. Until then... Psilocybinetic 11:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above. Bearian 20:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films with post-credits scenes[edit]

List of trivia based on original research; no references provided. —tregoweth (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete arbitrary collection of trivia. Mukadderat 15:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the obligatory link to WP:NOT#INFO. Shalom ^Hello 17:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per all above. By the way, I'm probably going to lose my sanity if I stumble upon one more AfDd "List of" today. If you hear a big "boom", that'll be my head exploding. --Targeman 21:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sourceable, since there are reviews. Most such scenes from significant films are discussed. some research might even get a fuller listDGG (talk) 23:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of post-credits scenes is not in question. What is in question is whether "post-credits scenes" is a notable topic in its own right. Otto4711 16:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NOT#IINFO as this is a non-notable topic for a list. Crazysuit 01:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is what I missed when I left the theater. It's a work in progress, clearly; someone has reserved a seat in each row by stating that there is something to be seen after the closing credits are over, or during the closing credits. What exactly? Rent the DVD I guess. Mandsford 02:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable or encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 20:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References to Soul Train in popular culture[edit]

Delete - another directory of loosely associated trivia points that tell us nothing about Soul Train or the fiction from which the trivia is drawn. Do not merge to any other Soul Train article. Otto4711 15:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Mukadderat 15:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This list of loosely associated facts is also non-notable. CaveatLector^Talk 22:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT#DIR of every mention or parody of a show in films and TV. Crazysuit 01:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect back to main Soul Train article. Rollosmokes 04:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could write a list of examples of bad pop culture articles, but that would be nominated for deletion because it's a list. In this case, different reason than the others on IPC nite... as with the Ferris Bueller in popular culture (now deleted) article, listing parodies and inside jokes and sightings is not an homage to a show that you loved. Mandsford 02:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable nor encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 20:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --ST47Talk·Desk 19:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2the Max[edit]

This was originally speedy-deleted as a CSD A7. DRV overturned, finding an assertion of notability. Still, delete, given lack of sources and WP:V concerns. Xoloz 15:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand: A search on Google turns up at least a few notable sources. It needs something of a re-write to make it look less like an advertisement, though. Sidatio 15:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep verifiable. Mukadderat 15:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article contains sources, notability asserted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 16:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per above. James Luftan ^contribs 16:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless at least one good secondary source about the company is found and WP:CORP is met. What we have are: Two online reviews of specific products (by sites who do not have a WP entry - and more of these can certainly be found), two entries in manufacturer lists, two prizes in local competitions of unclear importance (a second runner up for accounting and an 'Outstanding prize' (not even a runner-up) in a logo competion), as well as one run-of-the-mill quality certification. All this doesn't seem to add up to notibility. --Tikiwont 12:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tikiwont. Great sourcing so at least we know this place exists, but so does the coin-op laundramat down the street. It still fails WP:CORP, as does the coin-op laundramat. Carlossuarez46 20:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Please take any merge discussions to the appropriate talk page(s). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Selene (Underworld)[edit]

These articles on fictional characters do not satisfy WP:WAF criteria, as the only content comes from primary sources (the films themselves), where WP:WAF dictates that secondary sources are required to explore these topics in a real-world context. Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they do not meet WP:WAF criteria, either:

Keep. This problem should be fixed, rather than deleting the article. This character is the major character of a film series (not restricted to just one film), and therefore should have an article per WP:FICT. JulesH 15:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the rest of the characters? Everything is written with solely primary sources, with no assertion of notability. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. OK, so keep Selene. Perhaps other major characters (e.g. Lucian ... not sure, it's been a while since I saw the first film, and I haven't seen the second one, so I'm not certain I can easily judge which characters are important). The other characters should be merged per the responses below. Vampire (Underworld) and Lycan should probably be kept, as I don't really see an appropriate target for them: being concepts rather than characters, they wouldn't find into a character list page. JulesH 16:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primary yes Notabilty is not right, as it's from a well known film --Nate1481(^t/_c)

The vampire, lycan and hybrid items could easily be presented in a Races of Underworld universe page. I don't think that there is anything which meets the WP:WAF criteria which would justify anything more about them. Actually, the details could probably be incorporated into the film articles where each detail is revealed. Slavlin 17:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Races of Underworld universe Sound fair. I think incorporating details into the main article would overly elongate the plot section and reduce the quality there, as well as making the info less accessible. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 15:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into a single List of Underworld (film) characters per WP:FICT. Otto4711 15:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge If there were more movies or a large body of fiction related to these characters, I don't see why all of the details could not be moved under a character list. Also, don't forget the Lycan and Vampire (Underworld) pages. They need some work or merging too. Slavlin 16:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Merge The types of vampire; elder, death dealer, can easily be merge into one, Lycan, could possibly be merged in there too, the characters should be merged to List of Underworld (film) characters as there is repeat info, there are novelizations referenced on one of them. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 16:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Underworld (series): The film series isn't that popular, nor that expansive. Alientraveller 16:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if only because a merged article will be nominated for deletion six months down the line and deleted. Happens too often for my tastes. —Xezbeth 19:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So what you are saying is that, you would rather keep them separate so that people don't find that it should be deleted? If it reaches consensus, would that not mean it needs to be deleted? Basically, what you are saying is keep it so it doesn't get deleted, which is not much of an argument against it. Slavlin 02:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Merge is the same as keep. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Combine combat technology in Half-Life 2 for an example of what I mean. That was a split from the parent article rather than a merge, but it comes down to the same thing. If the entries on that page were separate articles rather than bunched together, they would likely have never been nominated for deletion. In the likely event that you think I'm talking rubbish, bear in mind that merges can happen without involving AfD. —Xezbeth 07:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If a set of articles, either separate or combined into one article, cannot survive an AfD discussion, I have to say that having them merged or split should not be relevant to the discussion. Slavlin 21:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd rather see them merged and then considered, than killed off en bloc and then have people trying to sneak them back until forever. If a post-merge Afd arises, we can "vote" again. -- SockpuppetSamuelson 14:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the information but reorganize. I'll leave that job to the editors who are more familiar with the topic. CaveatLector^Talk 22:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, would be tempted to support the concept of merging.... but then I read Xezbeth's comment. Maybe better idea to outright support keeping. Mathmo ^Talk 00:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Xezbeth's comment does not argue any basis for keeping the articles which has anything to do with Wikipedia's guidelines or principles. Not merging or deleting a set of articles because they might be deleted, after achieving a consensus to do so, really hits a ton of the criticisms of Wikipedia. Slavlin 02:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Do you even realize that the articles are blatant violations of WP:WAF? Someone basically watched the films and wrote about the characters in excess detail about them. They didn't use any independent, secondary sources to either provide notability or real-world context. The fancruftish articles have been in this shape for a long time, and they're not going to change. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you actually, but I have seen it become very difficult to have an article deleted based on the fact that no sources were used. I really think that merging is the most likely option to reach consensus. Slavlin 02:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the whole 'other stuff exists'(I will not mention pokemon...) argument, I do feel that combing the characters & abbreviating the entries, with the broader plot material transferred to the series, article would be the best result, which is what is suggested at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). It's excessive to have individual articles for minor characters (from my pov Selene is a major character as lead & narrator but not going to argue it) but unless it's original research derived from them,primary sources for fiction aren't that bad, a majority of novel and film articles are only primary sourced with the odd interview if you lucky.

Random thoughts- Primary sources are not the best but are still sources. You could argue the the primary source would be the script or writers imagination of the story, and the film is reporting that, I'm not claiming this is an accurate interpretation, but the point is that it is factual, published, material, so is referable to and not subject to change. An autobiography of individual is an acceptable source at some level & this is a similar concept. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 12:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - these would have to be recreated if there was a third movie in the series. GoldDragon 04:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: If the consensus is ultimately to merge to something like List of Underworld characters, what should be the extent of the fictional background for each character? Like I've said, the only information provided about them is from the primary sources of the films, so there's no notability or real-world context provided. Technically a merge is to keep, but elsewhere, but are the people here recommending for every word in each character article to be kept? I was trying to imagine a character list with more succinct summaries for each one, but the idea of merging doesn't necessarily imply this. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda coved this above, general stuff present in all should be put in the series article, character specifics, descriptions etc should be grouped in list or would putting death dealer/elder characters, etc as parts of the appropriate article be sensible? --Nate1481(^t/_c) 12:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - These characters should be listed at List of Underworld film characters. Most are extremely non-notable. Selene could easily be notable is someone could find some reliable sources asserting the notability. Everyone else should be in one list that contains all of them. People are going to want to see it, no matter how unencyclopedic most others deem it. Since Wikipedia is about quality, and not quantity, I would much rather see one poorly cited, in-universe stricken article than 17 individual articles that suffer from the same plague. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Been bold & created Races of Underworld universe Mentioned above is only marginly bettern then having cut & pasted the whole articles (where I started from) will need shortening for overlap but would this seem reasonable? If not add it to the list. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 16:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which articles got put in there? Just the Vampires and Lycon articles? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those and with the elder & death dealer ones integrated in to vamp section, possibly badly. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 16:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That takes care of 4 articles. That leaves 13 characters, only one of which could every possible assert any notability in the long run. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge. Purely in-universe, and unsourced from and unnotable to the outside world. --Calton | Talk 02:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uses almost exclusicely primary sourcing but most of what I read was written largely out of universe, referring to the films and novalisations not written form an internal perspective.--Nate1481(^t/_c) 08:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I won't harp on the fact that WP:WAF is possibly the most idiotic policy on the wiki, except to say that the list of articles that would need to get purged if we actually enforced that policy would be in the thousands, and would eliminate a major reason Wikipedia is superior to a real encyclopedia. Instead, I'll merely agree the articles should be fixed, not thrown out, just because some policy pinhead can't figure out a better way to write them. Kutulu

- Comment - Kutulu, perhaps you could talk the "policy pinheads" into changing the policy if you were to call them something besides pinheads. BTW- I signed your post for you so that all the pinheads would know who was calling them that. Slavlin 14:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Corvinus Strain should also be merged to Races of Underworld universe. JulesH 07:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Bignole Harlowraman 00:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tushball[edit]

Not verifiable and non-notable. Case of WP:NFT with a side order of WP:NEO. A game made up by some campers at a summer camp who decided to write a wikipedia article about it. Was originally a Prod but was contested by an anonymous IP address.

Supposed "reference" book doesn't appear anywhere on any search of Amazon or the Library of Congress Online Catalog (and the lack of an ISBN raises questions). Searching Google turns up mostly links to a M*A*S*H website, with a few links to the summer camp mentioned in the photo caption. Wingsandsword 14:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFT, fails WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 14:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find anything but the www.tushball.com website, which is just the name of the camp. The referenced "book" very well may be a sign posted on the wall somewhere at the camp. Jauerback 14:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not for things made up this one time at band camp. NawlinWiki 16:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above by User:NawlinWiki Brianga 23:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Truest blue 06:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The suggested merge to murder ballad is not a good idea as pointed out by DGG but I take it that those in favor of the merge do see some value in the content. Also I don't think those in favor of outright deletion have solidly established that the list is OR beyond repair. Pascal.Tesson 19:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about killers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Putting up for deletion as the same reason as all the other problematic song lists -- failing WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#DIR, hard to verify, overly loose criteria for inclusion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 14:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Jauerback 14:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per precedents of deleting trivias. Mukadderat 15:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons I discussed in the first AfD. This is basically original research and unless there are some sort of reliable sources to back up the list, how can we just assume that each and every song is about the killer in question? Yes I know some are "no brainers" but what about the ones that aren't no brainers? Are we supposed to look up the lyrics to every single song and read through them? I think the burden should be on the people who maintain the article, not everyone else. Provide some sort of sources or something, otherwise it fails WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it isn't quite that hard--most are explicit in the titles. To say that a song called "Legend of Bonnie and Clyde" is about Bonny and Clyde is not OR--it's the collection of perfectly obvious data right in front of you, and this sort of collection is part of the function of an encyclopedia. But, examining the actual article:

/sigh. I did say that there are "no brainers" in there, which would indicate that the song is obviously about the subject in the title. However, I also said, that without going through each and every song on the list, we would not know if 100% of the songs are valid to be on the list in the first place. I'll put it as simple as it can be. No sources = no verifiability = original research = delete. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 17:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since it is in fact sourced. There are 9 printed sources and 4 recorded compilations. All that is needed is the trivial work of going through and putting in the linking footnotes. A minor editing problem. This is one that makes me really wonder how carefully the nom examined the article. Not surprising, considering the number being nominated. DGG (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some sort of way to verify that the sources listed list each and every one of the songs on the list, with some sort of proof to verify the songs relation to the subject of the song? --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 17:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is sourced, but per nom, WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO apply here. i ^said 00:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Needing a little bit of editing is not a reason for deletion. Mathmo ^Talk 00:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also I feel the nomination was too soon after the previous one. Mathmo ^Talk 22:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, "'97 Bonnie and Clyde" is on the list. It isn't about Bonnie and Clyde though. I'm not familiar with many of the other songs I wonder how many of them are wrong as well? WP:NOT#DIR of songs that might or might not be about killers. If people say the list can be cleaned up, well "'97 Bonnie and Clyde" has been on there for nearly six months, and if one of the obvious errors hasn't been removed yet, I doubt much improvement will happen. Crazysuit 02:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should stick to what I know--oops. But the comments about sourcing in my second paragraph still hold. And having an error and being neglected is a reason for attention, not deletion. DGG (talk) 05:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I've voiced what I despise about bad "pop culture" articles. Now I'll voice what I despise about nominations I dealt with a few weeks ago. If it seems faimiliar, this one closed on July 18. No Wikicommandment about this one, but just as overuse gives pop culture articles a bad name, overuse gives the deletion process a bad name. It's like going into the library every month and asking "Are you gonna put this on the book sale cart?" Geez, give it a rest. Mandsford 02:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a reason for your keep, other than you are unhappy that this is up for AfD after it was up for AfD a few weeks ago. Unless you actually give a valid reason, I don't see how your strong keep can be counted --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 12:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should read his vote as "keep per all keep votes of a few weeks ago." -MrFizyx 13:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not assume, or put words into anyone's mouth. Personally, I like people to give their own opinion, rather than have other people give it for them. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 14:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks sumjim and Mr.Fizyx. Thanks for alerting me to my poor form, Keep as listed above, and Strong Keep because of what I said when we went through this two weeks ago. Speedy close if this gets a 3rd nomination before Labor Day. Mandsford 14:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your "keep as listed above" can be covered under Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Per_nominator. I read the previous AfD, and your vote in that AfD for keep "because the detail of the list" falls under Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#It.27s_useful. There is no rationale for "speedy close if this geta a 3rd nomination before labor day" either. Can you give a real reason that you want this kept other than WP:ILIKEIT? --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 19:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not assume, or put words into anyone's mouth. Personally, I like people to give their own opinion, rather than have other people give it for them. Perhaps you should ask, "Is it fair to say that your arguments can be described by the essays, WP:PERNOMINATOR and WP:USEFUL? I don't such arguments valid..." And do keep in mind these are just essays and may not reflect a consensus among wikipedians. -MrFizyx 20:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cut and paste, cut and paste, let's see: "Because of the detail of the list, I would have voted 'Strong Keep', but part of the reason so many killers are listed is that a band called 'Macabre' seems to crank out songs like a musical version of Jay Robert Nash. Moreover, if "Stagger Lee" has been covered by ten bands (including the 'Greatful Dead'-- thank heaven that a Deadhead did a redirect), no need to list the title ten times. Gotta disagree with the idea that the songs here may have a different meaning or that this is an "indiscriminate" list. Unlike most subjects for song, evil people aren't referred to with any subtlety at all, and often the name ends up right in the title... thus, it's not hard to figure out what 'The Ballad of Jeffrey Dahmer' is about. So, clean it up, but this is a keeper." Mandsford 22:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete now has a further reading section not present during the last go-round, but still no real sourcing that tells us how much about a killer must a song be before inclusion on the list and sourcing that the song in question is at least that much about the killer. Carlossuarez46 21:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant content to murder ballad. Since murder ballads are basically songs about killers and/or their victims. And this list has some details and worthy examples not present there. Both the list and the article are short enough that this could be done if editors feel that the stand-alone list is a violation of WP:NOT#DIR or whatever else. Frankly I find the policy arguments on both sides of this debate to be fairly week. I added the "further reading" section during the last debate in hopes that someone might put a little more meat in there. It appears that kept the mob at bay for about two weeks. Very discouraging. -MrFizyx 21:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

murder ballads are a much more specific genre. We have a perfectly god place for these, which is right here. DGG (talk) 07:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with you. I thought, however, that this might make a reasonable compromise. Those who would nominate this every couple of weeks have more desire and time to work to eliminate articles than I have desire and time to fix them. -MrFizyx 15:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as original synthesis of whatever songs might have occurred to the editors without the benefit of secondary sources establishing weight or notability. Cool Hand Luke 08:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yours is a valid concern. Did you pay any mind to the "further reading" section? The potential is there to provide sources. -MrFizyx 15:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh jeez, you're right. The prose needs serious cleanup, but the sources support a merge to murder ballad, as you suggested. Cool Hand Luke 17:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 07:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs involving video games[edit]

Putting up for deletion per WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO. Has all the same problems as all the other lists of songs -- not sourced, not encyclopedic, not verified, non-notable juncture, etc. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 14:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, among other things impossible to maintain Nyttend 14:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Jauerback 14:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Mukadderat 15:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Da-da-da-dada-de-lete to the tune of the Super Mario Bros. level intro per nom Will ^(talk) 16:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I think Nttend thinks there will be quite a large number of them? If so, such a connection has apparently been often considered important by the people who write the songs... DGG (talk) 23:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, dgg's comment and nyttend's delete is together a reason to keep! More seriously, you see entire articles written about music in video games. No problem having the article. Mathmo ^Talk 00:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're confused, this isn't about music in video games which is notable. It's about video games in music which isn't notable. Crazysuit 02:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT a directory of loosely associated songs that happen to contain sounds from unrelated video games in them. Nice list though. Crazysuit 02:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think it's peculiar that video games are a theme/topic for other areas of popular culture, but the fact that I think a trend is peculiar does not mean it's not a notable topic and potentially encyclopedic. The list provides some documentation of a cultural trend; the article probably should be expanded to tell more about the cultural trend. The list is tagged as "dynamic," so it is acknowledged that it is hard to maintain. The list itself may not be well-sourced, but the subject matter is not controversial, the article is reasonably well organized, and the list elements are appropriately linked to other articles.--orlady 22:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These are all novelty tunes, most of which never caused a ripple in the music world, because video games generally don't last very long. Buckner & Garcia had Pac-Man Fever as a hit single, but anyone who bought the album (see the list for the songs that weren't hits) was embarrassed to be seen with it. Mandsford 02:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 21:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hotcourses[edit]

No evidence that this is a notable organization. Was once deleted on an expired prod but recreated by the same user. I'd rather get wider input this time around so that we can settle the question once and for all. Pascal.Tesson 14:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CORP. Jauerback 14:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The large number of Google hits hint at some kind of notability, but I cannot be certain. The article is poorly written and lacks any external references. Shalom ^Hello 17:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Gangster Commission[edit]

Movement is non-notable; has no independent, significant coverage about it. Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete It's terribly written too. Uucp 14:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Non- Notable probaly Comedic Organization. Corporal Punishment 16:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Planets in popular culture[edit]

Delete - directory of loosely associated topics with a dose of "seems to be based on"-style original research. As with so many other of these sorts of lists, this one tells us nothing about the music, nothing about the fiction that uses the music, nothing about the relationship between them and nothing about the world in general. Otto4711 13:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator's argument. The topic fails notability standards in lacking significant independent coverage. Without any established real-world context, this article's contents are trivial and unencyclopedic. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete trivia collection.Mukadderat 15:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment none of the above discusses this particular article. Speedy close, since no actual reasons based on the specific content have been given. DGG (talk) 23:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know how to respond to so ridiculous a comment, other than to say you must really be getting desperate given that so many of your other arguments in similar AFDs have been so roundly rejected. Otto4711 01:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I do wonder why DGG has not also voted keep and instead writes it as a comment? Also I see here is a blind backlash against lists and popular culture articles. Too often I see people having the misguided view that popular culture somehow automatically means it is not encyclopedic. Mathmo ^Talk 00:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

variety. and to show I don't respond by copy/paste. :) DGG (talk) 02:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As nom says, article violates WP:NOT#DIR and WP:OR. It's not that popular culture is unencyclopedic; it's that the game of "spot the allusion (or what one thinks might be an allusion) and add it to Wikipedia" is not an encyclopedia-building activity. Deor 01:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this isn't about popular culture, it's a list of mostly trivial references in films, TV, etc. This tells us nothing about popular culture. Crazysuit 02:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and what do you think the media of popular culture consist of?DGG (talk) 02:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." María (críticame) 12:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a violation of WP:NOT#INFO. The so-called "sources" are only primary and do not establish notability nor the subject's importance in popular culture. I remember the "Escape From Pompeii" in Williamsburg reference only vaguely, which made me smile, but this and many others on this list are far too trivial to be worthy of an encyclopedia. María (críticame) 12:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 17:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mathmo, and as it seems to be improved per WP:HEY. Need yet more cites, cutting out the cruft from the list. Bearian 20:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if kept, delete all but the adaptations and rename List of adaptations of The Planets, the only redeeming feature of the article. Carlossuarez46 21:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Hall of the Mountain King in popular culture[edit]

Delete - Directory of loosely associated items. This collection of every time some portion of the music is used in a TV show or video game tells us nothing about the piece, nothing about the fiction from which the reference is drawn and nothing about the world in general. Otto4711 13:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator's argument. The topic fails notability standards in lacking significant independent coverage. Without any established real-world context, this article's contents are trivial and unencyclopedic. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:NOT#DIR. Nothing but a list of loosely associated topics (although I do love how they threw it into the Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog theme). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 14:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete trivia collection Mukadderat 15:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated film, TV, commercials, etc. Crazysuit 02:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. not notable and no WP:RSes says it is. Carlossuarez46 21:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was discussion temporarily suspended ~ Riana ⁂ 09:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revised to clean up this tangling matter, the result was temporarily suspended, forgotten about, left to lie for 22 months while the article was improved and then quietly dropped. It should be noted that closing AfDs where one has participated is a breach of protocol, but this isn't a matter that depends on the closer's discretion. Plus we already broke protocol all over the place to reach a desirable, amiable decision, which is what the rules aim for and usually fall short. It's enough to make an editor proud. --Kiz o r 10:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biological issues in Jurassic Park[edit]

This is another one of those subjects that you'd swear is a good topic for a Wikipedia article. Until you actually read what we've got, that is.

As an encyclopedia, what we need is reliable reporting of comments by biologists on the feasibility of Jurassic Park.

What we've got is a quite well written treatise, describing the beliefs of some Wikipedia editors, based on their interpretations of the movie of Jurassic Park and of some biology text books.

Sources cited are an Abstract on gene amplification and sequencing of Cretaceous period weevil DNA, another on gene sequencing far more recent mammal DNA (from the Pleistocene, that's 10,000-2,000,000 years ago), and a molecular biology textbook. None of these sources, needless to say, has any comments on the movie or the novel, so the writers are engaging in a novel synthesis from primary sources.

This is all very well, you may say, but surely it could just be cleaned up by removing the original research, locating what molecular biologists, paleontologists and the like have actually said about the film Jurassic Park, and writing about that. Fine, I say, except that in nearly eighteen months this has not yet happened. The article just fills up with the personal opinions of its editors.

The writing isn't actually that bad, and perhaps the ideas have some merit (I couldn't say because I'm neither a molecular biologist nor a paleontologist). Perhaps it should be transwikied. Wikibooks? The problem isn't the article itself, it's the existence of such an article on an encyclopedia avowedly committed to the neutral point of view. --Tony Sidaway 13:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain. I understand your concerns on this one, and this is the most insidious problem we face, I feel: original research that looks like it's probably true. It all makes sense. There's nothing in this article that stands out to me (as a non-expert) as likely to be wrong. You may be right that deleting and starting again would be the best approach. But maybe somebody else has a better idea. JulesH 15:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Transwiki' to WIkiBooks, starting some sort of new anthology of essays on popular culture and media. May be a dead end, but could also be a useful place to send a lot of articles. Phil Sandifer 15:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tony. it seems also in large part to be based on a specific book on the subject--and there will of course be other articles to be found. Encyclopedic topic, and worth a separate article. Needs some editing, so edit instead of nominating for deletion. DGG (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which book is it based on? --Tony Sidaway 00:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, crud. I request temporary withdrawal: Since the article was PRODded a few days ago, I've been planning - as I said in the edit history - to raise some of the needed noise, get the attention of the local experts, but I was blindsided by the usual flurry of disputes, AfDs and other commitments. (For the record, I'm currently in ADHD testing).
The article has - as Sidaway says - a valid basis, and there's no particular reason why it couldn't be fixed. This a very low-profile article. Note that it's within scope of multiple WikiProjects and hasn't been tagged for any! Linking from the field of biology is nonexistent, as well, even though there must be some articles on dinosaurs and cloning that broach the issue of Jurassic Park - this is probably due to a common porblem with novel articles, they don't get exposure because people don't realize that they could exist. The first effective measure for requesting community attention was only implemented and integrated into Community Portal earlier this July.
It's entirely possible for an obscure, isolated article that requires considerable specialist knowledge for sourcing to remain unfixed for long periods of time. What we should now do is call for the attention the article requires. Call WikiProjects Biology and Dinosaurs, possibly Films and some of the relatives of Biology, such as Evolutionary Biology - we could ask them to check which ones. At least Dinosaurs does collaboration. Add a wider attention tag - we can do that on discussions on WikiProjects. Specifically instruct editors to remove what they cannot verify and rewrite from scratch if they deem it necessary. But this is will need some time, and Deletion very seldom helps fix articles. (Just a personal essay, but you've all witnessed it.) Few commit to making major changes on material that risks the axe shortly anyway, even fewer now that nominations close sooner. Calling off the AfD for the moment is the best thing to do for making this into a sourced and referenced article, which the nominator and JulesH agree to be the optimal solution. --Kizor 00:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can call me Tony. I've no problem with suspending this discussion for a month or so. --Tony Sidaway 00:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You say that so much more concisely than me. Then let's do so, and I'll begin summoning the swarm. --Kizor 08:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources do in a sense back up what the article says. However, it is technically all original research, since the authors took what is said in the sources and applied their own analysis to it. If there was a source where someone else discussed this, then it would be easily included. But as it is, its the independant analysis of some editors. i ^said 00:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, many articles have been written on this topic. Even entire books, so then of course we can have an article on it here on wikipedia. Mathmo ^Talk 00:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. But is this that article? Is any part of it that article? What's left when we take away the original research? --Tony Sidaway 00:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pathétique Sonata in popular culture[edit]

Delete - Directory of loosely associated topics. This collection of every time a portion of the sonata shows up in a video game or TV show, or someone borrowed a chunk of it, tells us nothing about the sonata, nothing about the fiction in which the music is played, nothing about their relation to each other and nothing about the real world. Otto4711 13:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator's argument. The topic fails notability standards in lacking significant independent coverage. Without any established real-world context, this article's contents are trivial and unencyclopedic. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, It was "featured in an episode of M*A*S*H". There were only 251 episodes so that isn't too vague a reference. WP:NOT a directory of things that have trivial connections. Crazysuit 02:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not verifiable and does not relate the sonata to each popular culture reference. Tomj 13:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 21:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g11, advertising. NawlinWiki 14:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M & M Investigations & Enforcement Bureau, Inc.®[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/M & M Investigations & Enforcement Bureau, Inc.®

Non-notable. Freedomeagle 13:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G11, blatant spam. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 14:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwig van Beethoven in popular culture[edit]

Delete - directory of loosely associated items. This collection of every time Beethoven appears in a book or on TV or a piece he wrote is played somewhere tells us nothing about Beethoven, nothing about his works, nothing about the items from which the references are drawn and nothing about the world. Otto4711 13:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Deja-vu Bulldog123 13:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator's argument. The topic fails notability standards in lacking significant independent coverage. Without any established real-world context, this article's contents are trivial and unencyclopedic. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT#DIR. The notable ones like Immortal Beloved should be listed in Beethoven's article. Crazysuit 02:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The title implies an article about Beethoven's influence on popular culture. Two hundred years from now, I hope that people will name their Saint Bernard after me, so that can be my legacy... a big dog named Mandsford. Again, the everything approach to an IPC makes even a serious subject look silly. Mandsford 02:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced list of trivia. Bearian 20:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 21:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Moreschi ^Talk 16:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Sweet[edit]

No assertion of notability for this pornstar, yet prod was removed. No coverage in reliable sources. Fails all criteria for inclusion, including WP:V, WP:BIO and WP:PORNBIO. Valrith 13:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PORNBIO, point one: "Performer has ... or from a major pornographic magazine, such as Penthouse, Playboy, Hustler, ... (including feature of the month in these magazines)" I've included just the relevant points. Being a Hustler Honey would seem to meet this criteria. Dismas|^(talk) 13:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: even if every "feature of the month" was notable (they're not; that flaw in the criterion needs correcting), failing WP:V/WP:RS is alone sufficient to merit deletion. Valrith 15:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 22:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per feature of the month appearance. Although, I'm not in favour of that criteria. I doubt all the models at List of Hustler Honeys deserve their own articles. Epbr123 22:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Notability and therefore WP:PORNBIO. She hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent. Epbr123 11:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PORNBIO. Mathmo ^Talk 23:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I just noticed that Hustler is listed in that WP:PORNBIO criteria, and I'm going to question it on that talk page; I don't think it should be an automatic qualifier for notability. For comparison, click these links: Playboy Playmates are always listed with name, birthdate, and a real article about their real biography. Just the appearance gives most a tremendous kickstart to their modeling career, it's seen as the pinnacle of glamour modeling. We've got an article on every one of them, and though some are short, each has some text to put into it. It's an iconic award, walk down an American street and say to a random male "Have you seen Miss March?" and they will know you mean the one in Playboy, even if they haven't bought an issue in their lives. Most of them don't go into hard core pornography. Penthouse Pets are at least always listed with a name, birthdate, and profile; it's not quite that iconic, but many on the harder core side of glamour modeling aspire to it; it was, for example, a major motivation for Jenna Jameson#Early career. A large number of them became, or already were, relatively big name porn stars. Now click on List of Hustler Honeys. Half of them are only listed by first name -- clearly these people aren't getting any major boost to their modeling career, no agent is going to be looking for "Anne" or "Amanda". Note even a number of those who did become famous used a different name for their Hustler appearance. Their profiles and names are often completely fictional, sometimes blatantly so, having no details, sometimes no resemblance to reality. If just being a Hustler Honey were a sufficient requirement for notability, we would have to keep dozens of articles about Destiny, Terri, Mia, Phoenix, and Tally with no information than "a pseudonym of a model who appeared in Hustler with a fictional back story." This is only a Weak delete because in this case she did use her most popular name, and it is a well known magazine, and she does seem to be active otherwise, so being in Hustler does help notability a bit ... but I think it should be treated as just an appearance in a men's magazine. I don't think the Honey status should be sufficient in and of itself, as what most of the keep people are saying. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment After discussion on WT:PORNBIO, Hustler has been removed as a WP:PORNBIO sufficient notability criterion. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 12:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toupees in popular culture[edit]

Delete - article is a mishmash of "famous people who wore toupees" plus "times someone had a toupee mishap in a movie" along with a healthy dose of speculation about the future of toupee humor. Wikipedia articles are not directories of loosely associated topics and original research is forbidden. Otto4711 13:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Regretfully, while this article is somewhat more than the average "in popular culture" article, it is still rather loosely connected. I could see an article on history of toupees in humour as being potentially encyclopedic, which might be able to reuse some of the content here. JulesH 13:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If a better article could be made from the information in this one, either here or under a new title, it seems like an obvious keeper. Only articles with no such potential should be deleted. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator's argument. The topic fails notability standards in lacking significant independent coverage. Without any established real-world context, this article's contents are trivial and unencyclopedic. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom; speculation and trivia. --Eyrian 17:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 17:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way too long. Mandsford 02:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. one of the funniest of the IPC articles, but still neither notable nor encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 21:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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^♫ 18:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of car crash songs[edit]

Note that a previous nomination ended in "no consensus" only because it was part of a mass nomination that split closing decisions Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about weather. I believe it still fits the criteria put forth on that nomination. I cannot find much of anything that suggests a "car-crash song" is a legitimate type of song [27] Bulldog123 13:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#DIR, non-notable juncture. And for leaving out "Thunderbird" by Steve Azar. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 14:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete trivia collection Mukadderat 15:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT#IINFO. Crazysuit 02:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Car crash songs were a fad in 1950s and 60s rock'n'roll. Particularly in 1964. This was part of the development of youth subculture in the US. No doubt someone could sorce an article on this and demonstrate notability if they wanted to. -MrFizyx 18:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article is pretty minimal right now, but (1) this is a theme of the teenage tragedy song and (2) "car crashes as a theme in popular culture" is doubtless a topic needing to be developed in connection with Automobile safety. I've tagged this in the article as a dynamic list and modified the introductory text.--orlady 23:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then make a list of teenage tragedy songs. Bulldog123 03:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have limited knowledge of popular music, but after spending some time adding to the article, I continue to feel that this list is the kernel of a better article that is waiting to be created. The car crash theme ("vehicle accident" would be a more accurate description) recurs in modern popular music, and is not limited to the teen tragedy genre, or even to tragedy. For example, some recent songs on the car crash theme present the views of survivors who are grateful to be alive -- some mention the safety features that saved them, while others are about the personal transformations (including religious conversions) that resulted from survival. I believe that the searing experiences of vehicle crashes (including the trauma of sudden tragic loss, the trauma of survival, the transformative experience of miraculous survival of a sudden mishap, and reminders of the personal responsibility of the driver) are reflected in art because of their significance in modern life. Let's keep the list until it becomes transformed into a better article.--orlady 14:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think I voted in favor of keeping, simply because, as MrFizyz (good to see ya again) notes, this was a fad in 50s and 60s music, with some songs like "Last Kiss" being remade more recently. Ballads for teenagers have been about things like breaking up, getting in trouble, or getting in a car crash (or, as in the case of "Last Kiss", all three). Even though the last AfD was a mass nomination, I recall that this was discussed more than the weather songs; I'd like to see the prior debate linked in here, with jury to be admonished to disregard the testimony about the weather. Mandsford 02:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In fairness, the previous debate is linked in the nomination. -MrFizyx 13:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I knew that the nominator had alerted us to it, but I missed the obvious. Anyone can click on the link, provided by nominator, to see the old debate Mandsford 14:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although not technically so titled, this is a "songs about" list, and devoid of such guidance telling us how much "about" the subject the song must be and WP:RSes telling us each song so listed is at least that much about the subject matter. Apparently the list despite its title includes motorcycle crashes as well, if kept it should be retitled to reflect that topic creep. Carlossuarez46 21:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Car crash song and write an actual article about the phenomenon. Zocky | picture popups 01:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments and work done by orlady. A move to Car crash song sounds reasonable as well. -MrFizyx 20:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I've also now done some work to address the original research concerns. All but a handful of entries now have at least one reference. The list is also now a rather pretty wiki-table. -MrFizyx 17:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MrFizyx. Mathmo ^Talk 22:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haverton[edit]

Possible hoax, created as the only contribution from User:Havertonrulz. The article claims this was a UK TV series aired on Channel 4, and was hugely successful (although the article is cut off abruptly there and was never completed). I can find no reference to this show on Google, IMDB, or British TV resources. There also seems to be a repeated problem of an anon IP attempting to blank the page regularly - not a reason for deletion, but worth noting. Canley 12:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if it ever existed, there should be some record of it. --soum ^talk 12:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same as above, it sounds like some teenagers made up a TV show about themselves, and the article's poorly written to boot. JoeyETS 15:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above - seems like a hoax. I'm pretty sure I would have noticed this if it were on TV for 4 years. kateshortforbob 15:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Hoax. James Luftan ^contribs 16:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless I was asleep for its entire broadcast. A hoax. --Malcolmxl5 07:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as an avid watcher of Channel 4, I can confirm its nonexistence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McLarenJAB (talk • contribs) 23:30, August 2, 2007

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

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

The result was delete. Neil ╦ 12:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cumfiesta[edit]

No assertion of notability for this non-notable website, but both speedy and prod removed without improvements to the article. No sources provided in over a year and a half. No coverage in WP:RS. Fails all criteria for inclusion, including WP:V and WP:WEB. Valrith 12:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep. I'm not sure what the reliable sources in this field are, so don't really know where to look, but I do know that this site is one of the most popular adult web sites around at the moment. I'm sure there is coverage, if you actually look for it in the right places. "About" 900,000 ghits on the site's name. JulesH 13:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A google search only returns results for this wikipedia article, the Cumfiesta website and forums posts (since this is an article about a website, a google search seems to be the best way to assess notability). There is no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", therefore it fails WP:WEB and WP:N. —gorgan_almighty 15:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't seriously say the google search only turns up this article, the website, and forum posts. No way could you have searched through and viewed a million results! Excluding wikipedia and forums still returns well over half a million results: search Mathmo ^Talk 23:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:GHITS is a notoriously weak argument, for or against. Sidatio 20:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. nonnotable. Mukadderat 15:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notable sources found, and there's still no encyclopedic article after a year and a half of existence. According to Alexa [28], it's not exactly "one of the most popular adult web sites" either. Add to that the article reads like advertising, and you have a valid candidate for deletion. Sidatio 15:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, looks like my info is a little out of date. Look at the 5 year trend graph on the page you linked. Trying to estimate what the rank was is a little tricky on that logarithmic scale, but I'd guess it peaked at an alexa rank of about 300 in the first half of 2003. That's not exactly a trivial rank. JulesH 17:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial? No. Speculative, out of date and misrepresentative of its current popularity? Definitely. Look, I'm all for keeping an article (pornographic or not) provided it can pass muster with the policies and guidelines, but this one doesn't after over a year and a half. It still reads like an advert, has no sources outside of the website itself, and has little to no notability. Sorry, but if you ask me, this article is a monkey past its prime. Sidatio 17:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, you'd think that a site that peaked near #300 would have some coverage outside of adultwebmasterpro, maybe even AVN. Neither. I guess they shot their wad ... --Dhartung | Talk 17:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I mentioned in my edit summary of the article, searching Google Scholar turns up a result. Published in The Journal of Men's Studies. This along with my other comments, gives able support for keeping this article. Mathmo ^Talk 23:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - into an article on Nastydollars if anything. Nastydollars is one of the biggest porn sites on the internet, Alex search says it's the 229th top website. --Philip Laurence 01:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added/corrected basic facts using a site which should count as a relatively reliable source for this kind of topic, and added the scholarly article by Dr Ian Cook of Murdoch University as further reading, which according to the abstract examines nine such web sites in detail, including cumfiesta.com. An article about the site owner Nasty Dollars or rather its parent company RK Netmedia, Inc is desirable, though. Regards, High on a tree 01:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding one notation of further reading and one review from a website that ranks even lower than the subject website does not an article make. Where's the history of the website? What's its notability? There's nothing here, and if it took a year and a half to add these two items, I can't see much coming out of this one - no pun intended. Sorry, but my vote still stands. Sidatio 03:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability is not (Alexa?)rank. The website I used claims to be "the largest pay-site database and review site" and makes a relatively neutral, fact based impression - especially for this kind of topic.

It is true that the article from the Journal of Men's Studies has not been used as a source yet; this will have to be done by somebody with access to the full paper. It only came out about half a year ago anyway. However, the fact that the site has been covered en detail in this article means that it satisfies the General notability guideline.

Regards, High on a tree 03:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the biggest problem here, though - it DOESN'T meet general notability guidelines. You've got one review from one website and an article that no one can seem to read to verify your claim that the site is covered "in detail". That's definitely not significant coverage. I'm sorry, but there just doesn't seem to be any criteria here to keep it. The only good this article seems to serve is as a linking page to cumfiesta.com, and that's just not what Wikipedia is. Sidatio 04:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to assume that WP:RS only allows sources which are freely available on the Internet. Sorry, open access is a great idea and I too am hoping that it will take over the world, but sometimes working on an encyclopedia still requires spending money on literature or visiting a library. In this case it is not even necessary, however - to verify my claim you would just have needed to visit the URLs given in my edit comments. At [29] (MetaPress), you can read the abstract of the paper:

This article is an examination of nine pornographic Web sites. [...] The pornography presented on these Web sites is first examined in terms of the way that it manifests important continuities with pornography delivered in other ways. [etc.]

At [30] you can read in Google Scholar's excerpt from the article about the Web sites discussed in this article: MILF [Mothers I’d Like to Fuck] Hunter, 8th Street Latinas, Mike’s Apartment, Cumfiesta, Captain Stabbin ....

(I agree that the content of the article is still less than ideal, but at least the basic information needed for a stub is sourced now.)

Regards, High on a tree 04:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The problem here isn't whether or not the article is open-source, and I apologize if that's how you took it. The problem is you seem to have only two sources, and in one of those sources, it's not exactly clear to what extent Cumfiesta is discussed. Is it significant coverage, or just a passing mention? Even if we assume there is significant coverage to be had, we have one instance of coverage in a ~~obscure~~ journal and one instance of a review on a ~~obscure~~ website that isn't a reliable reference anyway. To me, this doesn't add up to notability.

We have here an article that has been alive for a year and a half. In that time, we have only been able to establish two weak notable sources, and a reasonably exhaustive search doesn't turn up any more. I like porn as much as the next guy (well, maybe not as much as some!), but to me, that's simply not enough. Sidatio 12:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are unsure of the degree of coverage in the journal (obscure?? Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't make it obscure, sounds more like a weasel word. Would you call Biomicrofluidics an obscure journal too?), yet you will assume the worst that it is merely a trivial mention? Even so, it does not appear to be a trival, listing/directory style, of mention in the journal. Mathmo ^Talk 20:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're getting at. Biomicrofluidics is an AIP journal, whereas The Journal of Men's Studies is from a site that describes itself as "about a small independent publisher dedicated to the dissemination of the work of men's studies scholars." It's apples and oranges, but I digress. If you don't like the term, fine - I'll strike it. There's still only one source from a journal of undetermined relevance and a review from a website that has its own issues as noted by gorgan_almighty. The topic still doesn't have enough notable sources, in my view.

Trust me - it's not obscure to me simply because "I haven't heard about it". That would be incredibly naive. Sidatio 20:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The thebestporn.com website referenced in the article appears to be an all-inclusive database of porn sites, with no stipulation on notability. It is therefore not a reliable reference for asserting notability. —gorgan_almighty 13:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in my opinion, there's no justification of notability (directories don't count, for fairly obvious reasoning) and not likely to be any. SamBC 03:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Miami Herald does it again — quality journalism since 1903! El_C 20:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Designated Ugly Fat Friend[edit]

Neologism, long article with lots of unsourced assertions, only cited source is a blog. NawlinWiki 12:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete useless cruft. -Nard 12:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While this term does seem to be in somewhat common use [31], it fails WP:NEO. The only thing close to a reliable source I can find is a mention in an advice column in the Miami Herald [32]. Darksun 12:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable term, and I am even more critical of the sources provided; a mention in a brief advice column entry, and a blog, do not reliable resources make. ◄Zahakiel ► 14:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. One tangential link does not an article make. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Networking[edit]

Pure advertising. No information about notability, and a good amount of original research. Kariteh 11:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

- Comment Don't see how this is advertising. The Jewish Agency, Birthright and Nefesh are governmental and non-profit entities. Myrusal 09:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Their corporate status is irrelevant from an advertising standpoint. Sidatio 16:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing that suggests that Jewish networking is a particularly notable type of networking. Propaniac 12:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment Nothing reflects a clearer, more distinct and noble pattern of Jewish networking than that the Jewish people have their own "Jewish calendar." Dynablu 04:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jews not not social network any more than any other group (which I am sure also have website for them). I would not object to Social network service being expanding to note how some sites are limited to certain groups or interests. Jon513 13:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I had started out thinking the material could be merged into Social networking. But subsequent edits have so blurred the article's focus that this no longer seems possible.-Barte 06:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:OR. If cleaned up and sourced, could be a subsection of Social networking or something similar as previously mentioned. Sidatio 15:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I teach sociology in Israel. As any of my students and all students of sociology know every culture has its own system beliefs, norms and values. This includes their own particular channels for networking. The New York Times recently wrote on how religious groups are now entering the Net to social network Web Space Where Religion and Social Networking Meet.

Pat Robertson and Billy Graham can teach us all something about Christian networking. Aldavid 06:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)³[reply]

Keep as per New York Times. Suggest article should be renamed Jewish Social Networking. Myrusal 09:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The NYT piece, "Web Space Where Religion and Social Networking Meet", covers Christian, Muslim & Jewish social networking sites. That's how the topic could be treated under the Social networking article. Barte 10:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page offers excellent insights into aspects of "Jewish Geography". Judaism survived for 2,000 years in the diaspora and was helped by the ability to network. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rehovot (talk • contribs) 15:17, August 2, 2007

We're not here to discuss the resiliency of the Jewish faith (not to mention the previous statement is pure original research). The fact remains that this article simply doesn't have the sources or notability to distinguish itself from any other kind of social networking. Sidatio 16:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Precisely where the New York Times states: "Web Space Where Religion and Social Networking Meet", is at that point we have a special and unique phonomenas taking place entitled Jewish networking, Christian networking and Islamic networking. As stated above, Judaism as other religions incorporates a different historical and cultural background from Christianity and Islam, where networking nodes are created from specific sociological parameters. The mere fact that Jews, Christians and Muslims are different from one another distinguishes these groups as other kinds of social networking. They are not and cannot ever be the same. Dynablu 18:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religions aside, it's all still social networking. The fatal flaw with this article is the lack of notability. We simply don't have verifiable notations from reliable sources. Yes, we have an article in the New York Times. However, this article covers religious social networking. As a result, it doesn't afford the concept significant coverage as required by notability guidelines.

You can argue based on faith all you like, but the bottom line is simple: The article fails WP:OR and WP:N guidelines, and presently reads like advertising for a bunch of websites. If it can be cleaned up, sure, merge what you can with social networking. But given the distinct lack of notability, I just don't see that happening. Sidatio 19:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the general media, there are dozens of academic articles which address Jewish networking i.e. - Journal of Jewish Studies and "The Weakness of Strong Organizations," in Jewish Networking: Linking People, Institutions, Community, Hayim Herring and Barry Schrage (eds.). Boston and Los Angeles: The Susan & David Wilstein Institute of Jewish Policy Studies, 2001, pp 71-76., which clearly note both WP:OR and WP:N guidelines. Jewish networking as Christian networking are sub topics of social networking. No different from cars, clothes or food - where Wikipedia describes the different sub species. Dynablu 04:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a single oblique reference (among divergent others) in the NYT does not connote notability. Carlossuarez46 21:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's one of those articles where the word "Jewish" could be replaced by pretty much any affinity group name, and the details slightly changed; nothing at all is special about Jewish networking, any more than Pagan networking, Irish networking, Christian networking, etc. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NYT article, the jewish networking is also itself of unique differences to others. Mathmo ^Talk 23:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Care to expound on this line of thought, Mathmo? I don't see what you're getting at here. Sidatio 23:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Former Fat Boys[edit]

This is actually the second nomination for this page. The first time was "no consensus", although it didn't appear that way to me. This group miserably fails WP:MUSIC. First nomination discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Former fat boys. Jauerback 11:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If everything in the article is true and accurate, they might barely be notable under general standards, not under WP:MUSIC (the MTV appearance sounds like the biggest claim to notability), but there are no citations for any of it and I can't find any reliable sources in a quick search. The article also has a promotional tone. Propaniac 13:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, seriously, who cares about this MTV series? I'd never even heard of it before, it only lasted for one season, and they WERE NOT EVEN FINALISTS! They appeared on two episodes! Whoop de do! -- Kicking222 15:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete I pushed hard for deletion last time, which was a year ago. What about the group's notability has changed since then? Nothing at all. -- Kicking222 22:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per previous AfD, specifically appearing on MTV and having their album. Mathmo ^Talk 21:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most of their notability is purely associative (played with X, confused with Y, songs contain references to Z, compared to... etc.) except the two cited by Mathmo. But WP:MUSIC I think calls for more than what's here: a second album with a notable label and some more indication of significant quantity of airplay on MTV or a listing on the charts. Something... Carlossuarez46 21:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete—"weak" because of their MTV appearances, but still I do not believe that they satisfy WP:MUSIC without a second album release (or any of the other criteria, of course). --Paul Erik 06:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 19:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Phantom AF[edit]

Appears to be speculation [33]. Tizio 11:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:OR? Douglasmtaylor ^T/C 11:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of references; if reliable sources can be cited, then merge to Danny Phantom. Propaniac 13:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Original Research and Crystal Ball. —gorgan_almighty 15:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to England C, no point to keep discussion open if redirect has been made. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 12:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Game XI[edit]

Duplicate, in apparent good faith, of the England C article. It does not contain any information that is already in the England C article. A merge has been suggested but there seems little point in this. Bigmike 11:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep - And make it a redirect. Douglasmtaylor ^T/C 11:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 12:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect as a former name for the same entity ChrisTheDude 12:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. CitiCat^♫ 16:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amtewal[edit]

No evidence of existence - was linked from List of Saini last names, which is now deleted. Moglex 13:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - or merge with Sainis if it can be sourced. Douglasmtaylor ^T/C 11:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced substub. Cool Hand Luke 04:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Nabla 22:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Association of American Cemetery Superintendents[edit]

An amusing title, which led me to dig for mentions in the press - the National Park Service gave them a brief mention here, but apart from that this association doesn't seem to have received much notice - it is still around, but I struggle to find anything remarkable about the AACS Moglex 13:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found this Association while looking through the Library of Congress photos. Google Books provides plenty of means for evidence and expansion. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-07-30 13:31Z

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - [34], [35], [36]. Seems pretty historic to me. Douglasmtaylor ^T/C 11:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ELIMINATORJR 15:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Axel Holmström[edit]

A Swedish anarchist with a page in [Swedish Wikipedia]]. Most notable thing claimed in article is getting arrested for antimilitaristic comments. To be honest tho, we've all been arrested for making similar comments, but we've not got articles Moglex 12:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Editor of the main Swedish anarchist paper--a really important one too, published sine 1888. DGG (talk) 00:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article should be kept, expanded and sourced. Was notable both as a politician (member of the board of the Arbetarkommun of Stockholm) and publisher of literary works. --Soman 11:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an editor of a notable paper does not necessarily connote notability; most papers have many editors, and no indication that he was the editor in chief or whatever the equivalent would be; also under our article, the Arbetarkommun is a local level political organ, maybe a precinct steward or block captain or such would likely be the modern equivalent. Carlossuarez46 21:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Stockholm is the capital of Sweden, the whole region (for which the Arbetarkommun leadership covered geographically) had a significant population at the time. The comparison to precinct steward/block captain does not hold. The Arbetarkommun had a leadership function of all labour movement structures at the time, not only parliamentarian branches, and was definately a notable institution. --Soman 22:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Soman. Also much of nomination makes no sense - most, let alone all of Wikipedia has not been arrested for antimilitaristic comments. Edward321 18:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 19:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Thomas[edit]

This article does not appear to meet the requirement for notability. Wikipedia:Notability (people) If notability cannot be provided via references this article should be deleted. ForestJay 19:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to be a vanity page, agree it fails notability in any event. Douglasmtaylor ^T/C 11:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. It has no assertion of anything really notable, and has no cites. No assertion even of the parents' notability or what connection there was to the gang wars in Columbia. Violates several guidelines at the list of bad articles. Bearian 21:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Burton[edit]

Vanity bio of an "assistant political strategist" to an unsuccessful candidate for Congress. No sources, no notability; essentially a CV. A Train^talk 20:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination. Douglasmtaylor ^T/C 11:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no substantial claim to notability. Propaniac 13:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Zero notability. --Targeman 15:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Perretta[edit]

claims of notabilty very weak; prod deleted so now to afd NeilN 11:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. Douglasmtaylor ^T/C 11:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No releases, no claim to notability. Propaniac 13:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertation of notability, has achieved nothing yet. Has a promoter[37], bring the article back to life when he's done something. --Malcolmxl5 22:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 19:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Utah DECA[edit]

Non-notable state chapter of a larger, notable organization. DECA (organization) is a notable organization, existing in thousands of schools. However, there seems to be no notability for any of the state or local chapters. No references or sources are provied to suggest any notability for Utah DECA. Metros 11:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to DECA (organization). Nothing particularly notable about this chapter. Propaniac 13:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As noted by the nominator, the article does nothing to assert anything unique about this organization, other than it's a chapter of a larger organization. I do not see the need for a redirect; DECA is the more likely search term. —C.Fred (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I too do not see the good of a redirect-if generally applied, this would give us Utah chapter of several hundreds of things to the main organizations , times 50, and I can't see the use of any of them. DGG (talk) 23:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Akiva Ben Shmuel[edit]

Bio without a valid claim to notability Joedoedoe 10:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —Yeshivish 06:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Absolutely not notable. Tens of thousands of people have lived in the kibbutzim. Nothing exceptional here. --Targeman 11:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Targeman. Douglasmtaylor ^T/C 12:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom--Yeshivish 03:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this WP:NN. IZAK 12:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some more information is provided that explains why he is notable. Jon513 16:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, as lacking any assertion nor association of notability. Bearian 20:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. (I would have just prodded this, myself).--Fabrictramp 00:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete noes not fit the criteria of WP:BIO --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hebrew google returns nada: [38] nadav (talk) 03:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all of the above. ♠TomasBat 12:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice against re-creation if more nontrival, independent reliable sources appear later. — TKD::Talk 08:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Dies at the End[edit]

This appears to be an ad for an as-yet unpublished first novel by the guy who runs the website "Pointless Waste of Time". It is described as "tentatively scheduled to be released in late Summer 2007." The author earlier distributed it through CafePress, which is basically an on-demand print shop and distribution outfit. A related AfD, from 2005, is here:

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Pointless Waste of Time

I suggest that material like this is somewhat below the radar of encyclopedia coverage. We don't even have a firm publication date, there appear to be no professional reviews, and the fellow doesn't have any track record as an author, so verifiability is a bit of a problem. The article even describes the plot as rather fluid. --Tony Sidaway 10:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The book certainly seems to have attracted a cult following during its self-published days, and now it has been picked up by a real publisher (which doesn't often happen to previously published books) it may get more exposure. Review here from a semi-reliable source. JulesH 10:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. No reliable sources as yet, though it is quite well known in the blogosphere. See what happens after the book is released, it may gain some RS in the form of print reviews, etc. But since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we can't keep it for now. --Darksun 11:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On JuleH's comment, I agree that it "seems to have" attracted a cult following, if you take the words in the article at face value. However those words do not appear to be verifiable, at least in their current state. Moreover the "semi-reliable" review you present has no provenance. Elyas Baktiari, whoever he is, has no Wikipedia entry, and is not mentioned in any Wikipedia article. Nor is his blog, Ablogistan. --Tony Sidaway 11:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was basing that on the results of a google search for the book, not the article itself. JulesH 13:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As to the provenance of the review, the site of the author of the article might not be a notable site, but the site that published it, BlogCritics, is. The author is a journalist, who writes regularly for the San Antonio Current, and is editor of Health Leaders Magazine. JulesH 13:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Darksun. Douglasmtaylor ^T/C 12:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Darksun Stephenb (Talk) 12:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not supported by any reliable sources. NawlinWiki 12:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I've heard of this so many times that I'm genuinely surprised there don't seem to be any news articles about it, but since I can't find any either, I have to say delete. Propaniac 13:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm from Wong's site, and I don't see what good it would do for the book to have a wikipedia page. Coyoteknight 13:52 31 July 2007
Keep - Just a few comments on why the article should stay, and addressing the original conerns that brought this article to AfD: One, the book is definitely being published, and not just in some unknown future; its release is imminent according to the author and publisher. Two, the article is not an advert any more than any other Wikipedia article on published works. It is intended to be informative and to give information on the work itself, not to sell books. Three, there have been reviews, at least one by a fairly reliable source as shown above by JulesH. Four, of course the author doesn't have a published track record, because this is his first novel. However, the articles on his website receive hundreds of thousands (sometimes over a million) views, and the online version of the novel has been read by almost 50,000 people. I'd say that's fairly notable. Five, though there are differences between the online version and published version, the two are largely the same in terms of plot, and the changes that have been made are mostly for editing and legal reasons (this is explained in the article). I certainly wouldn't describe the plot as "rather fluid". And finally, as per Wikipedia's guidelines, any reservations about the article should have been brought up and discussed in he articles discussion section before immediately bringing it to AfD. So far, this has not happened. The article should stay, at least for now. - Big Dookie 12:10, 31 July 2007

Just because a book is published doesn't make it notable. Also see WP:BIGNUMBER for your argument on pageviews. As far as I can see, there is only one review in a reliable source, whereas notability guidelines say there must be significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. This is a pretty borderline case, but in my opinion it doesn't quite reach notability guidelines (though it may in the future). --Darksun 18:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This book is too cool and awesome for a gay website like wikipedia. - Sean Gray 21:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no sources for notability. None. The above assertions about readership are unsupported by any evidence, let alone independent RSs. And I am not quite sure how recognized the publisher is. If there are reviews in accepted sources for showing the notability of books, which I see no reason to assume, then an appropriate article can be written. Then the content can be discussed on the article talk page.DGG (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was holding back on commenting at first, but Big Dookie convinced me that deletion is the best route for this article. Burntsauce 17:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. While your contributions are appreciated, it appears you must have made a mistake, as Big Dookie's arguments are in favor of keeping the article. As AfD is decided through consensus and not polling, simply "voting" for delete to spite an editor adds nothing. I'm sure either your "Delete" or reference to Big Dookie was simply a typo on your part and will be rectified as soon as possible.Countmippipopolous 00:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because something has a commercial sideline does not mean it should be included in the wiki for other reasons. This article went massively viral and is something of a Net phenomenon. -GW

It doesn't meet the guidelines for internet phenomenon though. The fact that it is now being published is largely irrelevant. The lack of independant reliable sources is the reason the article is nominated for deletion. --Darksun 20:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 07:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jno G. Lewis Jr. Ldge. 261[edit]

Non-notable campus university group. Not quite spam, not quite violating WP:NOT#MYSPACE, but still fails WP:N. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 09:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination. Douglasmtaylor ^T/C 12:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Shalom ^Hello 17:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I cleaned this up somewhat, wikified it, and removed some of the fluff. Contributors might want to take another look at it. There is a possible notability for being the only African American lodge of Prince Hall Freemasonry founded at one of the historically black colleges and universities in the United States. ●DanMS • Talk 23:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Asserts notability as "only" such lodge. Has some cites, but needs more work, as it is a stub. Bearian 20:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete carved up finely enough everything and everyone is the "only" something, doesn't make that notable. "You're unique, just like everybody else." comes to mind... Carlossuarez46 21:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g7, blanked by author. NawlinWiki 12:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richfield (rock band)[edit]

No Google hits, seems to be non-notable band, only active from March 07 to June 07, I think this doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Thoughts? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - article creator attempted page blanking, so tagged as db-author. Would also qualify under WP:CSD#A7 anyway. ~Matticus ^T_C 09:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Very true, but I wasnt 100% sure. Decided to be safe and AFD it. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - even if it doesn't qualify for WP:CSD#A7, it definitely fails WP:MUSIC. Douglasmtaylor ^T/C 12:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 19:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Russell-Moyle[edit]

Non-notable individual, also a conflict of interests as created by the subject. Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails notability, appears to be a vanity page. Douglasmtaylor ^T/C 12:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - though I know Lloyd in person, I don't feel he is notable enough. NRTurner 20:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 07:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fizzle[edit]

It is presently a disambiguation page, but no links on the page link to appropriately ambiguous titles. Moreover, it is a common word and these myriad definitions should be moved to the Dictionary. ALTON .ıl 09:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dicdef. JulesH 10:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Harlowraman 21:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to Westcombe, where the information already resides. ELIMINATORJR 15:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Westcombe House[edit]

Prod removed without comment, so I'm bringing it here. Description of a house in the UK that does not assert notability. Unreferenced. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 09:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While some of its occupents seem to have achieved some notability, I can find no sources about the house itself. JulesH 10:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nomination. I also looked on Google/Yahoo and couldn't establish any notability. Douglasmtaylor ^T/C 12:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Kappa 17:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment would you mind indicating where to?Ga rr ie 21:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A sensible target would be Westcombe, which already contains a paragraph about the house. JulesH 12:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability. (should have been a speedy A7 IMO).Garrie 21:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:CSD#A7 only applies to people, organisations and web sites, so doesn't really fit this one. JulesH 12:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Westcombe where it is already mentioned. There are problems with the Westcombe article itself, i.e. lack of sources, but this would seem an appropriate home for Westcombe House for the time being. --Malcolmxl5 23:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 19:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zanzibar Communist Party[edit]

It seems to me that probably this party never existed. The mention in the reference to TASS seems, in accordance with the article on Babu to be a missprint from ZNP, and the 1965 article probably intends to name the Umma Party (see [39] Soman 09:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - or merge into Zanzibar or Zanzibar Revolution if there's any information to be included. Douglasmtaylor ^T/C 12:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poorly researched and only mildly informative article Mandsford 02:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, no indication of notability. NawlinWiki 16:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Awesome[edit]

Comic book character. Redlinked author and comic book company, plus lack of google hits lead to me suspect WP:HOAX (at best, fails WP:N per lack of references.) Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 09:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Says right in the article he's a "fictional comic book character." :D Seriously, it doesn't help that the author's name is listed as Vaughn in the article but Vonn in the only site I could find linking the two. It may not be a hoax, but it certainly doesn't seem notable. --Moonriddengirl 13:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep as per guidelines. Capitalistroadster 02:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exmouth Town F.C.[edit]

the team plays only in 21st division Doc Hannibal 08:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have absolutely no idea where the "21st division" reference comes from. This team plays in the South West Peninsula League Division One East, which is at level 11 in the English football league system, and has in the past been as high as the Western Football League Premier Division (where they were champions on two occasions), which is at level 9, well within the notability guidelines established by WP:FOOTBALL ChrisTheDude 09:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The club also satisfies WP:N by having been covered here, here, here, here, here, etc etc etc ChrisTheDude 10:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 09:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Club plays at Step 7 and are a well known non-league team due to their long-time membership of the Western League. Number 5 7 09:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've just noticed that nominating this article for deletion was Doc Hannibal's first ever edit on WP. I'm all for assuming good faith, but I can't help thinking there's some sort of agenda going on there...... ChrisTheDude 09:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the others. I think I will AGF in regards to Doc Hannibal, but it is a little suspicious... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - as per the others. I don't AGF as easy as I should, it's a fairly obvious agenda nomination.Elmo 11:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per above, obviously notable club. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 12:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Twice winners of the Western League, once FA Vase semi-finalists? Keep. They've hit a few financial problems and dropped a couple of leagues, but are now on the way back. - fchd 19:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Totally pointless nomination. The "21st division"?? Perhaps the nominator also needs to have explained what is and what is not notable regarding football clubs, especially given what was said above by ChrisTheDude, that this was the nominators first edit on wikipedia, and they choose to nominate something for deletion? Very odd. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Meets notability requirements. Seems a very frivolous nomination. --Malcolmxl5 21:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 03:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stratford greenway[edit]

Non notable Kl4m 08:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Comment There is a mention on the page Stratford-upon-Avon.

Keep Notable in my book. Abberley2 11:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to be particularly notable, no independent references. Google reveals some coverage, but nothing establishes it as more than just a biking and hiking trail. Propaniac 13:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The mention in Stratford-upon-Avon is sufficient. A hiking/biking trail is not worth more than a passing mention. Shalom ^Hello 17:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a substantial article on the National Cycle Network of which this is part. A five mile stretch of the network however is simply not notable enough to warrant a separate article imo. The reference to it in the Stratford-upon-Avon article is sufficient. --Malcolmxl5 07:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 19:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Put B-More On The Map Vol. 1[edit]

Non-notable music. -- RHaworth 08:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no evidence of meeting any notability standard. Propaniac 13:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Article doesn't prove notability, and nothing I saw on a Google search suggested otherwise.kateshortforbob 15:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Per WP:SNOW, as non-controversial non-admin closure. Notability of subject has been clearly established, possible copyvio issues seem to be resolved. Thewinchester ^(talk) 03:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Wear Burton[edit]

Not notable person, Does not pass WP:BIO Also possible copyvio of [40] ExtraDry 07:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Notability is asserted. High ranking public servant. Author of several books. A fellow of the Australian National University and others. Distinguished enough for his papers to be retained in the National Library of Australia. Part of the Australian delegation sent to San Francisco after World War II to set up the United Nations...[41].Seems to be a frivolous nomination to me. --Malcolmxl5 08:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Assertion of notability for a notable person. Appears to be in different wording from copyvio link provided. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 09:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although article could use some improvement. --Dhartung | Talk 09:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As noted this ia a frivolous nomination and action needs to be taken as the editor is in the middle of a deletion spree (everything from Jugdes who are Companions of the Order of Australia down to young Rhodes Scholars and they all happen to be Old Newingtonians). I have endeavoured to improve the entry but it still needs work. Just the list of publications alone speaks of Burton's notability let alone the posistions he has held. A major biography has recently been published on Burton but as yet I don't seem to be able to find details of it - can anybody help. Surely this debate could now be closed.Tallum 03:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 16:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep He has an entry on Gale's Contemporary Authors Online showing 17 books written or edited by Burton. He was also head of the Australian Department of External Affairs between 1945 and 1950. Possible speedy keep under WP:SNOW.Capitalistroadster 03:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Pariso[edit]

I'm nominating this page for deletion because I really have no idea what should be done with it. The first three paragraphs are a copyright violation from this page, but the whole article is not (and never was) a copyright violation so it can't be speedy deleted. The article was started by Supernerd2005 (talk · contribs) who has made no contributions outside the Steve Pariso article. Checking special:whatlinkshere/Steve Pariso, I notice that the article is effectively orphaned - the only links in mainspace to it are from place name articles; I only found it while fixing links to a disambiguation page. The name "Steve Pariso" gets only 870 google hits, which is incredibly low for someone who has done work on technology. More importantly, these Google hits don't give me any idea why this person belongs in an encyclopedia - I can't find a special achievement that merits a whole article being created for him. However, I may be wrong - I don't know much about computer marketing. Graham87 07:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no assertation of notability. In fact, the whole things reads like a CV. --Malcolmxl5 08:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A who what? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 12:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CV=curriculum vitae, known in North American English as a Résumé. Graham87 12:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no confirmation of extravagant claims in reliable sources. --Dhartung | Talk 09:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - totally NN. Elmo 11:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:N. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 12:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The fact that it has been extensively edited by IP addresses raises suspicions and, while not reason itself to delete, adds to the effect. Bearian 21:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NN, WP:V. -- Jeandré, 2007-08-04t10:24z

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --ST47Talk·Desk 19:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change denial[edit]

Hopelessly POV fork of global warming controversy, poorly referenced and relying entirely on "big oil" conspiracy theory Iceage77 07:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Global warming controversy and take anything useful from this article there as well. Well cited but per nom very POV.Pedro | Chat 07:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The attempt to pretend that skepticism about man made global warming is similar to denying the existence of the Nazi holocaust shouldn't be dignified by an article here. All the topics in this piece are better covered elsewhere. Nick mallory 08:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This alleged connection is not made in the article. "Denial" is part of standard English vocabulary. No comment (so far) on the other point. --Stephan Schulz 09:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's clearly the inference. It's presupposing that there is no debate about this subject and that anyone who doesn't buy into the whole man made global warming idea is insane or of an extreme political viewpoint. Nick mallory 09:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the only one who has made that inference is ~~Tim Patterson~~Timothy Ball. And indeed, there is no serious debate about the core issue anywhere but in US politics. --Stephan Schulz 10:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Stephan, you know full well that is not true. The scientific debate is ongoing as the Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming and Global warming controversy pages show. Some of the best climate scientists are skeptics who have never taken money from big oil.RonCram 15:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Although his vote was for Delete, Nick mallory has made an excellent argument for Keep, IMO. This is an excellent chance to document those places where those who "pretend that skepticism about man made global warming is similar to denying the existence of the Nazi holocaust", as I am not aware of any such places, but have heard many times of them (from those who object to the use of the word "denial"). Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article--of which I am the primary author--documents an organized effort to promote controversy over climate change. The bulk of citations come from major periodicals The Guardian, New York Times, Washington Post, Vanity Fair, and Mother Jones. These sources chiefly refer to their subject as "denial." If these periodicals' allegations of funding a denial effort are false or otherwise contestable, I think it would be preferable for both sides of the present debate to answer them within the framework of the article. If the allegations are totally baseless, then of course the article should be deleted. If the allegations are defensible, then I think the article should stand. I don't think it would be right to delete the article on the basis of the above "conspiracy" accusations or the below "propaganda" accusations until the accusing parties have successfully argued that the article is not factual, verifiable, or encyclopedic. I am mystified by what seems to be general and tacit agreement that the central claims of the article are valid. If, for example, last year the Royal Society did send ExxonMobil the letter described in "Royal Society tells Exxon: stop funding climate change denial", then why shouldn't Wikipedia have an article about the "climate change denial" Britain's "premier science academy" has accused ExxonMobil of funding? Cyrusc 19:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So Wikipedia is supposed to have an article on every political accusation that is made? I don't think so. Besides the issue is outdated. Big oil is not funding climate research anymore because no climate scientist will take their money anymore. Reputations have been ruined just over the accusation they were biased. The leading climate skeptics now have never taken money from "big oil."RonCram 15:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as POV fork. Nick, you're not alone in thinking the title is trying to prompt connections to Holocaust Denial. Darksun 11:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It should go without saying that nowhere does the article mention or impute such a connection. Allow me to suggest that the strong emotional reaction against "denial" terminology has more to do with the shame and dishonesty of what "denial" describes than with the hypothetical motives of people who say "denial." Cyrusc 19:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article needs to be brought up to date, maybe a split for 'critisism of climate change denial', as has been done with holocaust denial and critisism of holocaust denial.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by SemperFideliS81 (talk • contribs).
Simple propoganda, should be deleted.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.40.153.239 (talk)
Merge with global warming controversy.Keep -- I understand the distinction from the controversy article better now. RandomCritic 13:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article is new and could use some work in both alleviating POV concerns and in fleshing out references, but it is a valuable contribution. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems a valid topic per the abundant refs. Will likely be contentious as the deniers will deny it :-) Vsmith 14:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article is clearly not a POV fork of the global warming controversy page. In that article the focus is on the arguments put forward by the skeptics (and the rebuttals). In this article the focus is on the "denial industry". We cannot just dump in this article what would be POV in the other article. Of course there may be POV problems with this article, but then POV disputes are not a valid argument for deletion.
I can understand very well why the skeptical editors don't like this article. It will mention (well sourced) things that cannot be mentioned in great detail on the other pages. But then these things do exist in the real world and are notable, and can therefore be incuded in wikipedia. Questioning the motives of creating this article is not a valid argument for deletion.
Similarly, some of the editors who voted (or will vote) for deletion of this article created the article on the Climate of Fear and The Great Global Warming Swindle documentaries may have had POV motives when they did so. However, no one put those articles on AFD because of those suspicions. Anyone can edit these articles, so the POV problems, if any, can be dealt with by editing these articles. Count Iblis 14:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well supported article on a well-known topic. Raul654 14:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now, but leaning toward Keep. The term is in common use, including the mainstream press.[42][43]. In the U.S., the closely-related term "global warming denial" is used.[44][45] (For some reason the term "global warming" tends to be prevalent in the U.S. while "climate change" has the same meaning in other English-speaking countries.) The concept thus is notable and is not a neologism; my concern is that the relevant information may be getting fragmented across too many articles. Raymond Arritt 15:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I share your concern, but I think there's a trade-off between keeping information together and having an unwieldy article size. Also, there appears to be enough common editors (on all "sides" of the issue) in the various pages to help keep the fragmentation to a minimum. Unfortunately, some repetition will always be required where multiple articles have commonalities. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The articles Denialism and Global warming controversy cover the topic in an encyclopedic fashion (note that the former references Global warming controversy under the text "global warming denial"). This article is little more than a litany of 'offenses' by one industry regarding one topic. There are countless businesses that have created or supported advocacy for their particular industry. This is not notable in a one-off fashion. Better might be an article that generally describe the 'denial industry'. Anastrophe 16:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Anastrophe. Article also attempts at Wikipedia's reputation by insinuating that climate change is an absolute certainty which ought not be denied and especially by subtly linking those denying climate change with those denying the Holocaust. This article is an endorsement of all the worst witch hunts in history and should be condemned. --Childhood's End 18:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as POV fork. --BozMo talk 18:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article describes a notable and well-documented effort to controversialize the science. It's thoroughly sourced and the sources make clear that "denial" is the conventional language used to describe the effort. I do not think it should merge with global warming controversy because the article in question is about the denial effort, not about points of scientific contention. Cyrusc 18:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NB I am primary author of this article. Cyrusc 18:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per arguments by Raul654 and Cyrusc. Digwuren 20:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to these, I would also like to join in to the argument by Benzocane, made below. Digwuren 21:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A well-referenced and informative article. Dealing with controversial material is never an appropriate reason to delete an article, or even nominate it for deletion. Envirocorrector 20:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is completely encyclopedic--not a single source has been challenged by those who advocate deletion, and the subject deserves elaboration in a separate article, not only because of its importance, but also in order to keep the other entries of a manageable length.Benzocane 21:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The sources may accurately reflect the opinions of the speakers but they are not NPOV. The article contains a number of errors. The distinction between "denial" and "skepticism" is not accurate. Certain scientists have denied the alarmism of AGW and never taken money from "big oil." How can they be a part of the "denial industry?" Do you realize no research papers critical of AGW and funded by big oil have been published for more than a year? How is it the number of skeptical scientists continues to grow? How can the article discuss the "denial industry" without also discussing the "alarmism industry?" You do realize that climate scientists have to scare people so governments will fund more research, don't you? You do realize that RealClimate is a website owned by a public relations firm that has paying clients? Do you know about the work being done at SurfaceStations.org? [46] Do you not realize that if the "science was settled," scientists would not be doing this kind of work? RonCram 13:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Benzocane's argument above is as i see it extremely valid. The Talk page is full of people trying to dispute the article based upon WP:POINT. I personally think that there is a bit too much finger-pointing in it currently (ie. Exxon) - but i'm certain that the widely varied opinions of the editors, and the people voting here, will ensure a thoroughly neutral article on the subject. --Kim D. Petersen 21:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A POV mess that doesn't belong on wikipedia--Southern Texas 21:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic is notable and the article is reasonably well sourced. It also is distinct from global warming controversy, which describes the political and public debate about global warming, while this is a meta-discussion about one of the sides in that debate. The original version made me somewhat uneasy because it was not quite NPOV, but this calls for a better article, not for deleting it. And it has already improved quite a lot.--Stephan Schulz 22:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has nothing to do with Holocaust Denial, simply shares a term. The article discusses a separate claim, complete denial of any climate change influenced by the industry, and specifically nonscientific denial, differing in this from internal scientific controversy. CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 22:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article records the facts. That some editors don't like those facts doesn't make it POV. What's POV is the effort to delete an article of a high quality because you find it unsettling. This article never should have come up for possible deletion in the first place. Who challenges its sources? Varlet8 23:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with a hopelessly POV title for the article there is no chance there can be a NPOV article written. This subject is already covered elsewhere in a more NPOV manner. Mathmo ^Talk 00:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many of the delete votes are predicated on the supposed POV nature of the article's title and I'd like to respond to that assertion. The term "denial" comes directly from mainstream international media sources, not original research, and none of those sources have been challenged. Denial would only be POV if it were an inaccurate term, just as nobody challenges scandal in Watergate Scandal because nobody contests the accuracy of the noun. So prior to the POV question is the question of the term's accuracy. And no editor has challenged the sources listed in the entry to my knowledge. Benzocane 01:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Denial would only be POV if it were an inaccurate term[...]". Demonstrably false. i've never heard such a claim that Point-of-view only applies to inaccurate terms. can you provide a citation for such a remarkable claim?? Anastrophe 01:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try another example, as Watergate didn't work. Describing, say, good police work as "police abuse" is POV if it's inaccurate, whereas calling documented police abuse by that phrase is NPOV if the evidence proves abuse did in fact take place. If all terms with positive or negative connotations were banned from the encyclopedia on POV grounds independent of their accuracy, we'd have to delete a million sound entries. So the question is: is denial an accurate term for the phenomenon covered by the article. It is according to NYTimes, The Guardian, etc.--the only POV issue would be trying to ban that information from the encyclopedia.Benzocane 02:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: well, it was accurately documented, sourced, and cited in the article that a very widely published columnist compared global warming denial to holocaust denial, but that's been striken from the article as being given 'undue weight' and not NPOV, yet it falls well within the outline you've just provided as justification for inclusion in the article. it seems what's sauce for the goose is not, in this instance, sauce for the gander.Anastrophe 02:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My argument was explaining why accuracy has to precede a POV evaluation of a term; that has nothing to do with the relevance of information to the article. I don't dispute the accuracy of the phrase "holocaust denial"; I dispute the notability of the analogy between that denial and a corporate misinformation campaign.Benzocane 23:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and as i have pointed out numerous times: you insist that the article is about a corporate misinformation campaign; 'the denial industry'. which further goes to the argument that the article is misleadingly entitled; 'global warming denial'/'climate change denial' is used, pejoratively, routinely in discourse (just see the talk page for the article), and has been used in widely published articles by proponents of AGW; yet the article does not note that in any manner. when challenged because it does not note that, we're told the article is about a corporate misinformation campaign. then why is the article entitled "climate change denial" rather than the more accurate "the denial industry" or some such - which would more honestly and accurately describe what constitutes about 90% of the content of the article? Anastrophe 00:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the article comes directly from the citations. "Climate change denial" is the phrase used in the international media to describe the misinformation campaigns. "Industry" in the title of the article would fail to include the public sector denial that forms an important part of the entry, sources that, despite all of this back and forth, have not been challenged or improved upon.Benzocane 03:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

patently false. the sources have been challenged indirectly, by attempting to include actual usage of the term by AGW proponents to describe individuals who don't agree with AGW. this has been repeatedly rejected, with the claim that it is "POV" to include them, which is an abuse of the spirit of NPOV. the article is written explicitly from the POV that 'climate change denial' is an uncontroversial term applied only to the 'misinformation campaigns', which is - demonstrably and in practice - false, as again proven by the monbiot and goodman published articles. this refusal to admit examples of usage from reliable sources, properly cited, is dissembling. you've created a self-sealing argument for the explicit POV of the article. Anastrophe 04:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You can't be "in denial" of something which is at best conjectural. ^ross ^nixon 02:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can be in denial. If you don't believe that something exists, then you are in denial of the existence of that thing. That is true whether or not that thing actually exists or not. Arguing that there exists no such thing as climate change denial amounts to "climate change denial denial" :) Count Iblis 02:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: you are misconstruing the term "in denial". "in denial" is not the same as "to deny". I don't believe I can flap my arms and fly. I'm not "in denial" about my ability to fly.Anastrophe 02:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a native speaker, but for me "climate change denial" refers to the act of denying (usually implicitly anthropogenic) climate change, not to the state of being in denial about climate change. --Stephan Schulz 08:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion of this title is absurd. Merriam webster online defines "deny" as "1)to declare untrue; 2) to refuse to admit or acknowledge : DISAVOW; 3) to give a negative answer to, to refuse to grant, to restrain (oneself) from gratification of desires; 4) archaic : DECLINE; 5) to refuse to accept the existence, truth, or validity of" Note particularly that uses 1,2 and 5 make it abundantly clear that this verb is a perfect description of the phenomenon described by the article, in addition to being the most commonly used phrase by mainstream press (please don't "deny" that the New York Times is mainstream). The point is, this is the most appropriate title for the article, and quibling with it wouldn't be grounds for deletion anyway. Envirocorrector 10:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People don't like the name because they think it's referring to No. 2, which is negative - that a person is "refusing to admit or acknowledge" [the truth] - rather than "to declare untrue". I think it's a horrible title for the article. -81.178.104.145 00:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's interesting how a number of people say, in essence: "But I want to deny this! You can't call it denial!". And in this light, it's a good thing that this does not constitute a valid reason for deletion under Wikipedia policy. Digwuren 03:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and see also WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Raymond Arritt 03:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I really do not mind that Wikipedia talks about the fact "big oil" funded some early research on climate change and that this became a political issue. These are facts that should not be censored, but the information belongs in Politics of global warming. The article is framed in a way that assumes the scientific certainty of AGW. This means there is no way for the article to ever become NPOV. Here are some facts voters should know: 1. Many quality research papers critical or damaging to the AGW view have been published in the last few years, but none of these papers have any connection to "big oil." 2. No research papers critical of AGW and funded by big oil have been published for at least a year or two. 3. It is a strange oddity that now the Bush Administration has finally bought into AGW, the scientific underpinnings for AGW are falling away and the number of skeptical scientists is growing. RonCram 13:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per arguments by Raul654 and Cyrusc Ben Hocking Vsmith Count Iblis Envirocorrector crandles 10:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article gives convincing argument that denial differs from mere skeptisicism (i.e. global warming controversy). Number 5 7 11:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. The article is out of date in that it pretends "big oil" and "big coal" are still funding climate research. All of the large firms, stopped funding research a year or two ago. The article is hopelessly POV in that the climate changes all the time. What is currently being denied by some scientists is that the current alarmism is justified or that the recent warming is predominantly the fault of anthropogenic CO2. These scientists include Roger A. Pielke, John Christy, Nir Shaviv, Henrik Svensmark, Syun-Ichi Akasofu, George Kukla. These guys have never taken money from "big oil" or "big coal." This article is attempting to ridicule a valid scientific position held by some of the most respected and prolific climate researchers on the planet, including professors of climate science at Ivy League schools. Supporters of the article have evidently bought into the idea that "the science is settled." Nothing could be further from the truth. The more science that comes out the more we realize that this whole idea has been overblown. 1998 is still the warmest year on record, even according to Phil Jones. The PDO has switched to a cooler mode and South America is currently suffering through the coldest winter it has had in 90 years. And it turns out that a good many of the weather stations in the U.S. (and probably elsewhere) are poorly sited due to land use/land cover changes resulting in an artificial warming bias in the temperature record. See www.surfacestations.org to see some of the pictures for yourself. Earlier studies indicate more than 12% of weather stations are poorly sited and subject to an artificial warming bias of more than 3 degrees.[47] If this is accurate and averaged over the globe, more than half of the perceived warming the IPCC talks about is an artifact of poorly sited weather stations. Again, this article is ridiculing some of the leading climate scientists for a valid scientific position. It should be speedy deleted. RonCram 14:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron, I suggest that you read WP:CSD and reconsider your vote. Apart from the technical issue, the truth about global warming is completely irrelevant for the existence and notability of climate change denial. --Stephan Schulz 15:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Huh? The fact that an article assumes that global warming is an absolute truth seems pretty much related to me with the fact that this article makes a living out of the fact that some people deny global warming... All those voting for Keep should read about scientism and its counterpart, epistemology. --Childhood's End 15:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Do you collect your premises on the street? You certainly don't seem to refer to my comment... I can deny things that a true just as well as I can deny things that are false. Moreover, I can even deny things that I believe to be true just as well as those I believe to be false. The different cases may have different implication for my morality and my knowledge, but that is a rather different issues. --Stephan Schulz 16:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can deny whatever you want. You're totally entitled to do it and I did not deny it. But that would not necessarily be correct to publish an article on Wikipedia about partisan publications making a living out of conspiracy theories about your beliefs. As a sidenote, I did refer to your previous comment to the extent that you suggested that "the truth about global warming is completely irrelevant for the existence and notability of climate change denial". You should ackowledge that the latter would not be notable if it was not for the former being assumed. --Childhood's End 18:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is "out of date" being used so frequently as a reason for deletion? If it's so obviously out of date, provide more recent citations. As for your "surface stations" argument, read the Wikipedia article on them and how they correlate with satellite temperature measurements. It seems that the "surface stations" argument is the latest in the campaign of disinformation (of which I think you are a victim and not an initiator). Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen, the article assumes the accuracy of the global warming faith. I am simply pointing out that the entire foundation of the article is wrong. If the author of the article thinks people need to know that "big oil" funding some early research, that should be in the Global warming controversy article. I do not want to censor the information but this article is misleading. Benhocking, I am fully aware of Satellite temperature measurements. Unfortunately, I am not able to correct all of the misinformation on Wikipedia. However, you should know that two of the biggest AGW deniers are John Christy and Roy Spencer who keep their own satellite temperature record and are skeptics for that reason.RonCram 19:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It falls into the category for "speedy delete" because it is an attack page on all scientists who disagree with AGW. RonCram 19:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless you too, are in denial of this denial. Burntsauce 17:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to global warming controversy. The well-documented attempts to manipulate science, and the funding and background of the "denial" movement described in this article, are clearly notable and should be covered in depth, but I would prefer to see that coverage in the "global warming controversy" article rather than here. I'm concerned that this is a bit of POV fork from that parent article, and that its controversial title will overshadow the content. Even AIDS denialism redirects to AIDS reappraisal, although in that case denialism is both the more appropriate and more widespread term. MastCell ^Talk 19:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to global warming controversy. This material would help to balance the excess weight currently given to the anti-science side in that article. BTW, I personally prefer "delusionism", as a rhetorical term, to describe the wishful thinking of people who want the physical world to conform to their political opinions or financial interest. However, it's definitely a neologism :-).JQ 03:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment' Come on John. Questionning scientific theories is anti-scientific? Karl Popper probably no longer rests in peace with the current mindset of our world nowadays... Also, by "people who want the physical world to conform to their political opinions or financial interest", you certainly speak of climate modellers? --Childhood's End 12:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, when the "questioner" doesn't really want answers. This is the difference between a denialist and a skeptic: a skeptic expresses concerns, and has true interest in whether and how they get answered; a denier may masquerade his polemics in "I'm just questioning", but his opinion is predetermined and he's only interested in polemics. Digwuren 17:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment'I understand and respect MastCell and John's position regarding merging, but feel that collapsing this into the controversy entry is problematic. What Exxon et al funded in their misinformation campaign was precisely the redescription of scientific consensus as controversy. Also, this article is not about global warming--it's primarily about a corporate misinformation campaign. I think the separate entry therefore helps us distinguish between a clandestine and manipulative effort to turn public discourse and the content of that discourse itself.Benzocane 13:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The corporate misinformation campaign is really an inextricable part of the "global warming controversy", and I think more effectively dealt with in that article. Cf. passive smoking and the scientific "controversy" funded by the tobacco industry. MastCell ^Talk 21:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the creator (User:Cyrusc) 172.191.100.66 20:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's both notable and valid. smb 21:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cyrusc's and Benzocane's points. CBC has made a documentary called "The Denial Machine". Lord May speaks of a climate change "denial lobby", and here are a couple of journal articles about misinformation campaigns regarding climate change [48] [49]. --Bláthnaid 22:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obvious POV fork. Sources exist for the term, but it's still a loaded term that presupposed the validity of a particular position, which is not what Wikipedia is about. If not a pure delete, a merge/redirect to Global warming controversy per Pedro above would be acceptable as well. PubliusFL 16:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you have a second, could you explain how the term presupposes the validity of a particular position? If Exxon et al sponsored the denial of scientific consensus -- and those facts have not been challenged -- then doesn't it describe a historical phenomenon, not a partial POV? Or is your position that the British Royal Society, the UCS, etc., made all of this up? And if that's your position, are there sources to support it? Thanks!Benzocane 00:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it did not need explanations. If you make a story out of something being denied, it necessarily presuposes that this something exists and that doubts about it are hopelessly without any merit. There is no article about Big Bang denial because the world can accept the expression of doubts towards this generally accepted theory. Reason is that there is little politics involved in the Big Bang issue. --Childhood's End 12:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And once more. "I don't like it" is not a valid argument. Had "big bang denial" been a notable concept that gave more than 30 hits on Google - it would have been a valid article. This subject on the other hand notable, and is covered by reliable sources. --Kim D. Petersen 15:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I emphatically deny those allegations of yours! You can quote me on that. Digwuren 20:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Benzocane -- this article chronicles a disingenuous misinformation campaign that needs to be distinguished from the scientific issues.SlipperyN 02:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary section break[edit]

Keep - well sourced, well-written, and the only delete votes I've looked at here seem a lot like attempts at POV pushing by... deniers. ←Ben^B4 09:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh are we to understand that the Keep votes are cast by editors with clean hands who do not necessarily believe in global warming? --Childhood's End 12:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if you believe in global warming or not; what matters is: is there credible evidence of the corporate funded misrepresentation of the scientific consensus. Since that evidence is both abundant and remains uncontested, it is, indeed, POV to try to delete the article -- an attempt to hide the facts.Benzocane 17:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have currently two climate change articles on AfD: Climate change denial and Global warming analogies. Several days into the discussions, five editors have commented on both. Each and every one wanted to keep one and delete the other – what they didn't agree on is which article is a hopeless POV fork and which one provides valuable information on a clearly notable concept. Not that amazing maybe, but still quite remarkable. – I found both articles interesting and mostly well sourced. Documenting various aspects and details of one of the defining controversies of the early 21st century is not POV pushing; trying to exclude well documented, notable POVs from Wikipedia just because we happen to disagree with them, on the other hand, is. Unfortunately, global warming controversy weighs in at over 100 KB already and it's bound to grow, so rather than bickering about alleged POV forks, maybe we should think about a sensible way to split that article instead. Rl 18:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Each and every one wanted to keep one and delete the other". This claim is incorrect. I voted to to merge [this into global warming controversy, and to delete Global warming analogies. I wasn't alone. i should say, though, that the case is much clearer as regards Global warming analogies. JQ 20:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Uses reliable sources to document a notable and coherent set of actions. Too long to merge into another article. --Dr.enh 03:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prevent global warming by keeping this article! (And turning off your computer, etc.). Delete arguments here are just pathetic, well referenced, appropriate, notable article. Last time I checked, we keep for a lot less then this. Giggy ^{Talk | Review} 07:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - its well enough ref'd, and it doesn't rely entirely on big oil, so 2/3 of the nom is wrong. I don't think its a POV fork either, its a separate subject (and could do with some more work) William M. Connolley 21:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have several problems with the article. The first stems from arbitrary differentiation of a climate change skeptic and a climate change denier. The premise that a skeptic is one who scientifically questions global warming and that a denier is one who is doing so because they're being paid to do so (particularly from the "energy lobby") is based off one quote from a journalist. Second, I feel the main portion of the articles relies too heavily on what the tobacco industry did. I've also inquired in the talk page about the bit on both Cheney and the NEPDG, which the article seems to make very little or no connection between their actions and climate change denial as it is defined therein. I've also questioned how the article will be able to differentiate between those who spread "disinformation" because they don't know better and those who do so because they're being paid to do so. Lastly, there may be problems with synthesis where the article makes the argument that a individual or corporation received funds from an energy company and the same individual or corporation questions parts of the IPCC conclusion, so they are therefore doing so because they're paid by the energy company, without any concrete evidence or at least reliable source. ~ UBeR 01:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There appears to be a real "denial industry" working to refute climate scientists and I feel that some of the people supporting deletion might represent the denier group. Let the deniers set up there own page. If balance is required then both pages could refer to each other in the links section --Neilrieck 11:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again, what's notable or worthy of a story about "working to refute climate scientists" if you do not presuppose the irrefutability of their theory? Isnt it the usual process of scientific advancement to work to refute theories? Even the IPCC allows for a margin of uncertainty of about 10% (which is large in science, something that is still overlooked) so this presupposition is not even grounded on the science but rather on some left-wing activist press. --Childhood's End 12:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CE, you really need an answer to the question "what's notable about oil companies misrepresenting scientific consensus if a small minority departs from the mainstream position"? BTW, even if you don't see the notability, The British Royal Society, the UCS, and major news periodicals across the world do -- and that's what's relevant to a Wikipedia entry.Benzocane 16:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look at the sources of this article and what you call major news periodicals accross the world are all left-wing papers/websites. Give us a break. --Childhood's End 18:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I keep forgetting that the British Royal Society, the UCS, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Newsweek, etc., are somehow "left-wing papers" that can just be dismissed out of hand! Is your position, oh arbitrary arbiter of legitimacy, that such venues are not "major news periodicals"? You might want to alert the Wikipedia community to that fact, as these sources are quoted hundreds of thousands of times across the encyclopedia. And as for the other more outspokenly political sources, don't you have to deny the content they report, not just note their supposed political affiliation? BTW, I'm not even a Democrat! But any reasonable person, from any point on the political continuum, is obliged to respond to this sophistry. Anyway, I've responded. I'll move on...Benzocane 19:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're really good at avoiding the point, but I wont let you. Out of 17 references, 14 are from The Guardian, Mother Jones, Greenpeace, The Age, New York Times, Vaity Fair, Union of Concerned Scientists, and ClimateScienceWatch. If you did not know that the NYT is a liberal publication, you may want to read this internal audit : [50]. And if you think that the UCS is not partisan about the issue at hand, you may want to read their mission statement :[51] (funny, they speak of "effective citizen advocacy"). But hey... there's a quote from the Washington Post, so let's forget about the rest and pretend we have a balanced article about a subject covered in every major publication around the world. --Childhood's End 19:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, the NYT page you refer to is an editorial, not an "internal audit" as you claim. Also, it appears to be written from an American POV making it somewhat irrelevant in the scheme of things. The fact that the NYT may or may not be a "liberal publication" from an American POV does not affect whether it is a liberal publication. Such a claim is of course largely irrelevant and unfactual since it depends on your POV. What is clear is that NYT is clearly a reliable source. Nil Einne 09:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The author of this article was the NYT's ombudsman, so you might have missed a material piece of the context. You may also want to read this : [52], and notably the part which says "In part because the Times’s editorial page is clearly liberal, the news pages do need to make more effort not to seem monolithic. Both inside and outside the paper, some people feel that we are missing stories because our staff lacks diversity in viewpoints, intellectual grounding and individual backgrounds" or this "We must be yet stricter about anonymous sources. We must reduce the garden-variety factual errors that corrode our believability."

Also, not sure where you're going with your POV story. The newspaper itself tells you it is POVed, so that you may pretend that it is not remains your own POV, not the actual reality. --Childhood's End 13:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I don't feel that NYtimes is an unencylopedic source, nor do I feel that The Royal Society, Vanity Fair, or UCS, etc., can be dismissed out of hand as "partisan." BTW, neither does Wikipedia, as these sources are consistently vetted by the community. And I believe that the content of Mother Jones, for instance, no matter its political reception, still has to be evaluated, not just rejected. I'm not willing to accept the Childhoodsend's opinion is what determines reliability, or that disagreeing with Childhoodsend is what constitutes partisanship. Another thing: have you disputed the facts -- Exxon et al. paid misinformation campaigns? Exxon's involvement in the Cheney Energy Task Force?Benzocane 23:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor who thinks that UCS, The Guardian or Mother Jones are good sources that should be quoted all around is inevitably part of the explanation of why Jimmy Wales had to admit that Wikipedia is biaised towards the left, and part of the reason (along with this article) why Wikipedia wont last much longer as a credible encyclopedia. --Childhood's End 23:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CE - then please take it up on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard instead of arguing here. Show us that you are right - and we are wrong in considering these reliable sources. --Kim D. Petersen 00:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please do -- it would be helpful to have clarity on this point. Raymond Arritt 00:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll assume good faith and that this suggestion had an honest purpose, even coming from Raymond Arritt. At first sight, I thought it could be a good idea, but the issue that I raised was not about the sources' reliability, but rather with the subject of the article existing almost exclusively in partisan sources. There was a long standing principle in WP:NOTE that said that a subject is not notable enough if the information about it is not from unbiaised sources, but it was somehow deleted recently for no given reason [53]. This rule made a lot of sense since it is only true for all subjects that if a subject cannot get beyond partisan sources, this is indicative of its non-notability as well as of its POV character. Now, you can argue that this rule is no longer part of the policy, but I think that this does not necessarily means that we should reject it out of hand.

Note that by the subject of this article, I point at the concept of climate change denial seen as something supposedly different from climate change skepticism, making it worthy of a separate article. --Childhood's End 13:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim that this article relies "almost exclusively" on "partisan sources" is false, unless you can prove the unreliability of the following sources: UCS, Royal Society, Nytimes, Washington Post, Newsweek in addition to ClimateScienceWatch, Catylst, MotherJones, etc. And proving unreliability is not the same thing as just calling the sources partisan. If somebody quotes Fox News about an historical event, I can't just move to have the citation deleted, despite its controversial reputation, without contesting its content with alternative sources. You have not contested the accuracy of a single claim within this article! This is my last post on this thread, and I agree with the others that you should take your arguments against these widely respected periodicals to another page.Benzocane 14:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you have read my posts, you might have noticed that I have just explained that I do not object to these sources' reliability, but rather to the notability of the article's subject. Take a look at the meaning of non sequitur before your next post. --Childhood's End 15:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O CE! English lessons from you keep drawing me back into this thread. Did you or did you not say "the subject of the article" exists "almost exclusively in partisan sources?" And wasn't that largely your claim against notability? So isn't my point about their not being partisan sources germane to your argument? OK, really, last post in response to your spinning in your ruts. Best of luck! Benzocane 18:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is quite amusing. I'll just assume that you now realize that in your previous post, you totally confused the partisan issue with the question of reliability, and that you aint got much to say about the fact that out of 17 sources, 14 are openly admitted partisan publications. Thanks for holding to your word now, unless you're ready to revisit some of your sayings. --Childhood's End 13:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I admittedly haven't read it in detail, but it seems to be adequately sourced. — Alan^✉
- People really count these types of votes? ~ UBeR 20:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm just trying to be honest about the basis of my opinion, and I hope the closing admin doesn't just count "votes" anyway. My point is that the links I followed from the references seemed to point to a number of relevant media articles verifying the overall notability of the theme, which is relevant because the nominator feels that it is poorly referenced, but as I say I haven't looked at the detail. — Alan^✉ 15:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - As noted above, it's poorly referenced because they are primarily from partisan sources. Iceage77 16:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are some of the sources: cover story in current Newsweek, Science, Guardian, Harpers, Nytimes, Greenpeace, Vanity Fair, Washington Post, Catalyst, ClimateScienceWatch, British Royal Society, Union of Concerned Scientists. Now, even assuming one can dismiss The Guardian out of hand (which I think is ludicrous), and ignore Greenpeace, don't you feel some need to explain your claim that the article is "primarily from partisan sources"? And once you're done explaining it, could you support that position with some nonpartisan sources of your own? And furthermore, don't you feel the need to contest the content of those sources in order to argue for deletion?Benzocane 21:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Iceage77 will consider something to be properly referenced if it is reported on FOX NEWS and on right wing blogs :) Count Iblis 22:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that's a really egregious personal attack. the response is typically "did you miss the smiley?". and that's crap. it's just a way of ducking responsibility for making inappropriate comments. please stop. Anastrophe 22:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iceage77 clearly said that he considers the article to be "poorly referenced because they are primarily from partisan sources". We can all see what the sources are. Benzocane repeated that in his reply to him, but I don't think that was necessary. I simply take iceage77 serious and I don't assume that iceage77 is unaware of the sources this article is based on. My comment about FOX news and right wing blogs more or less follows from my assumptions about Iceage77.

So, I don't think I did anything wrong to suggest to others where iceage77 is coming from. There is nothing wrong about someone who has the position that Iceage77 has (I mean apart from being wrong on the issue), so I don't see how pointing that out can be regarded as a personal attack. Quite the opposite. I take Iceage77 serious, although I disagree with him. But you would probably have contempt for someone who would first want to see something reported on FOX NEWS and right wing blogs before taking it serious. Why else would consider my comment to be a personal attack? So, your comment, not mine, is actually an "egregious personal attack" on Iceage77 :) Count Iblis 23:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is the cover article from Newsweek only today. Global Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine That's how I found this discussion! This article should stay. Bmedley Sutler 18:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It was written in the future, mind you. ;) ~ UBeR 23:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge to global warming controversy OR Rename to Global Warming Skepticism . This is yet another POV fork, and it so far from being even reasonable that it's better to just toss it. The subject is adequately covered elsewhere, and the term "denial" is overloaded enough (the psychological definition for example) that it's dangerous to use in a page like this. If kept, this page should be renamed to global warming skepticism, which is both more neutral and more common. Not to WP:GOOGLE, but search Google for "global warming denial": 39200, "climate change denial": 49400. Compare to "global warming skeptic"/sceptic: ~90000 and "climate change skeptic"/sceptic: ~31000. Oren0 01:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skepticism and denial are quite different concepts. Digwuren 02:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, they're so different that this article hardly makes a difference between skeptics and deniers, essentially calling "denier" any organization guilty of funding skeptical scientists. --Childhood's End 13:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only one who finds it a little odd when someone says "Not to WP:GOOGLE..." and in the very same sentence WP:GOOGLEs? Raymond Arritt 03:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep resonable article on a noteable subject. Also, I don't get why people keep saying "it's outdated". If climate denial is really dead (and I'm not saying it is) there is still no justification for deleting the article, instead we just properly present it as a noteable historical thing. Edit also a lot of editors seem to be getting distracted. Climate change denial is not about 'big oil funding scientists'. It is about a large number of organisations and people with financial and other reasons using a large variety of tactics including selective using any work which presents some doubt to misrepresent the current level of knowledge and support re: climate change. Whether or not the work of all or any of the scientists used is funded by 'big oil' is somewhat irrelevant. Perhaps editors who keep complaining should try reading the article rather then commentin on what they think it is about Nil Einne 09:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"instead we just properly present it as a noteable historical thing" - Hmmm... WP:NOTE#Notability is not temporary --Childhood's End 13:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly... Nil Einne 13:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat^♫ 16:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best Friend's Day[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Best Friend's Day

Procedural nomination, contested prod. This seems to be a non-notable event, lacking in reliable sources. Caknuck 07:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Text needs to live in (the not very good article) Best Friends Animal Society; does not warrant an article on it's own - Google shows hits but only for the website for the Animal Society. Pedro | Chat 08:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Pedro. Darksun 11:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ELIMINATORJR 16:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Dawson[edit]

Non notable local politician from London, no significant press coverage. Fails WP:BIO Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 07:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Only coverage seems to be on various websites of her political party, blog sites and one solitary mention in a local newspaper. --Malcolmxl5 08:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First councillor from her party in London suggests notability. Also standing in the Mayor of London elections in 2008, which will generate coverage. Third party coverage: [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] etc JulesH 08:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears that she has been mentioned in a number of sources, but the guidelines under WP:BIO indicate that there must be 'in depth' reporting; most of these sources suggest incidental/incremental coverage. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 18:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local council members and failed candidates aren't notable politicians. Nick mallory 08:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Keep WP:BIO is quite clear on politicians. This does not meet the criteria for notability; although it does weakly receive "mutliple independent coverage" per JulesH, the notability issue is the problem. Pedro | Chat 08:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is quite clear, yes. It suggests that "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" are notable, which seems to me to be satisfied in this case. I've linked 9 articles above, in both local and national press. Some are about Dawson's activities, others are biographical or general interest in nature. They're only a selection of what's available. JulesH 10:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The WP:V holds up via the good research by JulesH. But WP:BIO says "major local figures" in regards to politicians and nothing in the article or the links indicates she is a "major" figure to me. I don't want to sound like I'm arguing with semantics though, so more input required from others I think. Pedro | Chat 10:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Green councillor in the heart of trendy London. It's perfectly likely that people who have had no personal contact with her might want to look her up, which is my criteria for notability. Abberley2 11:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - verifiable and semi-notable beforehand, but now we've been made aware of her running for mayor of London in 2008 that definately makes her major/notable. London has a population nearing 8 million and City of London alongside NYC is the leading centre of global finance, the very act of running for mayor of London means that the person becomes connected to many issues, and will be searched for in wikipedia by many people. Elmo 12:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the page about the upcoming mayoral election, Ms. Dawson is *not* the Green Party candidate for mayor, but Siân Berry instead. Could you clarify your comment? Is the information on both pages incorrect? Thanks! Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 18:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. London is one of the largest and most important cities in the world, and its councillors are a bit more than "local". RandomCritic 13:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As I understand the term 'local politician' in WP:BIO, it doesn't indicate the size, notability, or importance of the city represented, simply that the politician does not hold 'international, national or statewide/provincewide office'. This means that despite London being of great international importance, Ms. Dawson is still considered a local politician. Eliz81^(talk)^(contribs) 18:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I thought she was a member of the London Assembly, which effectively is a provincial legislature for the Greater London region. But it looks like she's only one of 48 councillors for Islington, a small division of London which is obviously much less significant. So I withdraw my argument. RandomCritic 23:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. Everyking 23:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep As I read WP:BIO it says that less-important local figures are not encyclopedic without significant press coverage, which I interpret as being the usual two RSS--and these are present. DGG (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage identified by JulesH established notability for me. The coverage is not just incidental with her being talked of leading campaigns and being deciding vote as well as being first Green councillor on Islington council. Davewild 07:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After finally getting leisure to review JulesH's diffs in full and to do some better digging myself I have changed to Keep. The Notability and Verifiability, coupled with the opportunity fo rthe article to be expanded as the mayoral elections unfold have convinced me that we should retain this article. Pedro | Chat 10:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This will never become a featured article, to be sure, but I feel that there are enough third party references to barely satisfy our WP:BIO guidelines. Burntsauce 17:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 15:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triple 777[edit]

I tend to skim articles. I read the first paragraph from which I gather that the article is about a person - but nothing else. I look for links which might establish notability - I see none. I note the last sentence: "the masses will know about him soon" which suggests not yet notable. Is he notable at present? -- RHaworth 07:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know anything about this page but if you're nominating something for deletion the least you can do is check it properly and research it thoroughly, rather than just 'skim' it. If you can't be bothered to do it properly why should anyone else bother to voice an opinion on it? Nick mallory 08:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some good sources can be found and rather speedily unlees an article is written that is not jta myspace copy.[63]--Tikiwont 09:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Its a completly POV excercise in PR for a middling jazz musician who sometimes plays crowds as big as ten people, totally NN delete it. Elmo 12:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pending verifiable notability. I spent a few fruitless minutes looking for this guy on any kind of reputable source through Google. --Moonriddengirl 13:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are some claims in the article which might possibly represent notability, but I am not really able to judge their importance. I do note they are neither in the first nor last paragraph. DGG (talk) 00:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with DGG about there being claims, I tried checking one - appearing with the Outlawz on their sophomore release. Unfortunately, our articles on both the group and that album make no mention of this guy. An oversight, perhaps. But here we can invoke WP:BLP's admonition that "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles" - and if one questions whether association with the group or the album is "contentious", try playing it at school or in church and dollars-to-doughnuts you'll find something less than universal cheers ;-) . Carlossuarez46 21:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Head[edit]

Non-notable biography. A messy article, full of nonsense and badly-written. Jmlk 1 7 07:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but do some work on it. 'Messy' and 'badly written' are not criteria for AfD. 'Full of nonsense' is subjective. The problem here is the lack of verification but I see there is an entry in the index of the Oxford Biography Index for him[64] and you're only included in that if you are notable. Keep and clean it up. --Malcolmxl5 08:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The English Rogue is an important precursor of the modern novel in the vein of Moll Flanders. Needs sources, that's all. --Dhartung | Talk 09:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I just deleted the old text - rotten indeed it was - and offered a long biography which should save him. He is far too important to be omitted. Sorry for doing this so late. Also added: a portrait - which I, stangely, do not manage to scale down. --Olaf Simons 11:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If he's in the DNB he should be in Wikipedia. Abberley2 12:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable English writer. Nick mallory 13:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability established and article improved. While we're here, the closing admin may want to consider semi-protection in view of the amount of vandalism this article seems to get from schoolboys amused by his unfortunate name. Iain99 15:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I switched the redirect (which led from Dick Head to Richard Head) to refer our infantile visitors to Dick (insult), that should have solved the problem. --Olaf Simons 13:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Kurykh 00:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gheorghe Teleman[edit]

Unknown and non-notable general. Perhaps slightly famous in his time, but non-notable now. Jmlk 1 7 07:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability doesn't change over time. They're either notable or they're not. Nick mallory 08:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep General, senator and mayor. Clearly notable in Romania. Abberley2 12:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to satisfy notability, though the article definitely needs expansion and sourcing. --Moonriddengirl 13:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google isn't a great resource for finding info on 19th Century Romanian generals, so in the absence of evidence to the contrary (such as something like the book "A Comprehensive History of the Russo-Turkish War" makes only a one-line mention of him) I'd be inclined to regard figures like this as notable by default - a wartime general will almost certainly have received significant printed coverage. Could use expansion by someone with a knowledge of Romanian history, but for the moment it's a valid stub. Iain99 13:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS One source I did find ([65] p62) seems to confirm most of the information in the article, and that the Romanians considered him at least notable enough to erect a statue of him by public subscription. (Assuming my stab in the dark at interpreting Romanian is moderately accurate, of course) Iain99 16:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 19:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Owenbloggers[edit]

Non notable website about an MBA student group. Unreferenced and reads like an ad. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 06:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A google search shows up only about 80 hits for this website. It also fails WP:WEB as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 07:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the points made above. As written, the information is more suited to their About Us page, and I don't feel the site meets notability criteria.kateshortforbob 15:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 12:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No diving[edit]

Article about an alternative rock band, only links are official site and myspace (Google turned up nada). Fails WP:MUSIC. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 06:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though they do have an album up on iTunes, I cannot find any review about them. Anyone know how hard it is to get on iTunes, or if that makes you notable? Gorkymalorki 06:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 19:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland Chinese Evangelical Church[edit]

Non-Notable Church Gorkymalorki 06:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Shalom ^Hello 06:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A google search shows up only 8 hits for this church. Fails notability guidelines. Moreover, it is impossible to verify the contents of this article by using third-party reliable sources. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 07:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe | Talk 06:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beer guy[edit]

Non-notable drinking game, no references, no relevent Google hits, seems to have been invented by the page creator Bullzeye^{(Complaint Dept./Brilliant Acts)} 05:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article was just deep-sixed by an enterprising admin. Good show, saves us all the trouble. Would someone please kill this page? Bullzeye^{(Complaint Dept./Brilliant Acts)} 06:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deletion. --Ed (Edgar181) 13:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Altavious Devaux[edit]

There is, unfortunately, an assertion of notability, though the chances of this making it through are, i believe, slim. - Philippe | Talk 05:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No hits on Google, only reference is his own Myspace Which does not seem to exist. Gorkymalorki 06:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Does saying that he's going to make a YouTube video one day count as an assertion of notability? It's certainly not a correct one. Written by User:Devauxaltavious (WP:COI anyone?), it's a bit spammy as well. Iain99 07:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Altavious is current in production for his new internet reality star called In The Life Of My Life which will premiere on both YouTube and Myspace in late 2007 to early 2008." I hope I'm still invited to the premiere party: Speedy Delete Ichormosquito 07:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, what else? --Targeman 11:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 delete votes were made and I withdraw as nominator. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandria Mall[edit]

Non-notable mall. Fails WP:RS, Google turns up nothing of use. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 05:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Size and scope, as documented by source, are consistent with past precedents of mall notability. Additional sources should be added to expand article. Alansohn 05:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If I am not mistaken, maybe we could use this webpage as a relaible source for this article. Moreover, a google search shows up about 10 000 hits for this mall, which cannot be ignored as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 07:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep:~~ ~~Like other malls that have less information here on Wikipedia, this one doesn't seem less notable. 10K Google hits is also more than "nothing of use".~~ -- VegitaU 07:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that about 99% of those Google hits are for directories and yellow pages and so forth. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 11:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Actually it's a little more than 10K. This Google search turned up about 12.6K results. And with 99% of the BS cut out, as you say, it leaves 126 sites with good information. 126 is plenty to search from. Also, where does it say that it has to meet a number of Google hits? And all these malls still have their pages up and running. I'm sure most of them are notable to the people that shop there and use their services. I'm taking that into consideration, I sure wouldn't want my local mall deleted, despite the lack of information. The fact that the article may be sloppily written doesn't make it a candidate for the scrap bin... all it needs is some rewriting and attention. -- VegitaU 11:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument. I've tried to rewrite the Alexandria Mall page several times, but so far I've turned up bupkis in terms of WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 12:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What's that they say about "if at first you don't succeed..."? I actually found a couple decent sources, which I shall add to the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 12:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have to admit, you make an excellent point up above. I just read through the essay. Well written and its interesting to see how many of those "arguments to avoid" I've actually committed. I think the main point that the essay comes to is that to arrive at any decision, you must have: consensus through discussion and notability through verifiable sources. Now, I'm not totally sure how to vote on this. -- VegitaU 12:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sorry for all the talk talk talk here, but I've just found barely enough references to keep this page from deletion in my opinion. I'm closing this as a withdrawn nomination, seeing as no delete votes were made. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 13:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 03:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richland Mall[edit]

Unsourced, poorly written article on a non-notable mall in Ohio. No sources found in an online search. Fails WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 03:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Although it is possible to verify the contents of this mall, there are issues on notability. However, it must be taken into consideration that a google search shows up about 33 000 hits for this mall. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 04:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there's at least one other Richland Mall (in Waco, Texas) also turning up in those hits. Also note that most of those hits are for directories. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 04:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are not only multiple Richland Malls, but if you follow the Google search to its last page, you find there's actually only 734 unique hits, and most of them are useless template-spam. wikipediatrix 04:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 04:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion that this is a notable mall. i ^said 00:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:N nor WP:CORP. If they make an area small enough ("on the specific titles occupied...") then of cours it will be the first enclosed mall in X.Ga rr ie 22:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 03:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of entertainer pairs[edit]

Extreme violation of WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated people. Some examples; "Abbott & Costello"; "Bo Bice & Constantine Maroulis, rockers in American Idol"; and "Matt Damon & Ben Affleck (colleagues)". Many of these silly pairs-related lists have previously been deleted, for example; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pairs of colleagues (similar to this one) and the classic Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous pairs. Category:Celebrity duos already exists for the genuinely notable pairs. Masaruemoto 03:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indiscriminate list. We've got everything from colleagues to lovers to two guys who appeared on American Idol together here.--Sethacus 03:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but purge to include only genuine double acts. RandomCritic 13:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The criterion is "pairs of famous entertainers." That's too vague. How famous do they have to be? How closely do they have to have worked together to qualify? It's too much of a judgment call to be encyclopedic. Clarityfiend 15:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It would make a good category on Pyramid, but this is another parlor game. Drake and ____, Abbott and _____, Penn and _____. Mandsford 02:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Double acts already has a CAT. Bearian 18:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 21:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 19:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MusicIndiaOnLine[edit]

Non-notable, promotional, linkless article Brianhe 03:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's no longer linkless, but the other problems remain. The lack of references is critical. The article claims, "It is argued that [website is notable]", but without references, these grandiose claims seem spurious. Shalom ^Hello 06:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like promotional material, and information is unsubstantiated. kateshortforbob 15:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 03:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of actors who have played characters from the American South[edit]

WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated subjects. Some actors who happen to have played someone from a particular region at some points on their careers. Most successful actors play dozens of roles in their careers, having a southern accent in one of those roles isn't a defining characteristic of the actors, or their careers (with a couple of obvious exceptions, though not enough to base a list on). At most we could have a category called Fictional characters from the American South for the characters that have articles. Masaruemoto 03:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons as other similar lists for such character types as Nazis. Actors play characters of any number of types. Otto4711 03:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Punkmorten 11:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, and trim- mostly because the original name of this article was "Famous Southern American English performances" (a counterpart to Famous Cockney performances") and focused on archetypal Southern characters in cinema (not the actors). Then some drive-by name changer took the article in the wrong direction.--Esprit15d 12:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Abberley2 12:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, if it maintains its purposes of listing "performances...notable in that they are often considered the standard for Southern archetypes or stereotypes within and outside of the United States," it seems at great risk of original research because it would be difficult to verify. --Moonriddengirl 13:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Everyone can pretend to be British (and in Britain, everyone can pretend to be American). Not a significant achievement, even by Vivien Leigh. Ah do declare, this sho' is a right nice list, it sho' is, it sho' is, shame to lose it, well, let's go to the house. Don't run off. Yassuh, it's reverse psychology, but don't run off. Mandsford 02:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a meaningful list, not encyclopedic, and probably not maintainable. Carlossuarez46 21:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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_undertow ^talk 00:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology In Australia[edit]

This is a POV fork and a content fork (WP:CFORK), created in the wake of the "Revesby Incident". Scientology is notoriously active in most countries of the world, but a separate "Scientology and..." article for every region on Earth is currently not justified. (Incidentally, it was created by a possible single-purpose account that started only a few days ago and created this article just 90 mins later, then proceeded to rapidly start linking it to the "See also" sections of other articles.) wikipediatrix 03:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis is clearly an attempt at removing a page that has some negative comments about a certain group that shall remain nameless (but they like Xenu). There is a great deal about Scientology in Australia that is not reflected elsewhere on Wikipedia, and a lot more information that can go on (including positive things they do). Wikipediatrix has been trying to remove the more negative aspects about Scientology on this page and this seems to be her latest tactic.

Apart from that her logic is flawed, it is common on wikipedia to make Country specific pages when the main pages on a religion are large (which is certainly the case with Scientology). Take for example Buddhism in Australia, Roman Catholic Church in Australia, Anglican Church of Canada, Islam in Australia, Lutheran Church , Christian Reformed Churches of Australia, Uniting Church in Australia, Presbyterian Church of Australia, Trijah 03:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to avoid inserting your personal opinions and wrong-headed assumptions about why I do what I do - I've created some of Wikipedia's most negative articles about Scientology, so your conspiracy theory that I'm out to whitewash your masterpiece is rather floppy. I pointedly avoided mentioning your name and also gave you benefit of the doubt by saying "possible" single purpose account. wikipediatrix 04:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Making "negative comments" is not a new tactic for the OSA, so this reasoning does not really help you. The test is: were your comments productive? Digwuren 14:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I don't agree with the censorship charge, I do think that Trijah has a point that other religion-in-country articles are present and there seems to be enough information for the article's existance to be justified.(RookZERO 03:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Closely compare Scientology In Australia and Roman Catholic Church in Australia and see if you can figure out the obvious difference between the two. Remove the POV-pushing bits from both Scientologists and anti-Scientologists, and you have no article left. wikipediatrix 04:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the negative aspects about an article and you only have the positive bits left. If you can't do that, remove the whole article Trijah 04:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's clearly enough information here for an article and it's well sourced with 20 citations. Every editor has to start somewhere and there's no rule against a new editor working on a particular topic of interest to him or her. It's not a POV fork and wikipediatrix is I'm sure welcome to 'balance' the article in any way he wishes, perhaps by furnishing impartial third party sources for the existence of Xenu or Thetans or the Douglas DC-8 space planes would be a good start. I don't see anything in the article which is untrue. Nick mallory 03:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand the definition of POV/content fork, as well as the criteria for deletion. Whether anything in the article is true or untrue has absolutely nothing to do with whether an article is a fork, nor is it an AfD criteria. Lastly, scientific proof of Xenu, etc. has nothing to do with this article, so I'm not sure why you brought all that up here. wikipediatrix 04:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A fork of what, Wikipediatrix? Is there another article about Scientology in Australia? Is there a wikipedia article on the "Revesby Incident" you mention? My point is there is nothing 'contentious' which is not sourced in the article. There are far better sources for the existence of the murder case noted, for example, than for the 'facts' on which scientology itself is based. Where is the point of view in this article? If you want to balance it in some way with other sourced information then go ahead, it's not a reason to delete it. I'm not interested in your views about scientology, I just don't see concrete reasons to delete this article. I haven't made any edits to the article by the way, although I see you have been active in editing it previously. Your criteria for deletion seem to be that it was created by a new editor, which is irrelevent, that 'religions in a particular country' articles aren't needed - when there are any number of them and that it's a fork of articles which don't actually exist. You assert that this type of article is not 'justifiable' but provide no evidence to substantiate that point. Wikipedia is not paper. Nick mallory 04:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think parts of this article are salvageable, it just needs a very thorough cleanup, especially from a more neutral sounding POV. That does not warrant a deletion. And I disagree about it being a WP:CFORK Gorkymalorki 04:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The whole purpose of this article is to smear and slander. It is badly sourced - if at all, full of brainless trivia and a shame for any encyclopedia. Further there is no hope for it, as evident: The usual POV-pushers party with it. It's just an ugly Wikipedia policy violation, nothing more. Get rid of it. Misou 04:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see your user page tells everyone that you're a "changes patroller in the Scientology article area", Misou, so I'm sure you've more expertise than me here but how is this article badly sourced exactly? Are the Sydney Morning Herald, The Guardian and the Australian not independent third party sources of note? What parts of it are untrue? You provide no evidence to back up your rather lurid accusations of 'smear' and 'slander' - I presume you mean libel. Which parts commit libel again? The stories which appeared in mass circulation newspapers such as the Sydney Morning Herald and the Guardian? As your user page states that you are a member of "Wikipedians against censorship" surely you should be in favour of this article's retention? Nick mallory 04:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think a religion with 2000 members deserves a section of its own. Also, the most notable feature about Scientology in Australia is I believe the fact that it is the first major country where the supreme court has decided it is a religion. This information is absent from the article though by encyclopedic reasoning it should be part of the head. Countries with a greater Scn membership have no such article. Religions with a greater membership in Australia have no such article. Such articles are not warranted. Scientology is not seriously comparable to the Catholic Church or Buddhism. The Catholic Church and Australia makes mention of the fact that Catholics are now the most represented Church, for instance. If the content is to be kept somewhere I suggest an article "Scientology in other countries" --Leocomix 07:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So add your improvements to the article, that's how Wikipedia works. There are plenty of articles about various religions in Australia, as noted above, and nothing to stop others being written. I also missed the memo which separated the world between the USA and 'other countries'.Nick mallory 11:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your name. It's not a memo, it's part of the article creator's reasoning to explain why a specific article is warranted for Australia. The article's existence is not warranted in my opinion. Why improve it? Deleting it is improving the encyclopedia. --Leocomix 10:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI agree, it is a small religion, but there is enough of interest on the page I think to make it worthy of keeping. Also CoS, for a small religion, is very active, and has a number of high profile members including Kerry Packer....not that I think there should be a restriction on a page on a group of people just because there numbers are small anyway. CoS have also done some amazing things, for instance getting Deep Sleep Therapy banned. If anyone wants information on Scientology In Australia, this is the best neutral place to do, the CoS site is obviously pro Scientolgy, and the anti Scientology sites are too critical.Trijah 10:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. Kerry Packer was an atheist having said after a near death experience that he ""been to the other side, and there was nothing there." [66] James Packer is the Scientologist. [67]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 11:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a major religions operations within Australia are cleary notable Twenty Years 11:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Scientology in Australia has a distinct and notable history independently of the movement as a whole (i.e. attempts to ban it by various state governments in the 1970s, and some of their more bizarre behaviour in this decade as their numbers have declined to near-unsustainable levels in some states). Wikipedia articles should focus on material which is verifiable, not original research and which can be reliably sourced. Orderinchaos 16:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nobody has demonstrated what this is a POV fork of, and clearly there are multiple independent sources upon which to build an article discussing Scientology In Australia. It should be moved to Scientology in Australia though, per WP:MSH. Fits in the Widgets in Australia series (not all of which are religions - even though that's all that are listed above) mentioned by Trijah. Ga rr ie 22:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, theoretically it's a POV fork of Scientology controversy, since the article only exists to push tenuously connected and poorly sourced quasi-controversies. wikipediatrix 00:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV fork of Scientology controversy?????...it's not a page about Scientology controversies. Its a page about Scientology in Australia. If there are controversies on this page, then they relate to Scientology in Australia. Simple.Trijah 12:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no reason this article should be deleted. The originator of the AfD simply does not like the article.--Fahrenheit451 00:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I don't like it because it's a POV/content fork. And I also won't like it when someone inevitably creates Scientology in Sweden, Scientology in Finland, Scientology in Ecuador, Scientology in Tierra Del Fuego, Scientology in Buffalo, New York, and Scientology on the planet Coltice. wikipediatrix 00:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipediatrix, you seem to be the biggest current POV pusher on Scientology-related articles. You are not the one to be casting stones at other editors on that issue.--Fahrenheit451 21:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you can call it a content fork...there isn't even any other article on the "revesby incident". Apart from that, that is only one part of the article, it refers to a range of information about CoS, positive, neutral and negative. For some reason, you seem to continuously want to remove the subheadings that are negative about CoS, and this tactic of deleting the page seems to be some rather illogical way of dealing with it. Trijah 03:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already responded to this drivel. wikipediatrix 03:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about you answer the question, instead of personal insults. As someone already mentioned.....if its a POV fork, where is the other mention of the Revesby incident...that would make it a fork??? Trijah 04:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already answered that too. Pay attention. And you're the one doing the mudslinging, not me. wikipediatrix 04:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipediatrix, your discussion with Trijah is very uncivil. I suggest you knock it off.--Fahrenheit451 21:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel I am in error, F451, feel free to take the matter to a higher power. I would welcome an RfC with you on this and several other matters. wikipediatrix 22:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not in error, because you have been cautioned in multiple instances, but you fail to correct yourself. You are intentionally being uncivil.--Fahrenheit451 01:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat: If you feel I am in error, F451, feel free to take the matter to a higher power. I would welcome an RfC with you on this and several other matters. There's really nothing else to say. wikipediatrix 02:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up by removing some POV material. However, it seems reasonable to keep articles on religions in particular countries if they are based on reliable sources. Capitalistroadster 03:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Reliable sources" is the key phrase here. So far I'm seeing mostly primary sources (both from the Scientologists and the anti-Scientologists) and amateurish personal pages like "Why are they dead, Scientology?". The three main parts of the article that Trijah is championing are all of very tenuous connection to Scientology but serve to help make it look bad (like it needed any help!) in a sneaky-spin kind of way, so this article seems to convey nothing that couldn't be dealt with in Scientology controversy and Anderson Report. wikipediatrix 03:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The presented rationale does not merit deletion. Still, as pointed out by Gorkymalorki and others, the article is far from being in good shape, and needs serious overhaul. Digwuren 15:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is what WP:SPINOUT has to say: "Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others." And that's precisely what's happened here, as this tail was clearly created to wag the dog, to highlight these alleged controversies. That these controversies were not originally on Scientology controversy (where they belong) makes no difference. wikipediatrix 18:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Disney films set in London[edit]

Arbitrary intersection and therefore WP:NOT#IINFO. We have no article about Disney films set in London either. Why not List of Paramount films set in New York? Or any other random combination of studio/location? Masaruemoto 02:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per WP:IINFO and WP:NOT#DIR. Very loose association here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 03:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Invites a squillion other lists of the form List of $STUDIONAME films set in $LOCATION. FCYTravis 03:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial intersection. --Haemo 05:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivia, loosely-associated list, and intersection of two unrelated topics. Useight 05:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 20:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could make a list... about what makes a boring list. But it would be boring. Mandsford 02:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 21:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfied by User:UnclePaco, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 05:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 alleged plot to attack Southern Illinois University[edit]

This is a prime example of something which belongs on Wikinews, rather than Wikipedia. It's a recent local news event with no particular indication that there will be lasting encyclopedic interest in it. Should we be cataloging every single such occurrence? FCYTravis 02:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 03:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Southern Illinois University#Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. There is already a sentence there, but the wording in this article is better. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 03:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep it is like saying columbine, the first attack on WTC, or attempted assasinations like the Bay of Pigs serve no value.UnclePaco 03:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is unconvincing. Columbine and WTC were actual attacks, and the Bay of Pigs was not an attempted assassination, it was an attempted invasion - which actually occurred and failed. This is a minor news item about a student who may or may not have done something illegal - nothing has been determined yet in a court of law. There is extensive evidence to suggest that Columbine, WTC and the Bay of Pigs had encyclopedic impacts on history, from gun laws to Islamist terrorism to American interventionism in Latin America. There's no evidence that yet exists to suggest that this incident will hold the same long-term interest. Furthermore, we cannot at this time write a balanced account of this event, because we as yet have nothing but news releases from police and prosecutors. All of that suggests that this should be a news article about a news item, and not an encyclopedia article. News articles have their own site, and it's called Wikinews. FCYTravis 03:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was an attmpt here that failed as well. It was stopped at the planning stage. Written threats of terroristic activities are illegal. UnclePaco 03:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There may have been an attempt here. The accused is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. You've still failed to address the issue of encyclopedicity. What I've read here is a news piece, not an encyclopedia article. FCYTravis 04:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to the Patriot Act. Even by going thru that thought process there is no guilty until proven innocent with Rock Hudson allegedly being gay. Though there is a whole section on it on wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_Hudson#Personal_life UnclePaco 04:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're misinformed. The USA PATRIOT Act does not and cannot rebut the presumption of innocence, which is an established Constitutional right. See Coffin v. United States. FCYTravis 04:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave interpretations of law to LAWYERS and Judges. Habeous Corpus can be taken away with the Patriot Act. Address the Rock Hudson being gay argument. UnclePaco 04:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And SarbOx requires CEOs to sign financial statements. So what? Habeas corpus is not in question here. Your Rock Hudson "argument" is nothing of the sort. First, being gay isn't a crime. Second, he's a public figure, the subject of extensive interest as a movie star. Third, he's dead. FCYTravis 04:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being gay isn't a crime? There are many many many places where being GAY is a crime! On the books it's illegal in many places. Oduwale is now a public figure since his arrest! What does SarbOX have to do with it? We are not talking about business!UnclePaco 04:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're not talking about habeas corpus, either. Being gay is not a crime anywhere within the United States. See Lawrence v. Texas. FCYTravis 04:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that you have taken the time to realize that it is still a crime in many places. The United States is less than 5% of the world. Pedophilia is still illegal in most states. As well as gay marraiges. http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/Amendment.htm UnclePaco 04:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I'm not aware of any U.S. state in which pedophilia is legal. Are you analogizing homosexuality and pedophilia? If you are, this conversation is over. FCYTravis 04:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

anything outside of the norms of society is considered to be a deviancy. S&M is a sexual deviancy so is homoesexuality. What is the problem there? UnclePaco 04:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about you two stop this discussion about sexuality, habeus corpus, the USA PATRIOT Act, and such ... it isn't really relevant, and all it is doing is inflaming passions (or so it seems from my perspective). Instead, comment on why this article should or should not be deleted. --Iamunknown 05:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article that I re separated the original Olutosin Oduwole was deleted by FCYTravis during this discussion. I was in the process of adding a lot more date and FCYTravis deleted it. Even without going thru the AFD. The only one with flaming passions here is FCYTravis for not going thru AFD and doing a simple deletion which was ridiculous. The reason why homosexuality is such a big deal to this user is that he is listed a member of the LBGT on wikipedia. Nothing wrong with it, but that is why s/he is so empassioned. UnclePaco 05:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UnclePaco, FCYTravis's identity is, in the case of this AFD, irrelevant. It does not matter. That you brought it up was the only thing here that was ridiculous, and if you brought up homosexuality in order inflame FCYTravis, then you were trolling. I suggest again that you drop it, and I further suggest that you simply do not reply to this. --Iamunknown 05:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I brought up rock hudson to show how large an article can get based on allegations and no facts. He brought it to being gay not being a crime. You should cease with the personal attacks. Point BLANK! UnclePaco 05:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Flyguy. This was first an article purportedly about the would-be attacker, then was changed to this title. Quite frankly, unless he'd actually gone through with it, I don't see why it would deserve its own article. The words "alleged" and "plot" together make me nervous, in any case.--Sethacus 03:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (i.e. copy and paste) and redirect as Flyguy, this is not presented an article, but as a news report, and I don't think much more could be added... --Iamunknown 03:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I don't think its unreasonable that people will look here for information on this. Merge it into #SIUE and then we can expand it back out if there's ever more info, but this is a lot of refs for very little content. --Thespian 04:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've merged relevant info into Southern Illinois University Edwardsville#Incidents. FCYTravis 04:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it, it's nothing more than a stub now.Ravenmasterq 04:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikinews is elsewhere. Resolute 04:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously; just not really noteworthy enough to have an article. Jmlk 1 7 05:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ARticle was merged with SIUE and userfied onto my soapbox UnclePaco 05:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films depicting real people as non-human[edit]

WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated subjects; from Extraterrestrials to Zombies? WP:NOT#IINFO as well. Masaruemoto 02:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not quite sure what this article is accomplishing, how it is going to be populated, or how the theme is notable at all. CaveatLector^Talk 03:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too obscure a topic. I disagree with it being marked as unsourced because the content currently there lists primary sources (films) but in any event it might run afoul of WP:SPOILER, too. 68.146.47.196 11:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think some lists are useful, but this one is a definite exception. The topic is too broad, and it seems to stand no chance of ever being verifiable. --Moonriddengirl 13:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 20:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I can see the dilemma... should you go all out on a list that might be deleted, or should you try a little list to see what people think. Might make an interesting idea if it happened more often, but a month after it was created, this is all there is. Mandsford 03:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no evidence anywhere that this is a subject of academic or cultural interest. Sorry. Bearian 18:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 21:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Bearian. --Paul Erik 06:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by user:FCYTravis. Non-admin close Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 03:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United Football Association[edit]

No information on this league appears in any reliable source I know of on the history of American soccer. Furthermore, it shows signs of being a fabrication - things like team nicknames, wide geographical dispersement of teams in Western U.S. in early 1900's, and aspects of James Erough's biographical info suggest strongly that this series of articles was fabricated by a 21st-century American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotAnExpert (talk • contribs)

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Speedily deleting - This seems to be yet another blatant hoax. Thanks to nom for finding this. It was actually cited in a recent San Francisco Chronicle column by Ray Ratto![68] How embarassing. FCYTravis 03:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 07:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of common situation comedy plots[edit]

WP:NOR. The creator and primary contributor to this article even admits it is original research on the talk page; "much of this article (such as the examples) comes from actually watching sitcoms." This is like the various lists of cliches in film, television, literature, etc, that were also deleted for being Original Research. Masaruemoto 02:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 02:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Targeman 02:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is original research; the list would be difficult to maintain and would never be complete. Although it is interesting. Useight 05:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - strongly akin to various "(medium) cliches" articles deleted not too long ago (List of video game cliches, List of comic book cliches and the like). Dependent on original research and POV to decide what is and isn't "common." Otto4711 15:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fun to read, but not encyclopedic. ... discospinster _talk 17:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 20:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Though I would point anyone who finds this interesting to the TV Tropes Wiki. the wub "?!" 20:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nice, but no. Not here—Twigboy 20:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I am the "primary contributor" and "creator" of this article from two years ago. Actually, if someone wouldn't have pointed me to this article, I would have not even noticed it was gone. Frankly, I've moved on (and learned a lot about Wikipedia since 2005), and while this article was nice while it was up, I guess I would not do anything to stop you or offer a defense. Perhaps wub's suggestion — the tvtropes.org site — would be a good place to put this, I don't know. Anyhow, that's all I've got to say, although I will say thanks to everyone who did find the lists "interesting" and "fun to read" [[Briguy52748 21:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
Keep TV Land explores the hackneyed plots that come up again and again, and this was even a chapter in a book put out by the cable channel. If you could cite some sources, it wouldn't be "original research". As others note, there are websites about this. There's room for an article about unimaginative writing, which often comes up given the pressure of creating weekly episodes for a TV series. I'm saving this one to my computer so that I can read it before it gets cancelled, with no prospect of a rerun. Mandsford 03:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I still can't get over people who recognize that articles should be deleted, and then still !vote "Keep". /Blaxthos 03:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not that. I always prefer improvement to deletion. Some articles that I have read, however, cannot be improved. Lists aren't inherently bad; indeed, they are an efficient way to organize information. Some information, however, like "list of hat sizes of World War II leaders" is not at all informative. Mandsford 14:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mandsford, as I see how it possibly could be sourced. I am not sure it is worth it for an encyclopedia article, but who am I to say? It would be informative for an average college student doing a research paper on popular culture. Bearian 18:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete scenes à faire as a concept is notable, lists of them aren't, and then what consitutes "common" and how much of the "plot" is absorbed in that element (here's a common plot: all the people alive at the beginning are alive at the end, my guess admittedly pure OR is that 99+% of all sitcom episodes have that plot in common.) Carlossuarez46 21:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 07:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KDE Light[edit]

Notability to come. Chealer 02:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The lack of reliable sources for this article is a major concern here. Moerover, it is quite difficult to verify the contents of this article from third-party sources. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 04:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 20:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. KTC 03:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous people connected with Bahrain[edit]

WP:NOT a directory of loosely asociated topics. Indiscriminate list of people with a vague connection of being "connected with", whether they were born there or just bought a house there it's all the same on this list. Famous is a subjective inclusion criterion as well. Saikokira 01:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Targeman 02:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hut 8.5 16:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 20:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as mentionned above and incomplete list likely too.--JForget 02:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some of this information could be added into the article about Bahrain (population 700,000). Not a merge, but a UN Secretary General and some others are worth a nod in the main article. Mandsford 03:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 21:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas "DeCoY" Case[edit]

No independent reliable sources provided to support the article's assertion of notability: an attempt to find such sources via Google failed to find any -- cdbaby does not count since it is a directory listing. Delete unless such evidence of notability via reliable independent sources can be provided, and the WP:MUSIC criteria shown to be met. The Anome 02:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The New York State Council on the Arts win might sway my vote, if it could be properly sourced.--Sethacus 03:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like he has a little local following but nothing notable enough to justify a page. Gorkymalorki 03:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 20:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced, per above, after a search on the NYSCA site, I could not find an award to "DeCoy", or to his stage name or birth name. Bearian 18:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC. Carlosguitar 04:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat^♫ 16:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Party of Mexico[edit]

Unsourced, tagged as unreferenced since June 17, no assertion of notability. The author President2036 (talk · contribs) also created Union of Socialist Iberoamerican Republics which has zero Google hits and has been prod'ed. The party website is apparantly http:// socialistpartyofmexico.freewebspace.com (blacklisted by Wikipedia so I inserted a space) which makes me wonder how serious the party is. I'm not Mexican and don't know Spanish so I could miss something. There may be an old (closed?) party of the same name, and 2 or 3 parties called United/Unified/Popular Socialist Party of Mexico, so searching info is hard for me. PrimeHunter 22:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral until a spanish-speaker can do a search for verification. No sources as yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if was notable. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait per VanTucky. --H irohisat ^Talk 23:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I did a Spanish-language search for this party and found only trivial mentions. This page gives at least a trivial mention of the fundador (founder) of the party, and this one seems to also be a trivial mention of the party's foundation. Other pages seem to confirm very little beyond the fact that the party was founded in 1981 (or 1982). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think it's the same party. Socialist Party of Mexico says it was founded in 2005. http:// socialistpartyofmexico.freewebspace.com (remove space in URL) says the Spanish name is Partido Socialista de Mexico (PSM). Your link mentions Partido Socialista Unificado de México (PSUM), which is Unified Socialist Party of Mexico, one of the other parties I mentioned. That article says it later became the Mexican Socialist Party (Partido Mexicano Socialista = PMS) in 1988. I'm not sure Socialist Party of Mexico is a "real" party as the word is normally understood. Maybe it's just somebody who created a website and a Wikipedia article. PrimeHunter 01:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. And if you think that's a lot of socialist Mexican parties then look at National Assembly of the Socialist Left. PrimeHunter 01:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caknuck (talk • contribs)

Disambiguate it seems to me that there's no real argument that there are a number of Mexican political parties that use the term "Socialist" as a descriptor in their name. Thus I suggest disambiguation on this page. FrozenPurpleCube 02:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and comment: The creator of the article probably did it as a spoof, and the freewebspace site is also likely a spoof (no serious Mexican left group would create an all-English website). However, I think I have at this point been able to ref that a party called PSM exists, founded in 2001 (official documents clarify this. See for example [69]) and is led by Rafael Aguilar. Google-searching is a bit hard, as many sites confuse names of PPS, PPSM, PMS, PSUM etc. ~~There has also been another historical PSM, founded over 100 years ago~~. --Soman 11:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems that party, founded in 1878, was called Partido Socialista Mexicano. ([70]) --Soman 11:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --PEAR (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allied occupation of Europe[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article contains only original synthesis: a collection of weakly related events woven into an arbitrary, original pattern to serve a personal POV. Furthermore, no improvement has occurred since the last AFD, leading to the conclusion that the article can not be improved. Accordingly, this article and the accompanying category Category:Allied occupation of Europe should be deleted according to the Wikipedia policy of WP:NOR. Digwuren 01:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article violates WP:POV and WP:POINT. There is no hope for improvement here. UnitedStatesian 01:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 02:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~. The article is factually quite accurate; however, it's awfully written and begs for sources. It sure needs a very major overhaul, but its title and subject matter are valid. --Targeman 02:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there was no orchestrated campaign by the Allied Powers to occupy Europe, what is that "valid subject matter"? Digwuren 11:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does it make any difference how and why a country is occupied? It's still occupation. However, I've just realized the article's title is actually very POV. Occupation of Europe? I wonder how that escaped my attention before. Occupation "of" Europe is βʊ11§#!+, "in" Europe would make more sense. I therefore change my vote to delete. --Targeman 12:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear syntheses to mash together the Wester countries occupation of Germany that was over by 1956 and never brought with it any terror, deportations or complete loss of independence, with Soviet occupation of countries that lost their independence completely for fifty years... Weaving essentially two different things into one article just because the language has no separate term for temporary, without intent to annex and non-repressive occupation is synthesis --Alexia Death 06:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any attempt to conflate the allied liberation of western Europe with the Soviet Union's virtual annexation of Eastern Europe, which merely replaced one tyranny with another, is absurd. Nick mallory 08:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nowhere in the article do I see any attempt at putting the Soviet and the Allied occupants on the same level. Indeed, "In Eastern Europe the Soviet Union helped Communist regimes to power. In the west, representative democracy was established in nations under American influence." The article is about the military presence in European countries of the US and the USSR, not about living standards they introduced. And while "independence" is an extremely vague term, soldiers, tanks and barracks are easily counted. In terms of the number of soldiers deployed, both the Soviets and Allies (mostly Americans) were occupant forces, whatever the rationale of their presence. --Targeman 09:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the French didn't object to British troops on the ground, nor did the Belgians revolt against the Americans. Communism was imposed on Eastern Europe by force and maintained by force and communism was overthrown the minute the citizens of those countries could demonstrate without getting shot. The 'occupation' of France was a liberation. The occupation of Poland or Estonia was exactly that, an occupation. It's misleading to pretend two different things are the same thing. Nick mallory 09:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to sound as if I'm defending the brutality of Communist regimes in Eastern Europe, but I think it's fair to presume that people pulled out of Nazi death camps by Soviet soldiers felt "liberated". Similarly, the American invasion of Iraq, for all its faults, gave the Kurds a greater degree of freedom they have ever enjoyed. My point is, there is no black and white in war and occupation. The only fairly objective comparison of occupations can be an inventory of soldiers/equipment, and the length of their stay. I think this is what the article attempts but fails for lack of solid citations and bad writing that gives the impression of a POV problem. My $0.02 --Targeman 10:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Objective comparisons of occupations as this article attempts to do is original research, there is no source to support this comparison. Martintg 11:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, per Targeman. I'd like to see the article expanded and better referenced, but indeed, in it's current form it's a mess.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 10:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. POV. The Allies did not "occupy Europe". Abberley2 11:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has had ample time for improvement since the previous AfD, it still lacks sources, it is still a mess and will remain a mess. Sure, the individual facts may be correct, but these facts are tendatiously presented together to synthesise a concept that is not present in the original sources, i.e. equating Soviet and Allied occupation. Martintg 11:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve Certainly very unsatisfactory now, but unquestionably a very significant topic deserving a decent overview article. It would not take much to improve it drastically from its current state. The nominator seems to have his own POV issues, to judge from his comment at the related Cfd he nominated: "there was no orchestrated Allied Powers' campaign to occupy Europe. Merely because a few regions in Europe were occupied by a few distinct Powers is not sufficient basis to synthesise an "occupation of Europe..." It is also rather surprising he was unsure how to classify it. Johnbod 12:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article WP:SYNTHesizes the concept. Check the sources. None of them mention "allied occupation of europe". There is sourced references of Allied occupation of Germany and Soviet occupation and both of them have articles as you can see. It is pure synthesis. Take two different concepts, and throw in the same article. If anyone can find an article which puts those two things together as one event then please present me such source. Suva 13:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Original synthesis. I did comprehensive research on the topic, and I can honestly say that wikipedia is first and only place who discusses such concept. Suva 13:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think this article violates WP:NOR, WP:POV (or WP:POVFORK), WP:V and possibly WP:POINT. Even after a first AfD nomination (which mentioned these problems), these problems were not solved. The internet links either refer to or copy this Wikipedia page, focusesses on Soviet ocupation, or mean the allied occupation of Western Germany, Austria and Italy. It would be better to name it that way ("Allied occupation of West Germany", "Allied occupation of Austria", etc.). Whatever POV one has, the Allies did not occupy the whole of Europe and it's often debatable whether it was really an occupation. So if this article continues to exist, it would better to remove the non-occupied countries which are currently included, and clarify the debatable ones. The article also needs to cite multiple reliable and notable references that use the term "Allied occupation of Europe". Currently, it seems to be a synthesis of information, possibly to advance a position as the the article does seem to be made to used to diminish the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe, which is known to have been a long term and drastic occupation (i.e. the almost complete domination of the military, economic, cultural and political life of these countries). If this article is kept, I would strongly recommend to make a section about the differences between the two types of occupation in order to remove the POV (of course without making a synthesis (OR)). If you vote "keep", fix the article's problems as soon as possible, because it are very valid concerns. If this would be impossible to do, it seems that this article deserves a deletion. Sijo Ripa 13:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the concerns of, especially, editors from the Baltic states, not to equate the Soviet long-term occupation of Eastern Europe with the briefer occupations by the Western allies, but leaning over backwards to express these concerns has led to some bizarre POV assertions in some of the comments in this debate, themselves OR. The Western allies governed Germany for over four years which can hardly be called a "short" occupation on any normal scale of values. Many more countries were occupied than mentioned immediately above. Johnbod 14:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are looking at the wrong position here. Allied occupation of Germany is one topic. Soviet occupation is another topic. Allied occupation of Europe is some weird synthesis of putting those concepts together. And it is clearly original research. As noone has not yet provided reliable sources that those different occupations are related to eachother. Suva 14:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So it was just some sort of wierd coincidence they happened at the same time? Really! Johnbod 17:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So lets add into the article all other things that happened at the same time and were related to WWII as well? There already is an article for the aftermath of WWII linked below... This is a WP:SYNTH with a WP:POV title and possible WP:FORK...

I'm not from Eastern Europe or the Baltic area and perhaps it's just my opinion, but I consider 4 years to be short after the bloodiest war in history, especially when compared to the 40+ year occupation of large parts of Eastern Europe by the USSR. Doesn't really matter how to call it; the "short" was not a suggestion for the article nor did I suggest to put my opinion in the article. My concerns are however still valid. To avoid further confusion, I removed the "short". Sijo Ripa 15:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I was going to say merge with Aftermath of World War II, but what little unsourced material there is to be had in this article is already covered nicely by the aforementioned. I can't see this becoming a valid article AND supplanting or complimenting Aftermath of World War II, even after the heaviest of rewrites. Sidatio 17:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Keep as a redirect to Aftermath of World War II. --Drieakko 06:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the utility of that? Digwuren 16:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the line of thinking with this suggestion - someone looking for "Allied Occupation of Europe" would most probably be looking for information contained in Aftermath of World War II. On the other hand, it might prevent a future creation of an article with this title or a similar title that might be "Wikiworthy". Keeping that in consideration, I don't think a redirect would be the best course of action. Sidatio 16:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However it is rather unlikely that anyone comes looking for something titled like that...--Alexia Death 17:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article has not become any better since last AfD.--Staberinde 18:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect While I agree with Johnbod that this is a worthy topic, I think that this particular article is beyond cleanup and would have to be restarted from scratch. As others indicate, it hasn't gotten any better after the last nomination, when cleanup was suggested. Use the title to redirect to Aftermath of World War II. Someday, a good article about the eras of Allied Occupation during the Cold War (1945-55), and (1955-91), can be written. This ain't it. Mandsford 03:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the title "Allied Occupation of Europe" which spans the period of the Cold War 1945-91, is that the Soviet Union and the Western powers were not allies. Therefore to lump in together Soviet and American occupations into one article and call it "Allied" is totally contrary to the facts of the Cold War. This is why the article should be deleted. Martintg 07:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. There was no allied occupation of Europe for two reasons. First, Europe was not occupied by the allied forces, Germany was until 1956 and second, with the beginning of the Cold War there was no alliance.--Alexia Death 10:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "the Allied occupation" was always understood to refer to the nations that were Allied against the Axis powers during the war, even though they became adversaries when the spoils were divided. In addition, the occupation wasn't just of Germany, although that was the only nation "shared" by the West and East; many would argue that the continued presence of American, Soviet, British and French troops (and bases) in sovereign states was a form of occupation. Mandsford 14:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt many people would argue that the presence of American NATO forces in Britain, or Germany after 1956, is occupation and I doubt you could provide any reliable source to back that view. Any state could have opted out of NATO at any time, as France did, leading to the closure of US bases in France in the 1960s. So the idea that the presence of NATO forces is evidence of occupation is POV. Would you also argue that the proposed American missile defence base in Poland and Czech Republic as further evidence of ongoing American "occupation" of Europe? Martintg 20:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When discussing the history of post-World War II, Allied Powers has a very specific meaning: it refers to the Allies of World War II, acting in a military alliance. It does not refer to a random collection of countries that happened to belong to the alliance; it means the alliance as a whole. Allied occupation would obviously refer to occupation undertaken by the Allied Powers as a whole. Such occupation was undertaken for Germany and Austria; see Allied occupation of Germany and Allied-administered Austria as well as Four Powers. While a case could be made that the benign Operation Valentine, being undertaken by British military but at least favoured -- as a strategically useful move -- by the rest of the Allies, could constitute such a case of allied occupation, Soviet Union's unilateral actions in Eastern Europe can not in any reasonable manner be construed as Allied Powers' undertaking. Even if we were to make reservations for the Faroe Island, no significant chunk of Europe was ever occupied by the alliance of Allied Powers. That is why the whole postulate of this article is in error; that is why the article can not be improved and needs to be deleted. Digwuren 23:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You chose to give it that very restricted meaning, most historians do not. Johnbod 23:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most historians? Can you support that statement with sources? Martintg 00:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the security arrangements for Rudolf Hess in Spandau likewise. Kretzsch 16:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martintg, I accept your point below, but wish to remark that rearranging the order in which comments are posted, as you did, is liable to alter their meaning by altering the context. The comment posted by me above was written to be read consequent on the comment posted by Mandsford above at 14.37 on 2 August, as the time of my posting will show. Kretzsch 21:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolf Hess was imprisoned by the Four-Power Authorities, a relic of WW2, the only other facility run by the Four-Power Authorities was the Berlin Air Safety Center. However the notion embodied in this article that the Soviets and Americans were "allies" that jointly occupied Europe between 1945 to 1991 is simply and plainly not supported by any reliable source. It is pure WP:SYNTHESIS. Martintg 20:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom et al. as improper synthesis, WP:POV and WP:SOAP. I can not see how this could be improved. Nice pictures, though. Bearian 18:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was there or was there not agreement of the American, Russian and British leaders, who had been aligned in their opposition to Hitler since his invasion of Russia, on the partition of their influence in Europe, which was reinforced on both sides by military presence, of the two super-powers? I take it there was. Were these positions afterwards reinforced by the creation of military bases and the siting of strategic nuclear ICBMs on the soil of those nations against the popular will of many of the members of those nations? Did that create a military standoff which we call the Cold War based on the polarization of interests towards the economic, strategic and power ambitions and rivalry of the two super-powers? Could Poland or Britain realistically at any time have thrown off the military presence of the corresponding super-power? Whose propaganda do you want to believe? The question is not whether you or I wish to call it an occupation, but whether it has ever been called an occupation in print during the past sixty years, even if the people calling it that were not the voice of official government. I feel sure that there have been many organizations representing Green and Pacifist opinion which have called it precisely an occupation, though no longer by superpowers as allies. I cannot bring forward the publications which would reference the history of European opposition to the stance of the two superpowers in Europe during the Cold War, but I feel sure that there are those who could, and Wikipedia should certainly represent that voice. The article should therefore exist, but it should begin with the premise that calling it an occupation is a political viewpoint not accepted by the official authorities which presided over it. The present form of the article is not suitable. Kretzsch 21:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you are arguing for is to retain this article as a POV fork to represent the unreferenced viewpoint of a radical minority. You rhetorically ask if Could Poland or Britain realistically at any time have thrown off the military presence of the corresponding super-power?, Well yes, France did in the 1960's. So could have Britain if it chose too. Poland could not, as the violent Warsaw Pact intervention in Hunguary and Chechoslovakia proved. Martintg 23:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A lot to respond to there. Essentially, the Allies divided up Germany into four zones, and maintained bases on the soil of their zones for decades thereafter. I hate that anybody has gotten upset over the notion that anyone would "argue" that having foreign army bases in one's homeland might be "a form of occupation". Most of us over the age of 40 can remember hundreds of thousands of German protestors turning out when we shipped our cruise missiles over there. True, it was the result of a treaty, albeit one signed between the victors and the vanquished. I guess it's a matter of perspective... what is it they say, history is written by the winning side. I remember Jimmy Carter describing an argument with Helmut Schmidt over our "visitors", with Schmidt yelling, "Germany is NOT your 51st State!!" Yeah, I guess that the word "occupation" might sound sinister, but it's less ambiguous than "Allied presence in Cold War Europe". Mandsford 22:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We already have an article about the allied division of Germany, it's called Allied occupation of Germany. The article under discussion spans all of Europe between 1945 to 1991. Interpolating the allied occupation of Germany to span Europe is WP:OR. Additionally, having the term "Allied" in the title, whether as occupation or presence, would suggest that NATO and the Warsaw Pact were in fact allies. This is nonsense. Martintg 23:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for Germany and decades, it's generally accepted that the occupation of West Germany ended in 1955. Soviets attempted to claim sovereignty of East Germany from the same date as well, and credited the Stalin Note for this arrangement, but the general consensus is that East Germany remained occupied until the Berlin Wall fell. (Incidentally, crediting Reagan for that is just as fake as crediting Stalin for the Paris agreements that brought sovereignty to West Germany.)

Accordingly, it is important to see that the criteria for occupation's boundaries of parts of Germany are not presence of formerly Allied Powers' military; rather, it is the political independence and self-administration. In 1955, West Germany became sovereign, but a lot of formerly occupying military of USA remained, becoming protective forces. (Somewhere, Petri Krohn has claimed that this made West Germany a client state of USA. Obviously, this is ridiculous.) Similarly, neither end of the Wall nor the official date of German reunification were significant militarily, but they had immense political ramifications -- and it is those ramifications that delineated the end of East Germany's occupation. Digwuren 23:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. JdeJ 10:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the nature of Wikipedia, it is possible to have articles describing minority points of view, provided they are not the point of view of the editor merely, but are a matter of record concerning a significant number or group of people which can be referenced. It would be possible, for instance, to describe the Quaker response to state militarism, its attempt to withdraw tax payments in proportion as they are used for military purposes, and its efforts (for instance in Northern Ireland in the 1970s) to persuade soldiers to relinquish arms despite their failure to get round the Incitement to Disaffection Act. If I am arguing for a POV Fork it is not for any personal point of view of my own that I wish to claim it, but for the quite undeniable and (I am convinced) reference-able fact that a large lobby of European opinion has existed certainly since the 1950s which has been opposed to the prevailing cultural and military influence of the two superpowers within the sovereign (or supposedly sovereign) states of Europe; and that this situation, however altered it was since 1945, was the outcome of the immediate post-war consensus under the forces allied against the Rome-Berlin Axis. The instance given by Digwuren above relates to Germany, but similar arguments could be brought forward from other states. Presumably it is not the intention of Wikipedia to suppress any reference to 'minority' opinion? Minority opinion is a political and historical fact. As Mandsford remarks, there is a long and well-attested history of public protest in this context: in Britain it goes back at least to the Aldermaston Marches etc. 'Can't you hear the H-Bomb's Thunder'? Kretzsch 12:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but you are talking about something entirely different rather than this article. Yes, there were anti-nuclear marches in Britain, but this is not evidence that Britain was occupied by the USA, and I seriously doubt you could find any serious scholarly paper that claims they were. France was able to eject US forces and close down American bases in the 1960's, I don't recall neighbouring NATO forces sending tanks into Paris as a result, so why would Britain fear ejecting the Americans? Clearly because Britain was not occupied, but US troops were there purely at the invitation of a sovereign British government to enhance British security. Martintg 12:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to prolong this and I think you will win the deletion you wish - I have not opposed it - but with regard to the above comment I would say that until 1991 it would have been impossible to imagine the British unilaterally insisting on the departure of, say, the 81st TFW from Bentwaters or Mildenhall without a reprisal in the form of economic tariff adjustments in all transatlantic dealings which would have rendered Britain's economic dependency upon USA so apparent that it would have been crippling. British strategic decisions unpopular in America were usually answered by the suggestion of some such economic key to the maintenance of support and agreement. Naturally the Greenham Common protestors, for instance, were forcibly removed by British personnel since it would have been monumentally inflammatory for USA personnel to have exercised similar powers over British civilians. I do not wish to disparage Anglo-American friendship at all, but merely observe that whenever Britain has maintained her external relations in that way she has usually been accused of economic imperialism. Kretzsch 16:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is one interpretation, I guess. Yes, it is true that Britain was fearful of the consequences of an American withdrawal. The consequence they feared was not economic reprisals from the USA, but rather they feared Soviet hegemony in Europe and its consequences had US troops been withdrawn. Martintg 21:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Nick mallory Erik Jesse 12:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, redirect, delete, keep, whatever... anything to bring this long-winded discussion to an end. I think I'll go occupy the bathroom for awhile, bringing all my weapons with me :P Mandsford 18:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Definitely OR, using or omitting facts to imply the conclusions. Edward321 23:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Improve, as expressing an historical viewpoint.Kretzsch 23:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A viewpoint that's not supported by any reliable source. Martintg 03:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should note that 1st nomination income was "keep and improve" it hasn't improved since then, quite the contrary. Suva 09:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will definitely note that point. Hey, all I did was explore the possibility that there are alternative views on the subject. The article title itself is admittedly hopeless. I'm not offended if no-one agrees with me! My Vital Bodily Fluids are in fine order. I am outvoted anyway. Kretzsch 13:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are alternative treatments. Usually, they differ in interpretations of various details, nuances, and application of focus. However, the one ostensibly presented in this article is not a notable alternative treatment of World War II history, but instead, a WP:POINT of Petri Krohn.

It's interesting to note that even though Russian Federation is currently engaged in active historical revisionism — some of it specifically geared towards And you are lynching Negroes applications —, even Russia hasn't adopted this article's position. Digwuren 20:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having promised myself to make no further comment, your last remarks, Digwuren, made me look a little further. I know nothing of Petri Krohn, but having visited his page and then followed it to Bronze Soldier of Tallinn, I find that the discussion on the present page is nothing more than the continuation of a rather highly personalised debate in which several contributors to the present page have already been active elsewhere. I had no intention of stumbling in on a private party, and I beg you to Excuse My Dust. But Now as to revisionism, allow me to say in response to your comment directly above, that I cannot help viewing the article on And you are lynching Negroes, and the bland ease with which you refer to it, with distaste. I share the view of User:PalestineRemembered in his or her posting on the discussion page there dated 1 August 2007. In this, as in the Tallinn question, and in the fate of Europe over the past 60 years, you are speaking of matters which concern and have completely shaped the lives, families, clans, cultures and spiritual freedoms of immense numbers of people, not merely the matter of the adjustment of a red line in an historical atlas. We are not in the sphere of simple text-book answers. I carry no brief for political extremists of any kind. I also saw the American planes set off from English soil in 1985 or 1986 to bomb Libya, and heard Kate Adie's broadcasts on the BBC in the following days. That, as a statement of public but non-governmental opinion as to an action by USA from Britain, right or wrong, good or bad (I do not offer here a judgement), is one that is also On The Record. I think the title of the article that we are discussing on the present page is meaningless, but I will argue that it should remain as long as possible so that other editors can become aware of the methods of discussion which are being employed. Kretzsch 11:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and because the allies did not "occupy" Europe. Kyriakos 00:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 07:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron's Org[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ron's Org

Notability not asserted for this non-notable club/group that would probably qualify as a speedy under db-group. Gets 266 unique G-hits, mostly mirror sites and personal pages. Those 266 hits are not even all about the same group - there are apparently multiple tiny groups using this same name. If starting one's own "splinter study group" to study Scientology away from the Church of Scientology makes one notable, we could all start our own tomorrow. wikipediatrix 01:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cult-cruft. There is no notability asserted, therefore, this is subject to CSD-A7. Argyriou (talk) 02:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CSD-A7. Oyster guitarist 02:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. --Leocomix 09:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipediatrix perhaps misunderstands the situation. Ron's Org is an association of groups, but the groups are subject to rules for admission and can be expelled. It is 'notable' within Scientology being the largest grouping outside the Church and the Wikipedia pages on Scientology would be incomplete without covering it, whether that justifies it having a separate page rather than incorporating mention of it into the Freezone article is what in effect being debated here. At present I think not. --Hartley Patterson 16:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Free_Zone_(Scientology) article. This group is notable in Europe.--Fahrenheit451 00:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 20:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable glider pilots[edit]

WP:NOT a directory of loosely associated topics. A combination of people who were notable in gliding, and others who just happened to pilot a glider sometimes as a hobby. Like listing John McEnroe and Tom Cruise on a list of tennis players. I can't take any list seriously that groups Barbara Cartland, John Denver, and the Wright Brothers together. Category:Glider pilots was previously deleted for the same reason. Saikokira 01:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's just a poorly formated list, and how many people need a list of glider pilots?--Kk r ou ni 01:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You might not need the list, but there are 120,000 glider pilots in the world and a fair proportion would find the list useful. The list has now been reformatted. JMcC 09:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless scope is made more explicit. This is like listing Johnny Carson or Gerald Ford at List of golfers. To me a "notable glider pilot" would be this guy or these guys. I sometimes defend lists since I deem much opposition to them to be irrational discrimination, but this is a case of clear WP:UNENC.--Dhartung | Talk 01:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The list has been made more explicit as you requested. There are now two groups: one is of people who have been honoured for their achievements in gliding, the other is a group of people who are famous in other fields. There are instances throughout Wikipedia of disparate people who are grouped in ways that give novel insights. For example I came across a category called Category:People by medical or psychological condition. JMcC 09:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 01:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To quote wikipediatrix "A team of thirty people, each signing up for their own Wikipedia accounts and agreeing to support each other's edits, could literally control almost any article on Wikipedia." In this case three people supported the nomination within 22 minutes. Thirty people seems like an over-estimate. JMcC 18:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Encyclopedic and specific list. I have considered splitting the list into sections for people who are notable in Gliding or Aviation and those notable in other endeavors, but did not see the need for this. Hoever, this would address the main issue in the nom. Also the last statement in the nom is incorrect. The category was deleted in part because of overlap with this list: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_27#Category:Glider_pilots. Dhaluza 01:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator's reason in the CFD for Category:Glider pilots was, the category is capturing anyone who happened to pilot a glider. Piloting a glider is not a defining characteristic. Exactly the same reason I am nominating this list. Saikokira 02:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you look at the discussion, the comments were few and evenly split, so this argument did not gain consensus. The closing admin cited "This category has substantial overlap with List of notable glider pilots" as the reason they closed as delete, so this was the final word. Dhaluza 03:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, objecting to inclusion criteria for some entries is not grounds for deleting the entire list. Dhaluza 03:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. No vote from me, and I haven't even looked at the article under discussion: but please note that the name of a category being a "defining characteristic" of its members is a requirement for categories but is not a requirement for lists. If it were, a number of featured lists would fall at that hurdle. AndyJones 07:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 20:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that ~~deletion of the category~~ removal of the categorisation was sensible for people whose main activity was not gliding, but the list is useful when publicising the sport. JMcC 22:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC) & JMcC 08:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the category was deleted for retarded reasons, the same thing shouldn't happen here. The nomination is either arguing for list to be split, or for "people who just happen to pilot a glider" to be removed. Neither of these are grounds for deletion. Kappa 10:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . It is an indication of the broad appeal of this minority sport. Francisco de Almeida 19:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - these sorts of lists aren't the best content on Wikipedia, but I don't see any problems with this one and the justification for deletion doesn't seem very strong. If you deleted this and kept Soaring Hall of Fame, that would introduce unacceptable bias on a World View level. Wikipedia is not paper. -- Solipsist 22:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but establish general rules (applicable to other similar lists) that would answer the objections of the deletionists. Divide into catagories of technical innovators (MacReady, Wrights, Lilienthal, etc.), record holders (Moffat, DuPont, etc.), celebrities for whom soaring is related to their work (McQueen, Piggott), and this should even also include fictional glider pilots (in an appropriate section) such as Thomas Crown. Possibly delete the celebrities for whom soaring is only a pleasurable hobby, or better, put these into a separate section. Help fight deletionism! - Leonard G. 01:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If a movie or TV show has an American president, and he flies in a jet plane with "The United States of America" written on it, you're seeing Air Force One. Other than the Harrison Ford movie and the NCIS pilot, this is essentially a list of films with a movie set or a miniature prop. Mandsford 03:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This comment seems to have been put in the wrong article. It does not mention the list in question and puts no arguments against it. JMcC 08:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Geez, that was a lot of lists to slog through tonight, and the closing administrators have to go through a lot of debates. Folks, I appreciate the nominations, and enjoy reading the articles, but spread it out some. We had 161 articles tonight. Granted, I voted to delete a lot of them, and I agreed with many of the nominations. But each of these have to be evaluated on their own merits for an intelligent decision to be made. On this one, I don't think notable glider pilots is any more useful than notable whitewater rafters or notable stamp collectors. Wonderful hobby for persons with lots of money and time, but not the basis for an article. Mandsford 03:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't think we should be able to find Otto Lilienthal and Jean-Marie Le Bris in the same place? Kappa 04:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I expect there are many articles that you do not find useful. However there are some people, including me, who find this article interesting and useful. This alone should be the criteria. If we deleted articles on whether the majority found them useful, Wikipedia would shrink markedly. Gliding is a minority sport, so there will never be a majority. However there are a group of people with articles who have been awarded medals and other honours for their activities in gliding. They have to be grouped somehow. There are also people from surprising walks of life who have also contributed to the sport. For example a Prime Minister of France, the first man on the moon and several actors have all chosen this as their discrete past-time. I also find this interesting. Similarly King George V was an avid stamp-collector and I believe there are some, though not all, who would also find this informative about the man, if grouped with other participants.JMcC 08:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps I do not understand the process, but I would like some reassurance. I guess that some articles are on only a few people's watchlist. The article can be proposed for deletion by an active group of campaigners and its supporters can be easily outvoted. Similar tactics were used by Militant Tendency to undermine the Labour Party.JMcC 09:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified Keep the notable glider pilots, certainly. But I too am a bit doubtful about the others. The heading states:

This list of notable glider pilots contains the names of glider pilots who have achieved fame in other fields as well as in gliding.

But John Denver didn't achieve fame in gliding—he was simply a famous singer who also flew gliders. The same, I suspect, applies to several of the other people. The second part of the list is at risk of degenerating into a Trivia section IMO. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 12:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if kept, "notable" should be removed from the title, it is (and must be) implied in the title List of glider pilots, just like our other lists where notability is implied: List of teetotalers, List of people from California and gazillions of others. Carlossuarez46 18:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I agree with NigelG: this is valid if it lists people who are notable in the field of aviation. Too indescriminate, though, I think, if it contains people whose notability was in other fields but who happened to fly gliders. Agree with Carlossuarez46 about the rename, if kept. AndyJones 17:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The list does meet WP:BIO#Lists of people requirements. Also the idea that people just 'happen to fly gliders' is wrong. There is a training and licensing process, which is a relatively high bar to clear--it doesn't just 'happen'. Dhaluza 09:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily kept per nomination withdrawn. Non-admin close. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 03:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Molly Mormon[edit]

WP:NOT#DICT. This term is fairly well-known to Mormons, but it has no fixed definition, as the talk page proves. Also, it's seldom used outside the faith, as its 665 google hits prove. This article attempts to document usage of the word, as preserved on the internet, but also includes sizable helpings of WP:OR. This is not an encyclopedia entry, and it should be deleted, or possibly transwikified to wikitionary where "Molly Mormon" is sadly still a red link. Cool Hand Luke 00:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Recommend close as keep per article improvement and WP:SNOW. Cool Hand Luke 03:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It really dosen't need to be an article, and it dosen't have that much purpose to anyone but Mormons or school kids with reports. Probably even school children don't use it. It's not that big either.--Kk r ou ni 01:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This statement is true of literally hundreds of articles about people, places, and things in Mormonism. We'd be deleting articles about Mormon prophets, buildings, seagulls, historians, not to mention articles about every other religion too, if we went by the "it's only interesting to Mormons" criteria instead of following the stated criteria at WP:N, which this article clearly now satisfies. Reswobslc 01:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. This nomination is a frivolous expression of personal bias. Luke wants this article gone, and this is his third rationale. The first was that it was a neologism, then when references were added showing 20+ years of usage, he backpeddled on that and then complained about too few cites. Now that cites are plentiful, now his problem its "only" got 665 Google hits. But Wikipedia has room for him to create (and boast about creating) an article about a barely-notable seagull-sized seagull statue at LDS Temple Square, which scarcely even deserves a mention at Temple (Latter Day Saints). I guess Luke's criteria for inclusion is whether it makes everything Mormon look shiny and delightsome. Reswobslc 01:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, my first comment on the article (which you label "backpeddling" above) was to truthfully remark it could never be more than a dictionary definition. Feel free to remove your personal attack. Cool Hand Luke 01:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term has been used in novels and other contexts and the article is far more than a dictionary definition. The rationales for deletion seem a lot weaker than this article. Nick mallory 01:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To be precise, this article has only 341 unique Google hits, the rest are redundant. wikipediatrix 01:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would note the signal-to-noise ratio on those hits is pretty high. Most of those 341 unique hits uniquely refer to some article of print, or bloggers by the dozens using it on their blog, fully consistent with the way this article describes it. This phrase has appeared in print so many times before the Internet even was, which carries far more weight per WP:N than "only" having so many Google hits. Reswobslc 01:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is more than a dictionary definition, and has references. Argyriou (talk) 02:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, article is more than a mere dicdef, is well referenced, and possible WP:POINT. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 03:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I resent that. This article was just recently undeleted from a PROD where three previous users believed the article should be deleted for related reasons. Nonetheless, this should obviously be SNOWed, and I withdraw my nomination in light of some recent improvements. Cool Hand Luke 03:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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^♫ 16:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welding Joints[edit]

The article simply lists 3 ways to weld metal, and how to do it. It appears to be some sort of instruction manual, something Wikipedia is not. Kylohk 00:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. If it had sources, I might like it better. wikipediatrix 01:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Welding#Geometry, which covers the same material. Argyriou (talk) 02:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete needs sources. Oyster guitarist 02:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Definitely needs sources, and rewritten as an encyclopedic article instead of a HOWTO, but the subject itself is definitely notable --Longing.... 08:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Welding: I have to agree with Argyriou - this material would best fit in the welding article. It's definitely notable, but not notable enough to stand on its own in my exceedingly humble opinion. :-) Sidatio 17:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Welding is already a featured article, so I'm not sure what Welding Joints provides that Welding#Geometry doesn't. If there's something more to be said in the main article that clarifies the selection process for what kind of joints are used, it should probably be written in a more encyclopedic tone than Welding Joints provides. I'm going to go with delete. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Welding article doesn't really compare the different types of welding joints, and in the interest of brevity it's probably best that way. With a bit of expansion, Welding Joints could provide much more thorough and useful information. A simple Google search will reveal some much more in-depth reading. --XDanielx 22:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:DP. "Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion." If "[a]ll attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed", then a deletion may be justified; but welding joints is a rudimentary (yet important) concept in engineering and finding relevant credible sources is like finding bread in a bread store. --XDanielx 22:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But what important concepts does it reveal in engineering? Other than being different ways to attach metals to each other? Perhaps a merge to Welding would be a good idea.--Kylohk 00:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response - You said it perfectly fine yourself - the article describes different ways in which metals may be attached, and given that this topic individually affects the strength and resource efficiency of billions of metal-based artifacts in everyday use, I think that it is an important concept. It could be merged, but I think a thorough discussion of the subject would be rather long for the main welding article. --XDanielx 09:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Welding, for the same reasons as above.--Fabrictramp 16:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a scrappy excuse of an article, but it can be improved with sections on history (WJ's that have fallen out of use, for instance) and on pro's and cons of different Joints. Welding is already 42k, it doesn't need more adding to it. Totnesmartin 11:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Welding per Argyriou -- Magioladitis 09:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete both.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Girl Gone Wild (Tiffany Evans' song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Girl Gone Wild (Tiffany Evans' song)

The article begins, ""Girl Gone Wild" is the rumored and much hyped second single off of Tiffany Evans's debut album" — Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The only source in the article verifies the existence of the song, but not that it is to be released as a single, or even that it will be released in any form. Article created (and de-prodded) by a user with a history of adding inaccurate information and unsourced/unverifiable speculation to Wikipedia. Also nominating (for the same reasons, except this one is completely unsourced):

About a Boy (Tiffany Evans Song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Extraordinary Machine 00:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 01:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Oyster guitarist 01:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Moonriddengirl 13:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 20:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Alternative arrangements of the William Tell Overture[edit]

The result was delete, prod me if you want any of the deleted content to merge anywhere. Moreschi ^Talk 17:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to the title, this is only about one alternative arrangement, Spike Jones's version (with a link to Mike Oldfield's version). Until a few days ago this was called William Tell Overture in popular culture and contained a lot of trivia. The trivia was removed and the article renamed, but now the article has no reason to exist. If Spike Jones's version is notable enough it should have its own article, or be detailed in the William Tell Overture article. Saikokira 00:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with William Tell Overture. Doesn't merit an article of its own but may enrich the William Tell Overture article. Iotha 00:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - Unless there are a lot of notable rearrangements of the overture that could go here. Notable information can be merged into the main article if necessary.--Danaman5 00:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge as above. wikipediatrix 01:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with William Tell Overture, doesn't need it's own artical. Oyster guitarist 01:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge per above. Argyriou (talk) 07:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to William Tell Overture (Spike Jones version) - There is sufficient material on the particular arrangement to warrant an article and the article existed under that name for some two years before someone decided to move it and add the Oldfield information. The linked article on the Oldfield version looks like it will survive AFD with the addition of additional sources and material. So move this article and remove anything not related to that version. Otto4711 14:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 20:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Embassies in Hanoi[edit]

An address list of embassies in Hanoi going against WP:NOT#DIR. Russavia 00:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If this is deleted, List of Consulates General in Ho Chi Minh City should also go up for AfD. Iotha 00:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but redo. A basic list of these embassies is fine, but Wikipedia is not a phone book. wikipediatrix 01:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm a bloodthirsty "list of" inquisitor most of the time, but for once, I believe this kind of list is actually useful. A list like this is inherently manageable because it's limited to around 200 entries, tops. It's also a good indicator of the level of international involvement of a country. And there seems to be a consensus for keeping such articles (see [[Category:Diplomatic missions by host country]]). What I question is the inclusion of addresses and telephone numbers - this is not the Yellow Pages. Scrap the addresses and I'm happy. --Targeman 01:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure whether this should be deleted or not, but if it is, then all the other articles listed here and here should be deleted, too. Argyriou (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Diplomatic relations are a major subject. Abberley2 11:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The inclusion of the addresses improves the utility of this list. RandomCritic 13:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per wikipediatrix. --Corporal Punishment 16:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 20:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that diplomatic relations are a major subject but is a laundry list of the addresses and telephone numbers of various embassies (and in related articles, consulates) encyclopedic. Medicine and Law are major subjects too, so a list of all doctors and lawyers with addresses and phone numbers would be of similar value as this. I think that what needs to be covered could and should be in Foreign relations of Vietnam, where only Vietnam's outbound missions are listed but the inbound missions could easily be added. Carlossuarez46 17:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep awful in current state. Drop the phone numbers but list times of establishment if available, and (if any) former diplomatic missions which have disappeared. Pascal.Tesson 18:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If concerns that this article is solely POV are not met, the issue should be revisited. CitiCat^♫ 18:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial controversy[edit]

Delete original essay. A regular, nonspecific phrase the author wants to assign some special meaning. `'Míkka 00:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is original research. Oyster guitarist 00:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Looks like original research to me. As for having an article on "artificial controversy", I've know I've heard the term before, it might be worth keeping the article if there's any salvageable content in it now or potential stuff to add to it later. Iotha 01:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We have heard many word combinations. This does not mean we have encyclopedic articles for all of them. Like, looking even at this very page, we don't have articles for special meaning, encyclopedic article, word combination, free encycloopedia, although each of them is quite meaningful. `'Míkka 01:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. We have articles on some word combinations but not others. Each stands or falls on its own merits. Dhaluza 14:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's just a phrase. People manufacture artificial controversies. The term should be transparent to any native speaker of English. --Haemo 01:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article itself is an example of creating an artificial controversy out of nothing, ironically. wikipediatrix 01:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article, explaining a certain propaganda technique mostly associated with Creationism, has come under attack by an unrelated propagandist, leading to Mikkalai nominating it for deletion for no reason other than his approval of that propagandist's position. Digwuren 01:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is high time for you to understand that wikipedia is not the place for your original essays fuelled by nationalistic hartred. `'Míkka 03:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

??? Exactly how does this article relate to nationalistic hatred? Martintg 11:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Strong Keep. I see numerous instances of this term in Google Books: [71]. This suggests there is additional reference material that can be incorporated, and is not unique to this author. Dhaluza 02:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC) With the additional references added to the article, the nomination is no longer operative. Dhaluza 23:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Google Books aslo has numerous instances of the term "classic stupidity". So what? Are you ready to write a wikipedia article here as well?`'Míkka 03:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And I could find any number of other trivial combinations. I can also find a large number of non-trivial combinations. So your counter-point is pointless. Dhaluza 03:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - On the contrary. My counter-point shows that your "Google Book" search in pointless here. `'Míkka 03:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, citing a trivial example does not prove anything (nor does citing a non-trivial one). The devil is in the details, and you need to look into the hits to see what's there. Dhaluza 03:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        My point exactly. So, which books discuss this deep philosophical collocation in encyclopedic way and which convinced you to vote "keep"? `'Míkka 04:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I added a cite with quote for this one: [72] Dhaluza 04:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Exactly, the point is that you can find many, many phrases in Google Books. Why is this one special? --Haemo 05:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        For instance, the phrase "artificial literature" gets even more hits; but that's because it's just a phrase. Ascribing encyclopedic purpose to what are essentially two English words which, together, have some semantic meaning is silly. --Haemo 05:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is not just a phrase but an actual propaganda technique. --Leocomix 11:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be, but no valid references for the definitiuon presented. `'Míkka 16:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Artificial/manufactured controversy is a technique as old as propaganda itself. Here is an archetypal book studying the use of manufactured controversy as propaganda tool in the 18th Century: "Political Controversy: A Study in Eighteenth-Century Propaganda" [73] Martintg 12:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The statemenmt is false. This term is not used in the book. `'Míkka 15:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're being ridiculous. Since this book studies propaganda that was new two hundred years ago, it would *of course* prefer phraseology of the era -- yet, one of the phenomenons it studies is clearly that of this article's topic. Should I remind you that the Constitution of United States does not have the term "separation of church and state" in it even once? Digwuren 17:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is your opinion based on wrong logic. Your example is false analogy. Modern books about the Constitution use the term "separation". Since you apparently have problems with logic, I once again strongly suggest you not to write original essays, but rather take a book and describe what it defines and says. `'Míkka 17:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete. No evidence that this is a special term for classification used in special literature. The article is a trivial unreferenced definition: "controversy wich is made-up", with a couple of examples. Mukadderat 15:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:STUB is how Wikipedia articles are born. When enough data is added, this temporary state will pass. Digwuren 17:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You cannot start a stub with your own speculations. You must take the basic definition from a WP:RS reliable source, not out of your creativity. `'Míkka 17:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of primary sources here [74], [75], [76]. What specifically about the definition is speculation above and beyond the common meaning of the term? Or are you suggesting that there is no common definition at all? If there is no common definition, then it should be easy to suggest an alternative definition. Martintg 21:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Iceage77 18:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 20:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are plenty of "Artificial xxxxx" articles in Wikipedia [77], using a phrase that identifies a concept is not uncommon. The combination of "artificial" with "controversy" isn't just some regular, nonspecific phrase the author wants to assign some special meaning as the nominator claims. It describes a specific and notable concept. The whole premise of this nomination is wrong headed, what special meaning is the author intending to assign above and beyond the concept that is in common usage and meaning, e.g. artificial controversy [78], manufactured controversy [79] or fake controversy [80]. At the very least it is a useful search term and the article also serves a purpose in listing those controversies that have been identified as artificial or manufactured. Martintg 20:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And there even more "Artificial XXXX" that don't have and many will never have wikipedia articles: artifical power, artifical logic, artificial obstacle, fake reasoning, artificial sex. Many of them look quite smartassy: artificial opposition, artificial authority,.... `'Míkka 22:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same falacious straw man argument as above. No one is suggesting that all two word combinations of "artificial" and anything are encyclopedic, just that this particular combination is. Dhaluza 22:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the roughly 300 pages at Special:Prefixindex/Artificial, it's clearly visible that almost all are either:

Related to artificial intelligence (artificial grammar learning, artificial neuron, artificial society)
Proper names (e.g. Artificial Hallucination, Artificial Soldier)
Prostheses and implants (artificial uterus, [[artificial )
Synthetic replacements for real materials (artificial sugar, artificial leather, artificial turf)
Chemical simulations of phenomena from the natural world (artificial photosynthesis, artificial digestion)

In fact, I can only find one "artificial" article which does not fall into the above categories: artificial scarcity, an economics concept. cab 23:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you are pointing out here, your findings could be used to support either keep or delete--that's why WP:OTHERSTUFF cautions us against drawing conclusions from comparisons with other articles. Dhaluza 00:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the top part is a dicdef for a and the bottom part is a textbook example of WP:OR: three examples of an allegedly notable phenomenon, cherry-picked from the political scene of a single country, supported only by sources which discuss the specific examples given, and not sources which discuss the actual phenomenon as a whole. cab 22:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All you are saying is that there is a lack of secondary sources that discusses the phenomenon. This article is not doing any analysis, interpretation or evaluation of the phenomenon, merely providing a description. This is permitted under Wikipedia:No original research, which states: Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely on primary sources. An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions. This is what this article is attempting to do. Martintg 23:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that the list of three examples have limited scope is reason for expansion, not deletion. Dhaluza 00:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep - When I read the article at first I thought dictionary and delete. After reading the discussion here, I now think that there is likely enough secondary material for an article. 'I don't like it' or 'the article sucks' isn't a reason to delete. --Rocksanddirt 22:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. The article satisfies Wikipedia guidelines and violates none that I can find. It has several verifiable references which makes it both notable and verifiable. Although some may not like the article, it has a legitimate right to exist. And, like many Wikipedia articles, its future life can (and should) involve improvements. Truthanado 23:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, and as a good article that can be improved. I am not sure why this was nominated. I might not like it, but it seems valid, notable, and well-sourced. Bearian 18:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is itself a manufactured artificial excuse for POV. If kept, it can of course be edited, to indicate that it is used in a purely dismissive way, without any regard for the facts of the matter one way or another. The first step will be removing all the examples, as they are all individual exercises of POINT. To improve the article, i will now edit it appropriately, and let's see if it will stand. DGG (talk) 03:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That the term can be used dismissively is no reason to dismiss the article. Also, your suggestion that it is always used in this way is demonstrably false. The term was used in U.S. Federal Court documents in conjunction with the "teach the controversy" example, and the courts do not usually operate "without any regard for the facts of the matter one way or another." The Holocaust and Tobacco examples are also well documented long-term historical examples. As for the individual points, I have edited the references to clearly attribute them to their sources, and added more diverse examples for additional balance. Dhaluza 10:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom., there is no need for this article. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 09:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the nomination justification is no longer operative. The article has been edited by multiple editors to show that the related terms are in widespread use in the U.S., as well as in the U.K., Australia, Canada and India, citing multiple specific usage references. Dhaluza 10:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On balance, I think I have to say keep at this point, as the article appears to be well sourced and extensive, demonstrating the general use of both the technique and the (various equivalent) terms. SamBC 02:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem is that while the terms (and tactic) are clearly widely used, there is a lack of "overarching" references discussing the topic for itself. Circeus 14:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, this article is not doing any analysis, interpretation or evaluation of the phenomenon, merely providing a description. This is permitted under Wikipedia:No original research, which states: Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely on primary sources. An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Martintg 18:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also the Humbach reference does discuss the topic for itself in great detail specific to the ethical practice of law, but an article narrowly focused on this topic would be less useful. Dhaluza 03:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, I can see very good reasons for keeping. Also see potential major POV issues, but in the end this is not a reason for deletion. Mathmo ^Talk 23:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After several days discussion, those w supporting on the article have shown themselves totally unwilling to remove the WP:COATRACK of examples, or even provide NPOV references to them. Nor does it adequately discuss that calling things an AC is used as a way to sidetrack good arguments as well as bad--there is one sentence only saying that, and i wrote it. I conclude that the purpose of the article is possibly those very examples. this is not just a possible place for POV to accumulate--this is a place where POV will accumulate and has already. I'm not going to try to figure out which one or ones might be the point of it. An article on the subject is possible, but not based on this one. If kept, of course, I'll try to bring it to NPOV as best I can.DGG (talk) 10:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Keep, and make edits to things you don't like. Nominating an article for deletion is the wrong way to go about editing it (or prompting people to edit it) for POV issues. --David Shankbone 15:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The entire article flunks WP:SYN. Once the WP:NOR violations are scrubbed, nothing is left. Perhaps an entirely different article can be written that complies with Wikipedia policy, but I haven't seen anyone make a case for it. Where's the reliable source that systematically describes and defines artificial controversy qua artifical controversy? There isn't one cited in the article as it currently stands, and WP:NOT a dictionary. THF 16:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Renaming, as suggested, seems appropriate as well.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argentine diplomatic missions[edit]

A list article in breach of WP:NOT#DIR and/or WP:NOT#INFO. It should be noted that Foreign relations of Argentina makes not a single mention of the number of countries with which Argentina holds diplomatic relations, nor mentions anything about the number of overseas missions the country has, so can't understand the reasoning for this list Russavia 00:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a fine list! I see nothing indiscriminate about it. If there aren't similar articles for diplomacy in other countries, perhaps such articles should be created. Shalom ^Hello 06:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Excellent list. It is bizarre to denigrate this article by stating aspects of the Foreign relations of Argentina that are frankly glaring inadequacies. It should be noted that all the "Foreign relations of... " articles began as "cut and paste" jobs from the CIA World Factbook, and are therefore U.S.-centric, and in most cases remain lamentably incomplete, due to the lack of Wikipedians with a serious interest in diplomacy. Abberley2 11:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator has evidently misunderstood WP:NOT#INFO to mean "Wikipedia should not contain information". RandomCritic 13:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- good adjunct to Foreign relations of Argentina. Buckshot06 21:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the nominator goes to the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Argentina and clicks on "Representaciones argentinas" the nominator then can see be clicking on every flag where Argentina has embassies and consulates. There is nothing different between this page and the other 171 pages in Category:Diplomatic missions by country. Aquintero82 17:33, 31 July, 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 20:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - is Category:Diplomatic missions by country in consideration for deletion too ? --Jor70 18:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename quite unlike the Hanoi list, also good split (if need be) from Foreign relations of Argentina. Are we happy to have these articles (as there will be many more titled with the adjectival form or should we standardize on names of this sort Diplomatic missions of Argentina, which I'd prefer, that has the simplicity of being found by searches as Argentina may not find Argentine, Belgium may not find Belgian, and avoids the recurring issues of what adjective applies to the various Congos, UK, and Dominica vs. Dominican Republic. Carlossuarez46 18:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and consider renaming Not terribly interesting but it does carry a certain level of implicit information about the relative importance of Argentinian diplomatic missions abroad. I can also imagine the article eventually being improved to include a bit of history on when these missions were established. Pascal.Tesson 18:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 07:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RageWork[edit]

Non-notable software. Lots of download sites but no reputable 3rd party sources or reviews to establish notability. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 00:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable software. Oyster guitarist 01:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maybe it will eventually garner widespread attention, but it isn't there yet. --Moonriddengirl 13:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 20:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. -- KTC 04:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cool Hand Luke 04:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of foreign consulates in Anchorage[edit]

Another list article in breach of WP:NOT#DIR and/or WP:NOT#INFO Russavia 00:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page is specific in what its purpose is. It stats which countries have consular offices in Anchorage and the ranking of each. The list also represents the ties to which countries the city citizens/business ties with. Daltnpapi4u 00:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure whether this should be deleted or not, but if it is, then all the other articles listed here here, and the articles List of Consulates General in Ho Chi Minh City and List of Embassies in Hanoi should be deleted, too. Argyriou (talk) 01:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reasons I gave here. --Targeman 01:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Diplomacy is a serious topic and is under-represented in Wikipedia. Abberley2 11:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Related to an almost Entirely Notable subject In a Major City of Great Regional Importance.Corporal Punishment 16:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 20:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lists of embassies in capital cities may (or may not) be valid lists for articles, but consulates? Too minor, and lacking in being the subject of secondary reliable sources. - fchd 05:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But worth a rethink for this and other consulates in the US page.
Weak keep probably OK especially unlike Hanoi which is a directory. Carlossuarez46 18:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep see also my comments on the case of Hanoi for suggested improvements. Pascal.Tesson 18:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having these lists by cities makes this into a travel guide. If it is notable and needed, the information can be listed under nations article on its delegations in the US. Vegaswikian 21:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Consulates everywhere are important. Leave it as it is! Aquintero82 18:41, 4 August, 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Atari. —Kurykh 00:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atari demos[edit]

Poorly written, completely pointless article. Information could easily be kept in Atari. Giggy _U^CP 00:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per nomination.--Kk r ou ni 01:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. per nom. James Luftan ^contribs 01:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Oyster guitarist 01:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. per nom. P.S., don't they mean Atari ST demos? --CSL1 11:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 20:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Oh well. It seems any work will have to go to the main article. My main motivation for splitting it up was to keep it grouped with all the other demoscene articles, c.f. Commodore 64 Demos, ZX Spectrum Demos and of course the contemporary Amiga Demos Alex (talk) 09:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete as unsourced, unverified original research. As it is original research here and would likely remain that way if split into the many different individual novel articles, there's no reason to keep it since it would continue to violate some of the most basic policies and guidelines here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discrepancies between Dune novels[edit]

I have tried and failed to get this article up to Wikipedia standards. "Citation needed" tags have been on almost half of this article for many months with no real enhancement. It is, by its very nature original research since the topic seems too unimportant for reputable websites (almost all of the citations that have been made are to anonymously authored fan F.A.Q.'s or blogs) to discuss and as yet no one has provided proper citation for the information contained within. I have been trying for over a year to get this article to work, but have ultimately accepted that it is impossible. The information is unverifiable, original research and uncited. Konman72 01:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Information about inconsistencies within a single book should go in the article about that book; cross-book inconsistencies can be noted in either both book articles or/and Dune series or similar. RandomCritic 04:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unverifiable and Merge the rest, as per RandomCritic. --Moonriddengirl 13:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete original essay. Mukadderat 15:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge select notable and sourced items and Delete the collective article; I suppose in this form it does become OR. Any valuable information will find a natural place in other articles (some already has). TAnthony 20:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per above. --SandChigger 21:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. If too much sourced material gets produced that it is best broken out, a Consistency in the Dune series would probably be an ok development then. Carlossuarez46

Delete. The text compares FH works and the low quality space operas by BH and KA, pointing to a few tiny discrepancies and ignoring the vast difference in quality and style.

What would be more interesting is description how BH and AH used Frank Herbert's name for serial production of their texts supressing The Dune Encyclopedia as a side-effect. This is a well documented example how someone's fame and reputation can be milked out for decades. Pavel Vozenilek 00:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Harlowraman 00:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --ST47Talk·Desk 19:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation[edit]

Extremely unbalanced (though professionally polished and adorned with uploaded images) article written by the organization's webmaster and marketing advisor Benderson2 (talk • contribs). See also *Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User Benderson2 and TREC. — Athaenara ✉ 03:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*(Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 18#User Benderson2 and TREC) – Athaenara ✉ 17:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of nomination

Online Google searches for "Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation"

Web: 11,000 (News: 0 [zero])

Searches for the same phrase WITHOUT the words "wikipedia" and "TREC"

Web: ~ 460

I've no doubt the projects in which the organization purports to involve itself are good. The question here is whether the article's content is verified with citations of sources unaffiliated with the organization itself. It isn't. The professional marketing job and the splendid photographs and diagrams make it look terrific, but it's not a good encyclopedia article, and an encyclopedia is what Wikipedia actually is.

Weeding out mirrors and blogs is tedious. Extensive copyediting of a lengthy and blatant public relations piece to extract the neutral encyclopedic content is tedious. But remember what Wikipedia is not?

It's not news that organizations try to use Wikipedia to make themselves seem more significant than they are. As User:BradPatrick said in his Corporate vanity policy enforcement post last September, the issue here is whether we are "losing the battle for encyclopedic content [to] people intent on hijacking Wikipedia for their own memes"—or not losing it. — Athaenara ✉ 12:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 08:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
Weak keep: Although I am probably the biggest complainer about the POV of it and the poor editing quality and intent of Benderson2, I think the organization appears to have enough notability to remain. However, I think it would have to be torn apart and rebuilt properly (by someone with more time than I). --Kickstart70-T-C 05:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ONLYCREATEDFOR. If the article is subjective, then fix it. If it is poorly written, copy edit it. The fact is that the subject is largely notable from what I've seen and, if a little bit of work is put into it, this could be a good article. Hydrostatics 09:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in response to Clarification On your google searching, you removed all instances of the word "TREC" - why? News sites or scientific journals or whatever wouldn't list the full name each time necessarily. It's like searching for "Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals -RSPCA." The German wiki has a link to a speech by German Parliamentary State Secretary Michael Müller mentioning TREC [81] as well as a link to the Guardian website with an article regarding them [82]. Another article written about them can be found on the German site Solarserver [83]. Per WP:N:

A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability.

We have enough evidence to suggest notability, and all other complaints with the article are reasons to fix it, and not delete it. Hydrostatics 12:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Hydrostatics, I missed your earlier question about my Google search test without (1) "wikipedia" & (2) "trec." Answers: 1 - to eliminate wikipedia echoes; there are many on any topic. 2 - to eliminate citations to many other organisations with the same initials in a search for information solely about this one; it's quite scarce. — Athaenara ✉ 14:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the statements refer to the studies MED-CSP and TRANS-CSP wich are verifiable sources. If you want to read NPOV press articles (not press releases!) about TREC to compare the statements of the wikipedia article with, please have a look at The Guardian (also as pdf with pictures), the Solarserver and Der Stern.

There is no doupt that TREC exists and appears in the media, so deleting the article is not the correct way to fix problems with supposed POV. TREC is not a company, it is "an initiative ... in the field of renewable forms of energy" (first sentence in the arcticle), so it is a fault to include it in the list of Business-related deletions.

About the POV:

To save electricity from photovoltaics is much more inefficient than saving heat for CSP plants for day/night operation. Please show me another solar power technologie that's better for providing secure capacity before telling that it's just POV!
"Nach allgemeiner Auffassung" is translated in the article as "it's certain that", where it is more accurate to say "According to general opinion". OK, thats really my fault. If you find such expressions that can be written more neutral, then please do so. But I will not accept that someone deletes the article (or half of it) just to get rid of a concept he dislikes. Benderson2 13:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC) — Benderson2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Because Benderson2 normally works at the German Wikipedia and just translated and updated the TREC article which is listed as "Good Article" at the German Wikipedia.[reply]

I'm not sure what "to get rid of a concept [one] dislikes" refers to. If you meant to imply that I initiated an Afd because I'm against renewable energy sources, you're quite wrong. If you meant something else, it would be civil to say what it was. — Athaenara ✉ 14:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a general statement. So, dear friend of renewables, what is your motivation to delete an article about the utilisation of renewables instead of improving it? Benderson2 12:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User Benderson2 and TREC* update if further clarification of my actual views of the issues pertinent here are sought. — Athaenara ✉ 14:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(*Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 18#User Benderson2 and TREC) 50.0.205.124 (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relax, Benderson. There's little point to provoking an argument, is there? At this point, it's not so much an article as it is a corporate shill. I'll admit there's an article to be had here, but by the time the bulk of it has been properly re-written, it's not going to look anything like what it is at present. The nominator's right to a point - it looks like a marketing presentation, and I've seen a LOT of marketing presentations to know one when I see it. Is it easier to delete than to radically transform this article? To me, not really - there's some decent stuff in there once that can be used for a proper, encyclopedic article. Still, getting into a war of words isn't going to fix the article. It needs proper sourcing and wholesale removal of its slanted POV. I believe you'd be helping your article best by starting on that, instead of asking loaded questions. ;-) Sidatio 13:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hydrostatics. Assuming WP:NPOV can be applied to this article and some sources are added, WP:COI may not be a problem and this can be an encyclopedic entry. — Scottjar → Talk 13:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but this article needs a TON of work. It needs a re-write from an objective point of view like I need a million dollars. (In case you were wondering - yes, I really need a million dollars. Can you spare some?) I'll put it on my To Do list, but it's going on the bottom and I wouldn't be able to revisit it until at least next quarter, possibly later. It's properly tagged, but not delete-worthy. Sidatio 16:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second glance, there's a case to be made for WP:SOAP:

"To boost the construction of solar thermal power plants and wind turbines in MENA, the EU should support (emphasis added to show WP:SOAP example) a campaign to inform MENA governments that, over the lifetime of those plants, they would be a cheaper source of power than electricity generated from oil or natural gas. This would reduce the domestic use of fossil fuels (which are continuing to increase in price) and, at the same time, it would enable the sun-belt countries to produce clean power from their own deserts for local use and for export."

There's a salvageable article here, but a lot of it is stuff like this. At present, it reads like a corporate pitch - not an encyclopedic article. I think I'll bump this up on my priorities list, if no one else is going to do so. I still say keep it, but someone needs to beat the hell out of this thing with the Objectivity Stick. I'll get around to it if no one else does. Sidatio 16:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, but beat the hell out of this thing with the Objectivity Stick - and COI is a major concern here. A major rewrite will be necessary. --Orange Mike 15:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not every bar-stool idea deserves an article. --Wtshymanski 20:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Benderson2 is making a large effort to fix some of the NPOV issues with the page currently. However I'm unsure if he understands the conflict he is in and will continue to be in, due to his role within the organization. Whether that has an impact here, I'll leave to your opinions. --Kickstart70-T-C 05:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 06:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Han shot first[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Trivia and fancruft. Metrackle 07:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure how to vote just yet; but the phrase gets Google News hits, and the consensus of the last AfD was a solid "keep". Ichormosquito 07:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable controversy within Star Wars fandom, and has achieved quite a bit of media coverage. Article should be improved with reference to this coverage, but that doesn't make it an invalid article. JulesH 09:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Nominator has not bothered to construct a decent argument for deletion and has added absolutely nothing to the debate from the last AfD that ended with a keep. Irishjp 10:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a well-known controversy about Star Wars and is not mere trivia. --Hnsampat 11:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bad deletion rationale, I see no arguments for deletion that weren't raised at the last AFD which ended in keep. Darksun 11:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I can see people looking up this specific term after seeing the coffee mugs, t-shirts, posters, and bumperstickers with the saying on it. The article is sourced. I can't imagine why this would be nominated yet again. Turlo Lomon 12:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep with a possibly redirect to List of changes in Star Wars re-releases Will ^(talk) 16:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to "Han Shot First Controversy", or something like that. It's got potential as a stand-alone, but the title doesn't strike me as encyclopedic. Silly, I know, but I'm a stickler for things like that! :-) Sidatio 16:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a pretty well-known controversy, and the article seems to be well-sourced. --Optichan 17:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Perhaps this article might be merged with the article on Han Solo or one on the controversy regarding edits made to the SW films for the remake? FrozenPurpleCube 21:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above argumentation. --Koveras ^☭ 21:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per JulesH. Mathmo ^Talk 00:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Notable controversy, consensus from last AfD was pretty strong. Ichormosquito 21:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - last afd was closed on July 7, 2007. Is there a way to put a moratorium on Afd's that are relisted within some short time period? Seems to push the boundary of bad faith. --Rocksanddirt 22:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Someone needs to shut this down already. We've definitely got consensus. Sidatio 23:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without rename. Quoting from part of WP:NAME: "standing expression exists if most English speakers who are aware of the topic call it the same thing." Most people who are aware of Han shot first call it "Han shot first" and not "Han shot first controversy." Thus a rename is not appropriate, especially since there is no potential ambiguity. --JayHenry 14:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleting this article may be the worst idea since Greedo shooting first. Cstella23 14:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep i'd like to add that to me it seems that the nomiator wanted to have just thrown this up there for the heck of it. 172.191.100.66 20:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - this is not a stand-alone topic. Merge to Mr. Solo's vernerable article and move on. And it is just fancruft; it has no bearing to anyone except fans. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment ~~Delete~~ Now this is an example of a non-encyclopedic topic--and it would normally be best as a single item in a popular culture article, that is, if we still will have any such articles a week from now. This is not a comment on those deletions, nor POINT--I do not think this individual line the least bit important. Priorities around here have always puzzled me. I guess everyone is puzzled by them, but in different ways. DGG (talk) 03:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC) Changed, I hadn't realized this was up a week ago. Unimportant or not, a renom this soon is just plain wrong, and it's time we actually had a rule. I am proposing one now, on the Talk page for AfD. Opinion invited. DGG (talk) 03:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 01:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Physics and Star Wars[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Trivia and fancruft. Metrackle 07:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well-sourced commentary on a notable cultural artifact. Needs expanding with opinions from sources other than the two listed, but that isn't a reason for deletion. JulesH 09:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Nominator has not bothered to construct a decent argument for deletion and has added absolutely nothing to the debate from the last AfD that ended with a keep. Irishjp 10:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article has improved significantly since its 1st AfD, addressing the poorly-written OR concerns. Exploring the issues of how real the science is in sci-fi is a legitimate topic, and an article dedicated to one of the most notable sci-fi series of the lot is not trivia or fancruft. Tarc 13:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No reason given for deletion that doesn't boil down to the nominator not liking the article. It's sourced. If someone wants to use this AFD to argue about the sources, that's fine, but this is pretty pointless so far. (And yes, I wrote most of the prose.)--Chaser - T 13:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject of at least one documentary on the history channel. FrozenPurpleCube 17:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, only keep votes so far... well sourced, had previous afd's, no good argument for deletion, etc... Mathmo ^Talk 00:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 01:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Physics and Star Trek[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Trivia and fancruft. Metrackle 07:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Highly notable commentary on a significant cultural artifact, as can be seen by the large number of published works on the subject listed in the article. Nominator does not cite any valid reason to delete the article. JulesH 09:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Nominator has not bothered to construct a decent argument for deletion and has added absolutely nothing to the debate from the last AfD that ended with a keep. Irishjp 10:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my general belief that things which are the primary subject of an entire published book (in this case, The Physics of Star Trek) are virtually always notable and verifiable enough for an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep no valid argument offered for deletion, certainly nothing new from the last discussion. --JayHenry 15:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And can I add IDONTLIKEIT — I mean I really dislike Star Wars and Star Trek and Pokemon and Manga. I really wish people had other priorities, like subjects that are less focused on celebrities and popular entertainment. But does my dislike for "fancruft," whatever that means exactly, make it unworthy? --JayHenry 15:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, because I'm indifferent to Star Trek as a whole.Metrackle 16:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Also the subject of at least one documentary on the history channel. FrozenPurpleCube 17:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - notable. Onnaghar (Talk) 18:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as being notable. Yes, I am a fan of Star Trek admittedly however I'm not letting that make my vote biased. (I've not always voted "keep" with topics I'm a fan of.) -WarthogDemon 22:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, only keep votes so far... well sourced, had previous afd's, no good argument for deletion, etc... Mathmo ^Talk 00:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by means of withdrawn nom. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defense of the Ancients[edit]

Continued ask for proof of notability and while there are claims, they're not backed up by actual links. The sole claim to notability is that its in the title of a song that was (might still be) popular in finland. This hardly establishes any kind of world-wide notability, and is an unusual in itself. Even accepted as a source of notability, its a single source. Notability requires multiple instances of non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. Previous AfDs consisted purely of WP:ILIKEIT statements, but this is a discussion not a vote, and the usefulness, age, number of google hits, etc is not being questioned. This is an AfD based on the notability and someone needs to be able to demonstrate the notability of this subject within the guidelines.--Crossmr 13:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn based on provided information--Crossmr 18:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Discussed by independent 3rd party reliable sources [84] [85] [86] JulesH 15:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Harvard crimson is an online edition of a student newspaper and not usable to establish notability. Gotfrag looks like a solid reference though, and techtree looks okay as well. It would have been nice these were provided during the months of asking for proof of notability.--Crossmr 18:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. verifiable. Mukadderat 15:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability was never a question.--Crossmr 18:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Don't mind my asking, but why do you send it to AfD (again) when it's already proposed for merging? Why not decide that first and then see if we need to send it to AfD? » bye ee 17:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its been marked for merge and notability for a long time.I nominated it for deletion because the question of notability has been a very old one that until now was never addressed. --Crossmr 18:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is notable. comment added by DarthRahn(^u/_t\^c) 18:04, 31

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

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

The result was delete. It's marketing for a film at best, there's really no need for this to have an article. If someone wants to badly merge any salvageable info let me know, I'll give you the deleted material.Wizardman 17:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Road To High School Musical 2[edit]

HSMcruft Will ^(talk) 16:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Keep: It's a notable mini-series that just needs expansion. I see no reason for deletion. Sidatio 16:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rookie mistake on my part - I didn't realize this wasn't a true miniseries, but rather a collection of 5 minute clips. Aside from that, the few notable sources I was able to find seem to have dried up. If there's one thing being married has taught me, it's to know when I'm wrong. Delete. Sidatio 00:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - informing and notable. Onnaghar (Talk) 18:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:WP:USEFUL. Also, I don't see anywhere where it says it's notable. Yes, it's a spin-off of High School Musical - so what? So is Stories from East High, and that got deleted at AFD. Twice. There are literally no sources whatsoever to attest to its notability. Will ^(talk) 18:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Notability isn't just news outlets, you know. The fact that it's a miniseries on a notable network run by a highly notable company is enough to satisfy, in my opinion. ~~There's articles on more obscure television series - why not this one?~~ There seems to be a stronger argument to keep and expand rather than delete, especially if we're just basing the delete argument on notability. Sidatio 18:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Also - this isn't exactly a spinoff of High School Musical - it's more of a "making-of", or a lead-up to the actual movie. It may or may not be important to note that, but there it is. Sidatio 18:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I could theoretically CSD it, as it doesn't assert its notability. Yes, it airs on Disney Channel, and quite a lot. So did the music video for "Hold On" by the Jonas Brothers, at the same frequency. I know this may be a straw man, but the article for "Hold On" redirects to the Jonas Brothers article. To use another example, there is not an article for "H2O" (an Australian Nickelodeon show). Your reply really reads like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Will ^(talk) 18:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's even more illogical to argue we shouldn't have something because we don't yet have an article on some similar topic. Everyking 23:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definite Keep, if all articles on television programs were deleted, we would have a very skinny wikipedia!
Comment:Slippery slope. Will ^(talk) 18:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although the series began with inheritated notability, it has become a staple in Disney Channel's current commerical broadcasting and has become notable in its own right. Snoborder93 06:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I'd like to see the numbers that say this video got the same air time as this series, but that's semantic. You may or may not agree with its notability. I tend to think the argument as outlined above by yours truly establishes notability. Again, semantic - it's a difference of opinion. Some tend to think it's only notable if it's in the news. I don't know if that's what you believe, but I tend to think the particulars I outlined above warrant notability. I guess that's a call the admin will have to make. As to your argument under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - I don't see the correlation, unless you're focusing on what I said about other series. I'll roll with that, and strike out that particular section of my argument. Of course, by the same token, your "H2O" argument reads the same. :-)

Finally, the slippery slope - that could roll both ways. One could argue that allowing a series despite a lack of press coverage could become a detriment in the future, could they not? Could be sohpistry if applied here.

The fact remains: this particular miniseries is about a notable TV movie, airing on a notable cable TV network and bankrolled by a notable company. If it can be expanded properly, it deserves to stay. If not, it should be merged. Either way, I still don't see a reason to delete, with all due respect. :-) Sidatio 19:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided, but leaning toward Delete as all it contains is a heading and table. Not even close to enough information. (And I'm tired of these IP editors sticking all this "Emma Bolton" and/or other ficticious Troy Bolton siblings). WAVY 10 17:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC) (p.s.: Sorry about the rant at the end)[reply]

Comment:I won't argue that it needs expansion - badly - but I don't think that alone would be enough to delete it. Sidatio 18:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete and Merge. The article is not even anything important.172.191.100.66 21:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete do we have a notability guideline for tv series? I haven't found one, perhaps it's time to formulate one. Worldwide there are probably at least as many tv networks as there are countries, and many countries have several. Heck, most cable operators in the US have literally hundreds of channels. There is content out the ears; surely, not everything aired by anyone (even dropping out community access channels) is notable. Disney channel is notable, but not all the shows that it airs are. Carlossuarez46 18:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. Everyking 23:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, page is still getting vandalized. WAVY 10 13:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into High School Musical 2. ~ Wikihermit 19:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge These appear to be "the making of..." shorts, more-or-less 5 minute commercials for High School Musical 2. It's not really a programme in-and-of-itself, just marketing for the upcoming film. SkierRMH 05:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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:NOT#DICT. — TKD::Talk 20:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Badum ch[edit]

Original research dicdef with 247 Ghits. Seems entirely appropriate for Urban Dictionary, but I don't think we've got resources from which to write a Wikipedia article on this neologistic onomatopoeia. GTBacchus^(talk) 22:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an entry, per the nom, best suited to Urban Dictionary. (An Urban Dicdef?) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above as violating WP:NEO. Bearian 18:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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